Those of you in favour of grammar schools, come and tell me what to say to my Ds...

[seeker]

He woke up crying in the night because the reality had just hit him that he won't be going to school with his close friends in September because he failed the 11+ in September. "I can't be very bright, can I mum, or I would have passed" " no, it was just one of those things-you're going to a good school, you'll be fine" "I know- but if i was clever I'd be going to school with X and Y" "You are clever- look at your SATs-you'll be in the top set at the high school because of those" " it's not SATS that are important, though, it's the 11+"

Do you want to have more kids feeling like that? Then campaign for more grammar schools,

I went to a grammar, and still live in the area served by it in Lincs. They should be abolished without question. A large part of the problem is that they only exist in some areas (only 64 grammars in the whole country) and the middle classes use any and every trick in the book to manipulate places for their children. In places like Kent it'll be a bit different, as there are more middle class kids than places! Besides, it is very unfair to write children off at 11 (which is what the system effectively does).

Which points haven't I answered? The one about why I put my son in for the test? Well, if we had a comprehensive school in our town, the top sets would be the children currently at the grammar. My ds is a top set child. At the high school, he will be in the top 15 or so and I don't think that's a good idea. It is a good school, but, quite rightly, it's focus is on the middle and lower ability children, because the expectation will be that the high ability children will not be there. So while my ds will do well there, I would prefer him to be educated with a wider academic peer group.

The one about tutoring? My beef is not so much about tutoring, but about the fact that information- even just practice papers- are more available to the educated informed middle class than the disadvantaged. And the tests themselves- particularly the verbal reasoning, are geared towards a child who has read and who has been read to, qnd who comes from a "bookish" home. Which is patently unfair.

Any other points I haven't addressed?

But plenty of children get in with just a little practice and no formal coaching. Any parent can download free resources off the Internet, and in a Kent system, can talk to their child's teachers about what they could do o help prepare for the 11+.

(To clarify - of course families who receive FSM should apply. However, impying that it is enought that they are allowed to reply, and that there is no need to look at all the other aspects of the system which discriminate against them (e.g. cost of coaching, changes to transport arrangements to SSs) is disingenuous at best.

My mum is a typical 'old-fashioned' grammar school girl - the daughter of a policeman who taught himself to read at 14 to join the police service, and the granddaughter of a miner and a farm labourer. She describes a day when someone came to administer 'a test' to everyone in her school (central Birmingham). Those who passed, went to grammar, with a train / tram / bus pass. There was no opting in, or out, or coaching. Children from all backgrounds were all given the test, and all had the same preparation for it (general school teaching).

You haven't answered why you think only middle class children benefit from GS.

You seem reluctant to acknowlegde that there is a whole range of people that fall between middle class and being eligible for FSM that benefit from GSs.

Sorry, I meant 164 grammars in the country. But the point still stands, the middle classes come in from non-grammar areas and manipulate the system with coaching, private tutoring, house moves and some very dodgy other tactics in some cases!

Outraged,

None of the FSM children in my current primary class have access to the internet at home. All but 1 have parents who are functionally illiterate. One of the children, in a grammar area, would be absolutely clear grammar school material. Just who is meant to 'download his free resources off the internet'??

The high school is comprehensive in its ability range, Seeker. There are students who scored 10 A*/A grades at GCSE at some high schools in Kent. Isn't that about where your daughter is at, at her grammar school?

(I teach in a neighbouring county, with no grammars. If we were just over the border, I would not be allowed, as his teacher, to prepare him for the grammar school test - that is not allowed in state schools here - one of the reasons why there is such a thriving private primary 'coach for 7 years and then get a tutor for the final year' industry)

My mother never told me I didn't have to sit the Kent test or that she had to fill out any forms indicating whether she wanted me to take it or not. I was conned! Mind you, everyone in my class sat it, even though only 4 of us were expected to pass (and only 4 did). I think more people did take the Kent test 30 years ago than is the case, now, though, and you had fewer supposed options for where your child would end up - ie it was before the days when people supposedly had a choice to send their child to a school out of catchment. Once the ludicrous idea that people had a choice where to send their children to school came up, it seems to me that the situation just went from bad to worse, with more and more stressed and unhappy people in the mix. Thinking you have a choice when you actually don't is even worse than knowing you don't.

I think it is enough that they can apply actually. If they can apply, then don't, it's because they are disadvantaging themselves. We cannot base a system entirely around disadvantadged people, all children deserve consideration from the system.

Hang on though seeker. You say if there was a comp in your town, the top set would consist of those at the grammar. And that your DS is a top set child. But he isn't going to the grammar, even after appeal. I don't mean to be harsh, but really....

Fiddlesticks to tutoring. Lots of DC get into even the superselectives with just familiarisation. And not all lower income families are bozos. How patronising. And not all mc homes are 'bookish'. The very fact that you stereotype to this extent is revealing.

Here's hoping for some government or other to grasp the nettle and sort the whole horrid mess out.

Yes, Outraged: ALL children deserve consideration from the system, so ALL should have an equal chance to show their true ability. The system should ensure that all barriers to this - for example, the need for coaching which costs money - should be removed.

The situation, if grammar schools exist at all, should be that every child of the same ability who applies should have the same chance to succeed in the exam, regardless of family background or income or any other factors other than their academic ability.

It is not enough that two children of the same ability but from different backgrounds can apply but that one has far more chance of getting in because money has been spent to ensure this...

There are already private schools. Why make grammar schools 'quasi private' by making it a requirement that money is spent to be able to access them even if a child has sufficient natural ability to do so?

Yellowtip, I am not stereotyping. Just pointing out that, for there to be a rationale for grammar schools (that they provide a specialised education for the most able, within the free-to-access state education system), then the most able children who are entered for the test should get in, with rigorous controlof ALL possible factors (related to parental income, SEN etc) which might skew the finding of those most able children.

Oh I agree that having a system that removes such a large proportion of children doesn't leave an area with a true comprehensive, but then I wonder if any schools that have private schools nearby can really be called comprehensive?

That was exactly the comment made by the staff at one of my children's comprehensives. There were two highly selective private schools in town, (and one not particularly selective girls school). By no means all the academic children got creamed off by the private schools, but about 10% were - so the resulting intake was somewhere between the areas with super selectives taking about 5% of the more able children and Kent taking 23%.

(The not so selective girls school also creamed off a good number of the 'nice' girls, so the balance between the sexes was distorted at the Comprehensives.)

you're still all over the shop
you have many detractors on this thread,not just me
and I suspect not everyone needs to live in kent to comment on gs.not all posters live in Kent.and given gs is pretty well covered on mn,broadsheets I know how it goes

you see you're vehemently decrying gs,but you're upset your son failed to get in
if your so ideologically opposed to 11+ why dud you pursue it, why the ire that he didn't get in

you didn't need to apply to grammar school, you chose to put son through a gruelling competitive process.and you not like the result

you fail to acknowledge your incongruent inconsistent opinions
If it doesn't matter why you so het up

I agree with you on that Teacher.

But I don't think the solution is to remove schools that do a good job and cater very well for some children's needs.

The selection criteria may need to be changed, or, we need to ensure that every child has access to a good education no matter what school they are offered at place at.

It would be better to concentrate on the schools that are not serving their pupils well instead of the ones that are.

Agree teacher.

You are kidding yourself if you think areas without the 11+ are truly comprehensive.

In Lancashire, where there are no grammars, there are highly academically (and financially) selective private schools which also cream off the top.

There are some private schools (in Lancs) which are only financially selective, but there are many which have a very stringent entrance exam and interview procedure which children are coached for.

This means the nominally comprehensive schools are missing the truly bright, motivated, coached middle-class kids. Just like grammars.

It's the same the world over, seeker. State-funded education is not perfect.

"There are several wide-ability schools in Kent calling themselves Comprehensives. Parents who don't agree with the system choose them."

Yes,there are - my DCs go to one,we "chose" it,but if we hadn't won a place on appeal for DC1 and been lucky with where we live and a few other factors our DCs wouldn't be there.School choice in real life is pretty restricted.We chose the school we did because neither of our DCs are grammar school material,and didn't take the 11+but we wanted a school for DC1 with something to aim for,and a flourishing 6th form.
I have been against the selective system since I went through it,(and I passed the 11+ and went to a school that was brilliant for me.) I didn't think it was a fair system then and I don't now)
If either DC,particularly No 2,had shown signs of being suitable for a grammar school I think we would have sent them,because in my experience the grammars have better facilities,more extracurricular stuff,less behaviour problems,and as you would expect not much of the culture of it being uncool to achieve which exists even in the DCs' good school.
If you offered me abolition of selective education in Kent,or a grammar school
education I'd go for abolition of the system.Within the system my choice would be different.

In our area a huge number of DC go private (well over the national average). Another swathe go across the county line to gs.
The next hugely poular choice is a faith school.
Add to this the fact that we have the largest number of home eductors in the UK.

What is left is absolutely not a comprehensive.

Quite word: the London 'comps' must surely be the least truly comp in the country?

Luckily, we dont have grammar schools. However, when I was at school they didnt have the 11+ so I went to the comp. My sister was older and sat the 11+ and failed so went to the secondary school. She was really upset at the time and the teachers told my mother that my sister would not be academic. She passed 8 O levels (GSEs) in the days when it was just exams and no course work (much harder than now); 2 A levels and got 2 degrees. It just goes to show that you never can tell how a child will do. Try not to worry too much. It is much more important to be a happy all rounder IMO. I know kids who are incredibly clever but have the social skills of my cat!

FSMs must be an indication of the 'type' of children going to the schools (i.e. my catchment school - 2% vs 25%). It says quite a lot about the disposable income of the family, if nothing else. Also the Y6 pass rates vary so much from school to school - locally

You are kidding yourself if you think areas without the 11+ are truly comprehensive.

Not entirely though, Greythorne. It's the same for us in Oxfordshire, but not all the bright motivated coached middle-class kids go to private schools - some parents object on principle and some can't afford the fees anyway. The private schools are also trawling over a much wider area - within a radius of at least 25 if not 30 miles.

You definitely get a pecking order within Comprehensives e.g. Cherwell in north Oxford is stuffed full of bright children of university staff, so gets good results because it's got a higher proportion than average of 'Grammar' ability children.