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,

"it costs the state 5000 a year to educate a child"
Many top independent day schools charge this and more for a term and parents are buying every book pen and paper themselves. This is how they can afford top facilities and smaller classes.

seeker what I think overwhelmingly whenever I read your posts on this subject is that you may know aout the Kent system but you don't know about anywhere else and really aren't interested in hearing about anywhere else.

The idea behind the National Curriculum was a good one, I think. It was initially seen as an entitlement for all children.

Some of exoticfruit's Utopian ideas would have a negligible cost to implement. Changing the 31st August cut off date for example. It's possible to defer starting school in Scotland, for those children who are born near the cut off date, and as far as I can see, there is no problem with that.

@pride the idea thatGrammar Schools are free of classroom disruption is touchingly naive. Sadly it isn't actually correct.

"Maybe it is just that your words carry less weight because part of younger anger is about your son not getting in, IYSWIM? And not just about the system in general?"

Chandon- do you just not believe me when I say I was just as angry and outspoken when my dd got in? Is it impossible for you to comprehend somebody having views that are not inextricably linked to self interest? That is rather depressing thought!

Seeker - if it's a system that favours the middle class children and you can always predict who'll get in: how come your achingly middle class, top-setty son didn't?

If you are truly anti selection you should have proceeded directly to the high school which is non-selective. You can't dismiss a school because others are not anti selection, anti-fee paying, anti faith school or whatever and have therefore gone elsewhere: your political ideology should be your own, not governed by others. You are being ridiculous.

I do feel bad though that your son is feeling bad.

seeker of course you are entitled to have an opinion despite your personal circumstances.

However, I htink we all need to accept that sometimes our personal circumstances make our opinions and judgments muddled.

Do I think you make people think deeply about the GS system in Kent? In all honesty I doubt it.

When I was involved in the Labour party we used to have what we called The Last Man ie who was the last person you would choose to deliver a message. For example, on issues of education, Dianne Abbot would be The Last Man. I think you've become MNs answer to The Last Man on issues pertaining to GS.

I do wonder why people are so opposed to the national curriculum. Obviously, it's not perfect- far from it. But at least it means that we as parents know what the bare minimum children should know is. Which is, surely, much better than, as in the old days, more or less leaving it to individual heads to beat their own drums?
Not sure about that- just thinking aloud,

And now we have this odd situation where the NC becomes more and more prescriptive, whilst heads and just idiots on the street are encouraged to become free of its shackles by opening free schools or becoming academies. Ridic!

Happy gardening - which top day schools charge £5K per annum?

I'm really not sure how Chandon thinks schools catering for entirely different interests and types of children are actually going to work in practice - is everyone supposed to live in an enormous city with access to many different schools? Or will people living in smaller towns and villages be stuck with the local performing arts school for their children, who actually want to be engineers????

Just checking- the fact that I have been entirely consistent in my views even when my dd got into grammar school carries no weight at all?

I do think that if you think I'm hypocritical for getting my children to take the test, you should also think I would be hypocritical for supporting ( ie using) the selective system at all. My only unsullied position would presumably be HE. But that has its issues as well.

I do hope people aren't using attaching my personal choices as a way to avoid actually looking at the issues I'm talking about. But I suspect they are.

Wordfactory - interesting, the last man thing.

Or shall we solve the problem of working parents and childcare by requiring all children to go to boarding school, so that they can go to a school appropriate to their talents and interests, which they have apparently already sorted out at an incredibly early age and wish to channel all their energy into, rather than keeping their options open, even if it's the other end of the country?

seeker - the high school is non-selective. You would not be hypocritical to use a non-selective school if you are anti-selection.

I think the NC as a bare bones minimum is fine.

There was a time when some schools didn't cover the basics as teachers were left to do as they wished. It was therefore High Time that certain standards were brought in.

However, over the years it has become increasingly prescriptive. Teachers persistently say they find it too constraining.

Surely the National Curriculum is only prescriptive because of the inability of the British public and employers to see the benefits of alternative qualifications?

state funding complex as some las get more per pupil as i live between 2las and our head always whinging we get less than school down the road.

There are good las and bad las.

In the large city I live in theres only small handful state schools people consider about 10.

when I grew up our rural town had 1 very large comprehensive.
that la favour shutting down schools and building super schools as more economically viable.

labours mantra was education education education.
they scrapped assisted places
started academies
building schools for future was very expensive they believed that schools had to be shiny and new to be good these schools through pfi be paying for their schools for next 30-50years!
They failed to do what they set out to do- nursery education for all 2year olds be fab idea.
The aim of 50%uni is a daft one.

but whats the alternative.

I think back when my parents were growing up appentices hip was valid option as respected but that was dumbed down and sold as route for poor thick kids.

I remember yts lady coming to speak to us in 5th form about doing training on job I mean low skilled shop assistants and care assistants for a stupidly low wage .

What makes a good school?

seeker out of the grammer and the comp

whats difference in size of classes?

whats difference in facililities?

apart from cricket and latin?

not living in a grammer area

is the behaviour better at the grammer?
does the grammer buy influence and networking in same was a private school would?

Many might shoot me down but what about

toby youngs free school?-do we not that think could be viable model?
As it seems to be trying to emulate the grammers.

I would sent my kids to free school made of entirly porta cabins if thourght behaviiour opportunities to do wider topics good teaching and smaller classes.

I find schools are about pereception- we all have schools that have bad reps some well deserved some not.
Schools can change over the years and become better.
catchment plays a part a school with wide catchment generally is more selective.

our local comp is in leafy affluenet suberb

it acheives ok results not great.
the kids have a really scruffy uniform.
they spill out of school fighting.

its same road as our primary and most parents says over my dead body are we sending x there.

so all the kids who live here bus out.
all the kids in less afluentt nearby suberbs bus in as they see its as step up from provisions they have in their area.

Exotic fruits idea sounds good in principle but

how big would these schools be we have well perming school nearby but the 3000puils in it scare me a big seems massive.

some gifted people could move up but not too much as they may not be emotionally ready.

my middle child sept birthday so just missed cutoff I suspect she be ready sooner.

In america they hold people back grades which seems harsh.
also they have a 3tier education system.
some areas here i think windsor one of them have middle schools.
I think they educate from 7-13 so juniors with year 7 and 8.
Could this be better way and maybe scra 11+ and have 13+instead.

I think we need lots of different schools for choice and ensure everyone is catered for.

I knew a child with special needs who left a state primary that did rubbsih job for special school inclusion does not always work.

I know a few who ended up in the pru which sounds like school of last resort.

faith schools-I personally love the ethos and behaviour iof faith schools here and ours also get best academic results.

private-whats wrong with private? surly it means the money that could have gone to that pupil attending state is saved.
A reason why theres shortgae of schools is more are attending state system as parents cant afford fees grammers next best thing but rare.

But primary private fees low so some parents do that with hope of getting their kids to pass 11+.

If anything I think those in grammer areas have advantage over over non grammer as here its what are you can afford to live in and what faith you prescribe to.

@pride the idea thatGrammar Schools are free of classroom disruption is touchingly naive. Sadly it isn't actually correct.

Ok,mordion - to rephrase: the level of class room disruption mentioned by my many friends with children at grammar schools is not comparable with the incidents I have heard about via DD from her own non grammar school (good school,good reputation).Most of them don't mention any - though admittedly the person who reported a girl lobbing a chair through a window doesn't fall into that group My sample might be biased but I don't think I'm touchingly naive - it isn't a view I held before my DCs got to secondary level.

But I would happily listen to comments from teachers on how their pupils behave,and modify my views accordingly!

mam, I think you've got about twenty education threads in there! Bit much to process or respond to in one go!

seeker having consistent words carries little weight with people. Actions speak much louder.

Does Dianne Abbott's opposotion to independent school (stated, like yours, ad infintum) carry any weight at all?

The consistent thing to do, would have been to simply apply to the high school for both your DC. To refuse to engage with selection process. If enough parents did that, the system would fail.

Simply repeating the mantra 'I didn't have a choice' doesn't make it so. Just as Dianne Abbott's mantra that she didn't have a choice, doesn't make it so.

As for whether people should simply ignore your own position and debate...tbh that's incredibly patronising and self important. It also smacks of a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

just trying to address all of exotics points about utoian school.

also trying to wok out major diffrences between the 2schools seeker had choice of.

seeker argues for comp but lots of us are saying comps are not wholy grail.

That they not always inclusive.

what makes a school better?
what makes a grammer school better than a comp other than exam results?

as if seekers sons bright im sure he will achieve good results whereever he goes.

we talk about choice

but grammer is rare no grammer counties near me.
most of us dont have much choice even if we in non grammer area are choices are limited the good schools are oversubscribed.

I think deep down us parents want very simple basic things from school

1)child to be safe and happy
2)not too big
3)good teachers
4)nice range subjects
5)good results.

I think schools should set up networks and share facilities in order to give pupils more choices .

@pride perhaps your DD is unlucky and your friends' DCs are all lucky? And perhaps my DD1 is unlucky (she is - there are two boys in her year who are complete ARSES and they are both in her chemistry class- and one of them is also in sme other classes). And perhaps my DS is lucky that in his classes at his comp, there aren't any disruptive elements (in fact, maybe he just doesn't notice being a bit deaf - although actually, given that he has auditory processing issues extraneous sound would be an issue for him so, he probably would have an issue with noisy disruption). Either way, I won't judge either school by the experiences of my own children. But the thing about grammar schools is, you pass the exam, you're in. And very bright children - especially very bright children who have been bored shitless for their 7 years at primary school - can sometimes be in the habit of being very disruptive. The GS can't pick and choose who goes there. IME there is definitely less 'being clever isn't cool' bullying (in fact I haven't heard about any, even the two ARSE boys aren't like that).

Seeker, you think that comprehensive education is the least worst of all the systems we have available, and I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think if you are going to have an ideal then you have to acknowledge its flaws.

By the very nature of comprehensives, they contain a large mix of children. That in itself is what disadvantages some children. In exactly the same way that disadvantaged children are even more disadvantaged by the 11+, other children who are disadvantaged because they have poor social skills, or they have been bullied, or because they have particular SEN, are going to be equally as disadvantaged by going to a comp. Even a good one.

Maybe this is where I bring too much of my own situation to the debate in the same way that you are being criticised for (which I don't personally agree with), but I think you have to acknowlegde that some children will be disadvantaged by any system. That's the main reason why I am opposed to a fully comprehensive system, because I have one of the children that would be disadvantaged by it. I get quite offended (which I realise is silly) by the insinuation that it would be ok to disadvantage my child in your mind, but that it is somehow worse for a child from a family on benefits to be disadvantaged.

I also resent the arguement that a bright child will do well no matter where they go to school. They will not.