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 doubt people with that level of principle think that they're better or stronger at all. They just stick to their principles for the greater good.

That's really interesting Yellowtip I'm reading about the fall of the West as the dominant civilisation at the moment. it's fascinating to hear friends from different cultures, particularly Asia, think and how they value the idea of bettering themselves compared to the fear a lot of people have in the UK of being seen to have an advantage over others. I really doubt that somebody from an Indian slum would pass over the opportunity of a great education or the means to cure an afflication.

What makes it the greater good though?

How would it actually have done any good to anyone for Seeker to go straight for the high school instead of letting her son do the 11+?

It wouldn't. It would have made no difference to anyone else except Seeker and her son. And it could have actually been quite a negative thing for her son to be told that he couldn't do the test his friends were doing because his Mum didn't agree with it. All it would have done is enable Seeker to come on, or start, threads like this and say exactly the same as she already says, but with the added smugness of also being able to say that she denied her son an opportunity that was available to him.

2 days, littlefrieda-I corrected myself down thread.

Hmm, seeker - did your DS miss one day of the tests and thats why he didnt get in? Or is it all made up?

sorry seeker :)

If the test is held over two days, I think that gives it slightly more credibility. There is much less chance of illness or an off day affecting scores if it's done over two days.

The SS round here makes boys sit three tests between 9.00 am and 1.00 pm, and each of them lasts an hour.

Did you say there was a catch up exam session for those who were off sick? My SIL failed the 11+ because she was off for the week of the exam with a respiratory infection i.e. she failed because she never took it. How could that have been considered fair?

I am really glad seeker is getting the challenge on this thread as I am also surprised that she would let her son sit for the 11+.
Freddos, you need to read other threads where seeker gives other people a hard time for choosing private ed (which she is opposed too) or even implying that their DCs are GT.

If you raise your self up to a standard, you need to be prepared to either stick to that standard or do thge gracious thing and admit that you set yourself up to high.
And yes people still have principles and stick by them in life or death situations (Hotel Rwanda comes to mind a bit far removed from cosy, self entitlement, moany uk, but in some places firmly held principles are a matter of life and death).

I have read other threads that Seeker has posted on, and have had this same GS debate with her on other threads over the years. Although I name chance occasionally so it may have been under a different name.

I don't think Seekers mistake is in letting her children sit the 11+. I would have done exactly the same if I were her.

I think her only mistake is not acknowledging that she could have chosen to not allow her children to sit the 11+, because she says that she is still stuck with selective education whether or not her children take the test. Which is true, but I think she needs to acknowledge that she could have chosen to opt out of the 11+, even if she could not opt out of the system. IMO, it would make her opinion come across as more balanced, and therefore worthy of more respect.

I would never criticise someone for putting their children's needs before their principles though, I think it would be bad parenting to deny your children something that is open to them because of your own easily challengeable beliefs.

I am with you too Feenie in not putting principles above children's need, even in though I probably won't call them principles just views and certainly not come on heavy on others so openingly and strongly about their views that impacted on their own children (except child abuse).

Sorry I meant Freddos

This thread hasn't persuaded me that the grammar school system is unfair. I think we all know that the 11+/Kent Test is a crude test and there will be some overlap. The top 25% of the high school probably could have made the grammar on a different day/with coaching/with more engaged parents or whatever and the bottom half of the grammar school probably could have easily failed the test on a different day/without the coaching/with less engaged parents etc.

It's a shame for the top 25% of the high school, that they're separated from their peers but I'm not sure it's a shame for those at grammar school or the remainder 75% of the high school pupils.

There are those who will stick by their principles even if it kills them and even if they can't get any back up from others which might result in changes being made in accordance with their principles. Then there are the majority, who have principles they would like others to share, but can't help taking advantage of a system not working in the way they believe is right, whilst simultaneously wishing that the option to do that were not open to them, because they don't like the way it makes them feel to take part in it, but then they don't want to be left on the outside of the society they are in, either. There are, of course, different points at which different people will cease to stand by their principles, but most will eventually cease to stand by them, if they think they can't change the status quo without causing undue suffering to themselves - just look at the countries where bribery is the norm to get anything done. I doubt most people think it's a good system, but they don't see any way of avoiding it and earning any kind of living. Then there are those people who think that human beings are selfish sh*ts and there's nothing wrong with that - you might as well accept it and be as selfish as you like and create a system designed to suit the selfish ape, because anything else would be denying the very essence of human nature...

Opposing selection isn't really like opposing private education though - educating your children privately is a choice assuming you can afford it,and other people can agree or disagree with whether it is a choice you should have made.

But here in Sunny Kent,if you are against selective education you have no choice because that is what we've got. Whether seeker's DCs did or didn't do the 11+ has no impact on the system at all.
Opting out of the 11+ would have restricted her children's choice of schools,and for what,exactly?

But if that is the case,LittleFrieda why have the system? The whole argument for the grammar schools is that children should receive an appropriate education for their abilities,and that that is best provided in separate schools.
If the system isn't even managing to separate out the right children why bother?
Why not just put them all in the same school,and then when the initial streaming doesn't put all the children in the appropriate stream,then move them?

Well, if a large percentage of parents took the decision to opt out of the 11+, the system would end, because those going to the grammer school wouldn't be truely the 'top 23%' - more "the top of the ones who bothered to do the exam" - you would find that the High Schools would become comprehensive and if the bulk of parents didn't put their DCs in for the exam, then it would be very hard to support the system.

Succeeding at GCSEs isn't entirely to do with ability. I would say motivation and organisation have equal influence. So from that point of view, those selected for the grammar school will succeed there by and large. So they are in the right school.

Toughasoldboots - thanks

"But if that is the case,LittleFrieda why have the system? The whole argument for the grammar schools is that children should receive an appropriate education for their abilities,and that that is best provided in separate schools."

It's the separate schools bit that baffles me as much as anything- appropriate education for their abilities is a no brainer- but why separate schools?

PrideofChanur - but the high school in seeker's town in non-selective. It isn't compulsory to sit the Kent Test.

Chanur, maybe the system is managing to separate out the right children, but there are some who are borderline and have no real need to be in either type of school because they could cope with both. I think the appeal system in Kent does allow for children who were judged wrongly by the test to have their individual achievements and needs reconsidered by educational experts.

But maybe the children who are in the bottom set of the high school and the top set of the grammar school shouldn't be educated together, because they are too different.

I just don't see this great need to have children all educated within the same building because of some perceived idea of fairness.

How different is being selected to be in the top set at a comp and being selected to go to a grammar?

If a large percentage of parents chose not to use the 11+, then perhaps the situation would change.

But it hasn't, so maybe democracy is at work and the message coming through is that enough people are happy with the system the way it is.