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,

We have three comps in our town (Harpenden). All three have separate rules, their own identity, a different uniform and they are in separate buildings. That's normal isn't it?

I suppose at the upper end of the league tables the gap narrows, educationally (but still not socially). But it's certainly not true across the board.

That's not really explaining the differences or similarities between grammar schools and private schools LaVolcan.

THose things aren't mutually exclusive though, you can be bright and autistic, bright and dyslexic etc.

seeker ("I do not consider being bright a special educational need") in that case you differ from a number of senior educationalists. No government will accept the argument of course, but that's for political and economic reasons, not because the argument isn't sound.

If you do not consider being bright as being a special educational need, then that's where the debate may as well stop.

Being bright is just being bright, but that word is used to describe a whole range of children. There are children who are extremely academically able, and whether you are prepared to acknowledge it or not, they do need a different education, which classes as a special educational need.

SEN does not just mean children with dyslexia or autism. As evidenced by the fact that the government decided to come up with the whole thing that is the gifted and talented register. My thoughts on that are another thread entirely, but if the government can recognise that the most able children in a class need special provision to be made for them, then surely you can too?

Oops, I may have completely contradicted you by trying to make exactly the same point there Yellow!

Perhaps if you had not been on mumsnet whinging about grammar schools for every other night for the last year and instead spent some time tutoring him he would have passed his 11+.

However since you are the champion of comprehensive education you must be so proud of him failing his 11+ so you can live down to your aspirations of comprehensive for all and not have to go against your weird principals which you fail to live by.

Well, the differences were smaller classes at the GS, expensive uniforms, emphasis on book learning rather than practical subjects, and an absence of children from the rougher parts of town - although I lived in a market town and there were no really rough areas.

However, I am quite sure that there are private schools which aren't academically selective, which don't have the small classes, the expensive uniforms, and do take children from rough areas. Not sure about this last one though.

No problem Freddo. Besides, the G&T register is a sop, not a full blooded embrace of the need for a grammar system or any significant funds.

DS2 is about to transfer to a comp from his boys' fee-paying school.

Agree with you there Yellow, that's the stuff that I could have filled a whole other thread up with!

We have three comps in our town (Harpenden). All three have separate rules, their own identity, a different uniform and they are in separate buildings. That's normal isn't it?

Yes of course. But I was talking about grammars vs top sets. If the uniform, identity, building etc are barred to most and contingent upon passing tests, that's not quite the same.

Why is it different when it depends on passing tests as opposed to where your parents can afford to buy a house?

At least a child has some input when it comes to a test.

TOSN we have dead cheap uniforms - absolutely no more expensive than any local comp (perhaps cheaper, given how cheap it is). And there's financial provision for those in need. The test is a bit more awkward, I'll give you that.

TheOriginalNit But it's not grammar v top set. It's one school versus another school. You are not disconnected from your school just because you are in the top set.

Outraged -Agree.

If I were education minister I would make all secondary schools accessible by lottery only. And I'd remove sibling places where the parents had moved more than a given distance from the school.

CE is not comparable with the 11+ in any shape or form. Apart from the fact that CE tests about 8 subjects the "pass mark" is set by the individual school. Those of you who think that a grammar school whoever impressive the results/facilities are is the same as a top independent school are deluding yourselves. My DS had places at both on close examination the independent school was in a cometely different league.

Why is it different when it depends on passing tests as opposed to where your parents can afford to buy a house?

I suppose in part that depends on where you live. My children had a choice of three comprehensives - the two nearest were in adjacent roads about five minute walk apart, in an area of mixed housing. At the time none of them were oversubscribed, so you really could choose. The third one was further away, and as it happened its catchment included a run-down council estate as well as some very expensive private housing. For a long while that was 'the' comprehensive to go to.

If you live in a city then I can see it would be very different.

I wasn't thinking of the top independent schools - the Etons, Harrow etc. I was thinking more of the e.g. the local convent school.

Little frieda I am agreeing with this : TheOriginalNit But it's not grammar v top set. It's one school versus another school. You are not disconnected from your school just because you are in the top set.!

My point was in opposition to those saying that there's no difference between having sets and having a grammar! I don't even really mean whether or not the uniform is expensive, I mean the idea of a schools identity being contingent on who it lets in and who it does not.

I do not know of any comprehensives where I live (I think there are about ten in the city) which do not have an intake comprising some 'nice' areas and some less so, so here at least it isn't really a question of social exclusion by catchment. Although there are still at least three of those schools which are considered less desirable by some, so the people who live in expensive houses in those catchments go private.

I think that is a particularly unpleasant post NovackNGood and wonder if you have bothered to read the entire thread.

so you can live down to your aspirations of comprehensive for all

In our area you have to live up to them.

TheoriginalSteaminNit - Ah yes I see. In my town all three comps are good but have vastly differering identities. One plays lacrosse and has turrets in the building and its boys wear tweed jackets, another is brilliant at getting kids into Oxbridge from its sixth form, the third has very polite and friendly pupils and a site that feels exactly like a university campus. Plus it feels like a really nice community.