For anyone who still thinks that access to selective state education is a level playing field.....

[curlew]

I have just read the latest OfSTED for my dd's grammar school.

There are no children in Year 7 who are eligible for FSM. None. Not one.

'there' not 'their' in last para

TeacherWith2Kids, thank you for the explanations into some stats nuances. Very interesting.

Pickled, I don't think anyone wants schools like that for any child. Especially for children not in the top sets, in that particular school. Because as you say, the top sets were catered for well. And yet the fretting and worry, and 'my child needs a different school' always seems to come from the parents of those very children,

Pickledsiblings- obviously there are bad schools in all sectors. But why does your experience carry more weight than the experience of loads of other people who say, repeatedly, thy at the children are happily, safe and archiving in comprehensive schools? Or the experience of others, whose children were unhappy in grammar school? I know a child who was miserably unhappy and viciously bullied in a well known and prestigious prep school, and equally well known and prestigious public school. But it would be very foolish of me to extrapolate from this to say that this is what private schools are like. But there doesn't seem to be the slightest problem with extrapolating from a few bad comprehensive schools to an entire sector of chair throwing, knuckle dragging yobs just waiting to pulverise anyone with a level 4 and a violin case. Whatever anyone says to the contrary

People who have any kind of a choice about which school they send their child to don't usually choose a school based on the type of school it is. They make decisions based on the individual schools they have access to.

If our local comp was anything like the one described by pickled, then I'd be opting for the grammar for both of my children, and that would make me inclined to defend the existence of grammar schools on threads such as this. If all comps were good ones, then no one would opt for grammar simply to avoid a comp, they'd make a choice based on the schools suitability for their child.

Like you say, they will be good and bad schools in all sectors, so there shouldn't be the need to put all selective schools up against all comprehensive schools in some kind of competition.

teacher thanks for the info. Sounds as though VA may be confounded by the entrants who don't do SATs

Anyway as curlew says there are poor grammars and poorer comprehensives. To continue for argument's sake
Assuming all schools were comprehensive in name and with good management and sufficient good teachers to populate them. It is the nature of the beast that one school might have developed a focus for learning difficulties or arts or sciences or have a more 'grammar school' ethos of teaching or have a better sixth form or be more nurturing and so on.
If I was a parent interested in the education of my DC (MC or low income)I would naturally want to pick the one that best suited my DC (travelling) permitting.
However in order to fit the children to the best suited comprehensive selective bias would occur. This means that not all comprehensives would have the best mathematicians or lots of children with dyslexia. Certain comprehensives would end by default with DC of disengaged parents.
So basically selective education in a non transparent way.
The problem with that system is that it takes a certain experience and local knowledge to work out and is less straightforward to understand than an entrance test.

'if I were a parent'

I am not at all surprised OP. Every child I know who is at a grammar was tutored to get there.
When I went to school tutoring was pretty much unheard of except to learn a musical instrument and the grammar school system was a lot fairer for it.

So why are the bad examples of comprehensives accepted as the norm, while bad examples of private or grammar considered anomalies?

LaQueenofTheTimeLords - but do you really think that's the result of better discipline in the grammar schools? Or just the exclusion of those most violently opposed to the concept of 11-13 years of education?

I'm going for grammar for twin 2 because I know he will be happier there.He's quite lonely at primary,there are very few kids he has much in common with so he spends most of his free time in the library.He has great social skills and is a likeable chap so it isn't a social issue.He has always been very mature.

The friends he has made "who like to talk instead of play" like him were all on G&T courses and will prob go to grammar.He gets so frustrated with kids who don't want to work and any lack of order. Having visited both I know he he'd be happier with the structure,work ethic,building,size and kids at grammar.

He is very like his grandad who was grammar educated.Dp and I hated our home counties comps.We got through it and 2 of mine could do the same but I know dtwin2 would be utterly miserable.I suspect he is brighter than us,he is certainly a lot more driven.

All children deserve a school they'd be happy in which is why although his twin could easily get into grammar I personally think he'd be happier perhaps at the comp.He fits in well and it has great science provision(his strength).Not sure the pressure of grammar would suit him.He wants to do the exam but I'm not forcing him to do the extra his twin does for pleasure and organises himself.Ideally twin2 would go to the co-ed private school in our local city but we don't have the money so thankfully we have the grammar option although it is boys only(not ideal).

I'm so very great full we live in the county we do and have the choices we have.We actually have other comps we could choose from too with things like sport,drama as strengths(none of mine like either).Interestingly more round here fight to get into the sporty comp as it has amazing facilities in a pretty town unlike the grammar which is in a town with high unemployment.

Not all counties are like Kent,it is unfair to treat and right off all grammars as being like the model.

"Not all counties are like Kent,it is unfair to treat and right off all grammars as being like the model."

Nobody is. There is, as I, and others have said, a debate to be had about superselectives. But it is a completely different debate.

That's the other thing I don't understand - deciding what your child's strengths are at age 10 or so. I'd have thought DD1 wasn't great at science/maths at that age. Two years down the road, with good teachers, turns out she's terrific at them. And yet again, that demonstrates how deciding that a 'certain sort of education' (ie a 'less academic' one) at 11 is a bit bonkers...

Your op,title and several posts don't indicate that.

I can see strengths,weaknesses and personality traits easily in mine at this age.They will have had 6 years of schooling and reports from teachers.I am their mother.

Retropear, my DC1 was like your DT1 - sociable and happy, but frustrated that when he was really interested in something - video about a skeleton for example - there was so much noise in the classroom he couldn't hear - there were just not enough children who wanted to learn. We sent him to a selective indie where the children are keen to learn. They are not 'geeks' - well adjusted children who want to learn. If we had not been able to afford the indie he would have gone to the grammar, but the atmosphere there is definitely more geeky and he would not have ben happy there. (His friend who is similar went to the grammar as it was free, parents removed him after a year as the children were so intent solely on 'results' it was not a happy environment.) Why be miserable for years of schooling, even if the outcome might be 'Oxbridge' - the outcome is unimportant to us, we want our DC to be in an environment where they can enjoy learning. As other posters have said, there is plenty of social mixing outside school - being a selective school does not mean you do not have friends at other schools - just means that in your working environment there are many others who also enjoy learning. Do adults know only the people they work with an no others? Children have more leisure time for outside activities so the school is not their only means of socialisation.
I work at a comp where the Year 11 mock exams were recently disrupted by bad behaviour so that those who wanted to work were prevented by those who did not. That does not happen in a selective school.

you can keep having a debate on endless threads here, curlew, but privates and superselectives will continue to exist because the people who choose them want to continue to have choices...as posted before, you'd be better off fighting to improve the other schools that people with little choice think are not fit for purpose. What you object to, is that you don't have the choice and others do, either because their children made the cut to a superselective grammar or because they can afford it and choose to spend their money that way.

As for bad privates, yes there are some mediocre ones, and ones that have glossy brochures that camouflage the reality but at the end of the day going private means you can pick and choose (some of course will be highly selective and they will be doing the choosing), and move schools easily with a term's notice.

And my point is that a child's apparent 'strengths' at a very young age may - and probably will - change dramatically over the next few years. DD1 wasn't good at maths. I was in fact concerned. She is now very good at maths. That's not my failure as a mother, it's an observation.

I agree with Retropear. My DSSs are 18 (at university) and 16 and their academic strengths and weaknesses and their temperament have not changed since they were 10.

What changes is the quality of the environment that allows them to express those traits.

Well last I heard all schools offer maths provision and said grammar has a pretty comprehensive curriculum so I think DS will be covered.

Some of us choose schools for a variety of things- atmosphere,work ethic,buildings,curriculum provision etc and go for gut feeling.

Schools differ/kids differ and parents up and own the land pick schools to suit their kids.Thank god we have the choice.It must be awful to be funnelled into one school.As I said we have 3 comps and actually 3 grammars to pick from.

As an aside I wonder how that lottery system is going,would be interested to know.

"What you object to, is that you don't have the choice and others do, either because their children made the cut to a superselective grammar or because they can afford it and choose to spend their money that way."

That is not what I object to, as is obvious from my posts. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

What Indy said.

Sutton has said grammars are here to stay so it would be better to focus on improving the alternatives.

Yes some private schools can be dire(my friend is on her third) but those that can afford it have choice which is something that is worth a lot and which we should all have.