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.

The thing is if a child loves something whether you think they have a flair or not they may still pursue it or something like it regardless. The same as the maths thing may be a gift but may never feature in their career/life choices. I have seen this in the majority of ds mates and it has surprised me.

I wasn't trying to make a point about your dd or her drawing specifically! I'm sure you're right about that - but I do agree also with motherinferior that to some extent we see what we expect to see, in certain areas of endeavour, especially where there's a context or a precedent for expecting certain strengths or weaknesses.

I hope I haven't touched a nerve - I'm sure your own dd's talents are manifest and independently verified!

Curlew said:

"I want to know whether the grammar school advocates on this thread would be happy to send their child to the alternative. Because if you aren't, why do you think other people should?"

in other words, currlew, if some people don't have the choice (because they can't get over the 11+ threshold or because they can't afford private) then why should anyone ?

So you want to level the playing field by taking away the choice of anyone going for a selective education even if they passionately feel that will be best for their child and even if the test is open to all. You think anyone who believes in selection in education is guilty of a shabby attitude and I point out again - would you extend that to unis too then ...should they be made to take all who apply irrespective of academic ability? You will soon lose centres of excellence then.

Again you should focus on making the alternatives better.

in other words, currlew, if some people don't have the choice (because they can't get over the 11+ threshold or because they can't afford private) then why should anyone ?

In very other words! And indeed, with another actual meaning.

So, indy, 'in other words', what you are saying is.... I dunno, summink about cats?

Quite apart from anything else, removing any form of selection in education is exceedingly poor preparation for real life as an adult. Life is a competition.

I think its unfair when very wealth families send their child to Grammar school instead of an Independent. IMO GS should be for bright children who cant afford private.

I don't agree. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you should be excluded from state provided services (for which you are a net contributor through taxation).

"Failing a Brownie badge"

Life isn't a bloody competition. Not the fun bits anyway. And I speak as someone who has to pitch for work all the damn time. Life is not some vile dog-eat-dog spectacle. You could just as well argue that life is about cooperation and learning to get on with other people and deal with them.

And none of us are arguing against academic, musical or other forms of rigour (it would be pretty ironic if we were - most of the pro-compers on this thread are qualified up the wazoo).

Really Nit...then you and I must be reading different posts - I defineitly read an anti-grammar school stance:

richmal Sat 30-Nov-13 08:32:10
Getting rid of grammar schools will not level the playing field whilst private schools exist.

curlew Sat 30-Nov-13 08:34:23
Maybe not, but at least we won't be supporting inequality with public money.

Whereas I think that precisely because life is competitive in so very many ways, given that schooling is something where there is consensus - at the most basic level, that all children should get some - then at least the school you go to shouldn't be determined by a competition.

Whatever school you go to, there will be competition, just as there will afterwards. But I don't see any reason to 'prepare' my children for the fact that they'll be competing for jobs by introducing such a huge pass/fail issue in their lives so young.

You can go to comprehensive school and cope with (to give examples from the last few weeks, even) not being chosen to sing the solo; not playing a full game in a netball match; your house not winning the inter-house netball; not getting as good a mark as your friend in something... of course competition is there at every level.

But with universities, as horrid as going through clearing undoubtedly is at the time, you don't have to do it, because you don't have to go to university. But since you do have to go school, that school shouldn't have to be determined by competition.

Indy yes of course there is an anti-grammar stance - but the question you re-framed there wasn't the one that was asked!

monet3

So what you are saying is people who already pay over half their income in taxes and NI should not be able to access any state or public services like grammar school education which their taxes help pay for (far more than low earners will ever contribute) but should be taxed again by being forced to go private all the way. I guess you would apply the same logic to using the NHS or the fire service or police etc.

Well, that too, nit

But I still think that a lot of stuff that is enjoyable in life is not - or not solely - an issue of competition.

Indy, Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Fortunately we are very comfortable financially. I have a private Dr, dentist, Healthcare, private ed for my children. I would not dream of taking a GS place because I think it should go to a child whos parents cannot afford to go private.

If everyone did this there would be more children being educated to a higher standard which would be better for the country in the long term.

I hate the idea that grammar school is some sort of private school substitute via the state 'for bright children'.

State education should provide a good education for ALL children. Private education supports bright children but also props up the unbright.

As for an anti-grammar stance, if we were building the educational landscape from scratch I would be anti the inclusion of grammar schools (and faith schools) within the system. There would be excellent true comprehensive schools, in which careful setting meant that every child could learn each subject to the level and at the pace appropriate to them. There would be enrichment activities, booster classes, behaviour mentors, home school liaison, a wide range of extra curricular opportunities (even rugby if there was a demand). I would not segregate chioldren at 10 / 11 for schooling, nor focus on those with evenly spread intelligence over those with 'single subject' genius (in the maths/english divide).