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.

I would also ask the question of whether the mere presence of a few
"disaffected pupils...pupils kicking off...pupils hating school and sneering at studying...pupils mocking those who want to work hard and do well...pupils with parents who couldn't care less about education, or results." on the same large site, not in any classes with your own children, makes any difference whatever to the education of the vast majority?

I appreciate that if the above form a sizeable majority of the student population, then such behaviour might become an 'institutional norm', and affect the educatiion of all. But to seek to ban ANY such students from the same school site as your child (and tbh I have encountered all the attitudes you enumerate in a Cambridge college) seems a little extreme....

You would also be rather selective to think that grammar schools represent poor children and that any other option of school is doomed to failure and anarchy.

If all the other "clever" children are sent to be educated in another building it is not surprising that the one or two left will stand out and be bullied.

I suspect I am the only Mner who has average children as well as clever children. My clever children have not been bullied for being clever.

Fast, the argument I am making is of the 'you only need 1 black swan to prove that not all swans are white' variety.

There are those on here who claim that the ONLY way of getting their child into an environment that challenges the able, that values hard work, that has an academic ethos etc etc is through the grammar system. Ergo, we must keep grammars.

The point I am making is that a grammar system is not necessary to encounter such things - so to say 'we must have grammars because...' is by definition false.

The fact that there are a minority of comps where - by reputation or reality - top set pupils have a hard time does not change the argument: perhaps where such comps co-exist with grammars, and hence are actually secondary moderns, it is the mere presence of the grammars that is causing the problem, rather than being a solution to it.

I would also ask the question of whether the mere presence of a few
"disaffected pupils...pupils kicking off...pupils hating school and sneering at studying...pupils mocking those who want to work hard and do well...pupils with parents who couldn't care less about education, or results." on the same large site, not in any classes with your own children, makes any difference whatever to the education of the vast majority?

The article I linked to earlier stated that 55% of lessons in comprehensive schools are taught in completely unstreamed, mixed ability groups. Of course this probably varies a lot from school to school - as does the extent of the disruption in the first place.

But your particular comprehensive is great, and of course that's all that counts. Too bad for those forced to waste the best years of their life: it's more important that you can indulge your out of touch idealism about all comprehensives providing what the best ones in nice areas do.

Fast, does it say what the subjects are?

DS has mixed ability lessons in Art, Music [tightly ability grouped within the lesson, though], Drama, D&T [this year], RE and ICT, and his PE is less highly setted than other subjects. However, all his 'academic' subjects are rigorously set.

While in % terms, a significant % of his timetable is taught in mixed ability classdes, this does not actiually dilute his core academic experience - and I suspect that is why the 55% figure you quote may be misleading.

A % of core academic subject lessons taught in mixed ability groups would, I hazard a guess, be much, much smaller.

my kids are at a comp where the catchment is MC but for historic reasons, 20% of pupils come from "over the border" into the shitty estate I live near

the top set value and praise high achievement - mainly because detention greets those who diss it
the top set will go to top unis worldwide

the bottom set are supported through sport and options to ensure that they are literate and numerate - and some are shit hot at Rugby and Cricket

the middle three sets are encouraged to find their niche - options are wide open, those willing to work effing hard are bumped up sets in case they are late maturers

the sports / music / drama are open to all, regardless of their ability at "spatial reasoning"
(not a skill I've needed in HMRC investigations TBH)

I will ignore the coments about out of touch idealism - I have family teaching in the toughest of tough comps [who nevertheless achieve 10 A / A*s at GCSE level for the very small number of high ability children: 0% High Ability on the DfE tables on enry, but 5%+ on exit] and so I am fully aware that not all comps look like DSs.

(Equally, might I politely suggest that as a comp parent, I perhaps do have a perspective on them that you, as a grammar parent, do not?)

Fast, the argument I am making is of the 'you only need 1 black swan to prove that not all swans are white' variety.

The problem with that argument is that you could make it about nearly anything - such as secondary moderns providing a great education that doesn't disadvantage anyone and gives kids all the opportunities they need. Philoslothy's kids who went from secondary modern to top universities are your black swan. So what's the problem?

There are those on here who claim that the ONLY way of getting their child into an environment that challenges the able, that values hard work, that has an academic ethos etc etc is through the grammar system. Ergo, we must keep grammars.

I think the problem is that there are a few different question intertwined here. One is "what would the best education system look like in an ideal world?" Another is "what is the best solution for my child, within the education system that we have?"

My answer to the first question probably wouldn't be a selective system (although it probably wouldn't look much like the current system, either). My answer to the second question is to make use of the excellent grammar school we have available up the road.

You seem to be insisting that any parent of any child, living within the current system as it exists and operates, ought to be able to get an excellent, appropriate education for their child without using the grammar system. I'm sorry but I think you're delusional in that impression. Maybe you're just out of touch because your school is in a nice area and you don't know how things really are for so many others, I don't know.

My feeling on that score is not just based on the secondary moderns here, either. We moved out of a comprehensive area to this one partly because our oldest's primary school "education" was so severely compromised by exactly the things I've referred to, and partly because the secondary options there were so dire. Fortunately we could afford to move to a reasonable area with grammars schools - though not to a posh expensive one with great comprehensives.

I do not live in a posh expensive area. That is where the grammar schools are, we live in the much cheaper area on the edge of the grammar school catchment in order to escape grammar school pushiness

I'm sure you're correct about most of the mixed-ability teaching being non-core subjects. I didn't mention that because I just assumed it was the case.

Not sure why it's somehow OK for history, music and RE lessons to be a disrupted waste of time though, when it's not OK for maths and English.

ah, so your understanding of statistics was so weak that you could not see that the primary problems would not carry over to the secondary
bless

PS
if there are more than 1/100 pupils grammars in an area, there are no comps

Why do mixed ability lessons have to be disrupted?

Shock horror , sometimes naughty children can be clever. Even more shocking sometimes the children of MNers can also be naughty.

No, I could see from my experience of the area and people I knew that the primary school problems carried over EXACTLY to the secondary sector. Statistics LOL - you're trying to claim that there are no widespread problems with comprehensive schools being disrupted by disaffected children and failing to education able children effectively? I'd like to see the statistics that show that.

Bless my arse.

Curlew, the academic equivalent of course.
Basically if a school is poor it helps no one if it is a comprehensive. Equally applicable to grammar and secondary modern.

Grammar Schools must do something right and provide the education that many parents want, parents are prepared in some circumstances go to extreme lengths. The reason for this it is one of the few things/services the state provide that is equal to what the private sector can provide. Another reason in this country you have to take any little opportunity you or your family have, otherwise your future generations may end up in penury.

Grammar schools are the only thing that normal people (Up to 25%) in some areas can at least enable their Dcs to have a fighting chance to compete against the elite. Top sets at Comprehensives although maybe similar in academic terms can not and do not compare in terms of the (Non Academic Education) in terms of Discipline, confidence and belief. Grammar schools provide at least a bit of a private style education to some.

I realise my views and ideas are out of touch with most people on this site.
I have been called "Nasty" and distasteful because, i believe in a 25-30% Grammar school take up across the country.

Philoslothy -

Sure, I agree with that. The fact that some comprehensives manage to teach in mixed ability groups with minimal problems shows that it must be possible. Just as every example of everything else shows that everything else is possible too.

And I certainly don't think every clever child is an angel. That's certainly not the case at my DS's grammar.

I suspect it's more that it's EASIER for teachers to teach effectively when the class is of a more similar ability level (which is of course why they set for the subjects that really "count"). So given that there are enough other challenges and stresses impacting upon what they can do, taking that particular one away is likely to improve the classroom experience in the majority of cases.

Unfortunately - and this is what seems to escape some people here - the important thing from the POV of a parent making a decision for their child is not whether something is theoretically possible under ideal circumstances. It's whether it's actually likely to happen, under the real circumstances in which the decision is being made.

We have a super selective it's 2.3% fsm.
I'm not that surprised. I would have been surprised if it had been higher.

Our primary has 0 % fsm.

If you find grammar school objectionable why did you pursue it as dd school

That's a silly q really.

Finding the system that includes only grammars and highs in fully selective areas a bad thing, doesn't necessarily exonerate you from having to participate in it.

I hate the grammar system (fully selective here) as the other schools all end up being crap.

I'm still hoping to get my child into a grammar.

It's that or the crappy high school.

If it were a different system, it would be a moot point - I'd probably be happy with a comp as they would all have decent streaming and a mix of children. As it is round here you are stuffed if you don't make grammar.

and you might as well ask,

'if you hate the high school (and grammar) [selective] system, why send your child to a high school'

You have to send them somewhere.

Oh I see,it's ideologically objectionable but you'll still participate and pursue that place
That's v much want cake and eat it,want the right- on of being opposed to grammar
But also want the benefit of you're child attending.which makes you as competitive as the other parents

Soul2000
I would never ever advise a fellow accountant to move to Kent
because the schooling system is shit
I wonder how many Kent parents would move to Surrey or Hampshire to avoid the stress
but I cannot afford to move as I bought my house pre Broon ...

luckily being in Hampshire, my kids are in a great non selective school where the only criteria was on the map

What?

No, it is a system that is already in place. What would you do in this situation?

You have a stark choice here.

Well we could move out of the county I suppose.

It's like saying 'you can send your child to Waitrose for their supper every day or to the local chippy. You are WRONG to hope for waitrose'.