People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

So let's get your comp some more resources instead of spending 50 million on a divisive school system which will make things worse for 80% of children.

Sec Mods were around from 1947 to the late sixties/early seventies - so approx 25 years and despite some good ones, the system was loathed by many. Comprehensives have been around for 45 - 50 years and, despite the cry on MN and a few Grammar School diehards, are doing a decent job for the vast majority of children. I agree with Noble. Let's improve those comps that aren't good, instead of reintroducing a system which failed 45 years ago, (with a minor tweak to pretend it's not the same). Or the constant throwing of money at Vanity projects like free schools, or the latest fad of reintroducing Grammar Schools.

What are these schools in m/c areas with low pp? Because if it's the one near your house then aren't most of the high attainers bussed off to a grammar or other schools?

I've just thought of a question that I don't think's been asked before.

What does "failing the high attainers" actually mean?

"Wilshaw and Sutton have said comps don't cater well for bright kids so frankly the fact that a few do( often in places a lot of families are excluded from ) doesn't make it a successful system imvho"

It shows that it is possible, with the right resources.

The bottom line is that schools are communities where children's learning is influenced by each other as well as by parents, teachers, etc.

Our school system currently - by and large - is one of social apartheid. Children are pretty much divided into schools along social lines. If you remove about 25% of the highest achieving and best supported children into faith, grammar and private schools, and create a system of school selection in comprehensives which favours the sharp elbowed m/c, you are going to end up with educational ghettoes, and that's what successive governments have done.

They have deliberately created a system which clusters the poorest and the richest children into separate schools. Poor children are only allowed into the 'rich club' if they have something special to offer - that they are clever or talented, otherwise they are excluded.

Some of us, particularly in London, have our children in comprehensives which are genuinely socially mixed and mixed in terms of ability. My dc's school has low ability children from some of the poorest estates in London mixing with the children of doctors and lawyers. And with good resources, management and teaching and a genuinely comprehensive intake these schools can and do work.

But yes - create social and educational ghettoes and then point at the ones containing most of the poor and disadvantaged children and say, that's not an environment in which a high achieving child can easily thrive, and actually there is some truth in that. Children don't thrive well in deprived communities generally. But don't blame the schools - blame the government for creating this system of social apartheid in education, and then blame yourself for advocating for things which deepen the divide and perpetuate the inequality - like academically selective schools.

Bert, " failing the high attainers" is something that happens to my ds on daily basis.

irvine - your dc's school is clearly not great.

I assume it's also not meeting the needs of the less high achieving children either.

At least 'high achieving children' are, um, 'achieving highly', which is one of the aims of schooling isn't it? Not a total wash out then.

Much more worrying if children leave school without the qualifications to get a decent job or attend university.

"Wilshaw and Sutton have said comps don't cater well for bright kids"

The majority of 'bright kids' do actually attend comps. And those who arrive 'achieving highly' and are well supported by parents by and large leave 'achieving highly' in any reasonable comprehensive. That's what the evidence tells us.

"Bert, " failing the high attainers" is something that happens to my ds on daily basis."

Is it a generally bad school? Does it fail everyone or uniquely high attainers? And how does it fail them? Do they come in as high attainers and leave with Cs?

My niece and nephew were both high attainers who attended comprehensives which were subsequently fingered by OFSTED for 'failing high attainers' in particular. Both got a big clutch of grade A and B grade GCSE's, where in a better school they would have been expected to come out with all A's and A*'s. One is doing very well at A level at a high achieving comp which routinely sends children off to the best universities, the other has dropped out of A-levels and is currently a bit disaffected.

The school sits cheek by jowl with two massively successful, 100% selective faith schools. These particular schools have almost no low achieving children in them AT ALL. It's also about 600 metres away from a massive private school with a very generous bursary system that hoovers up large numbers of high achieving children, AND a short train journey from 4 grammar schools. The upshot of which is that the school in question really isn't 'comprehensive'. It has such low numbers of high achievers that it struggles to have functional top sets, and struggles to hang on to really successful teachers because of its disproportionately high number of disengaged children.

It also looks impoverished. It has no library. Imagine that - a big secondary school with no library. I asked one of the teachers where the children went to read and choose books and she said that they take them down to the high street to the local (shit, tiny) council library once a fortnight.

After looking at it we drove home, past the massive private school next door with its state of the art facilities, rolling lawns, massive library.

How have we allowed a system of such unfairness to spring up in the UK - that some children are given so much, and other children are given so little, and then schools and teachers are blamed for the inevitable inequalities of outcome?

irvineoneohone Wed 21-Sep-16 08:11:15 Bert, " failing the high attainers" is something that happens to my ds on daily basis.

Can I ask what area you live in where all the high attainers are being failed?

"After looking at it we drove home, past the massive private school next door with its state of the art facilities, rolling lawns, massive library."

Mini- I regularly drive past Lancing. I have to avert my eyes or I would do something I would regret.........

How have we allowed a system of such unfairness to spring up in the UK - that some children are given so much, and other children are given so little, and then schools and teachers are blamed for the inevitable inequalities of outcome?

Quite. Michael Morpurgo has some pertinent comments, although not directly on the same subject.

My recent little MN survey indicated that only a third of MNers with a child at a GS engaged outside help in preparing them.
I think selection by ability is much more acceptable than selection by house price.

"My recent little MN survey indicated that only a third of MNers with a child at a GS engaged outside help in preparing them.
I think selection by ability is much more acceptable than selection by house price."

1. Did you also ask whether those who did not engage outside help had the time,money,confidence and ability to do the preparation themselves?

1. It actually amounts to practically the same thing. But neither are acceptable.

a7mints Wed 21-Sep-16 10:12:44 My recent little MN survey indicated that only a third

How many of those DCs "just did a familiarisation paper or two" so don't count as being tutored?

How many of those DCs had parents who purchased material for the DCs to work through at home (some parents do not class this a tutoring apparently)?

How many of those DCs applied to a Grammar school that offered a 1in2 chance of place rather than a 1in10 chance (I doubt you would need to do much prep. for a school where demand is fairly low for various reasons)?

I tell you if i lived in 'Bexleyheath' and my children failed the 11+ i would be distraught !
Once again it is not grammar school pupils involved, with what can only be described as 'Serious' violence. This on its own is enough to make sure you separate your children from the 'ner do wells' who frequent 'non selective' schools.

St Columba's, St Catherines, Erith and Woolwich Schools .. They are 'supposed' good schools as well....

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/712333/Northumberland-Heath-Bexley-fight-violence-arrested-London-police

irvine's DS isn't a high attainer, he is, as far as I can tell, uniquely gifted. A grammar wouldn't know what to do with him either. An extreme outlier is not an example of a failing system.

Sandy- an Oxford undergraduate was arrested for rape and ABH this morning. I'm really glad my dd didn't get a place there...............

"I think selection by ability is much more acceptable than selection by house price"

Actually neither is acceptable if the net result is that the poorest children end up unemployable because they are left in schools that have become ghettoes of low achievement and disaffection.

Why on earth do you think that children who are already achieving more highly than everyone else are the ones whose needs should be prioritised?

The thing with selection by ability versus 'selection by house price' is that we know that poorer kids do much worse in a system that selects by ability than one that doesn't (even if there is still some social selection).

So let's ask the poor kids in a comp if they want a 1 in 5 chance of a better school but the flip side is that it goes with a 4 in 5 chance of a worse school.

Or we could get grammar school supporters to tell the poor kids that they've decided that a 4 in 5 chance of a worse school is what they want for them because their own kids aren't going to have to run that gauntlet.

"I tell you if i lived in 'Bexleyheath' and my children failed the 11+ i would be distraught"

There will be children at the schools you reject who will do outstandingly well.

There are children in the poorest, roughest schools in the UK who shine, become head boy or head girl, who sit on the school council, who mentor younger children, who get great GCSE results, who go on to achieve highly at university. What these children - the ones who flower in those sorts of schools have - is character, a work ethic, good brains, lots of support at home, ambition.

Which of these qualities do your children lack that means they would definitely fail in a secondary modern?

MumTryingHerBest , Noble and others, sorry, my comment was irrelevant and wrong.
My ds is still at primary.
Recent conversation we had made me really depressed. He said he wished he was HEed, since he sometimes feels like he is wasting huge amount of his limited time at school. But he loves school, and knows that it's not only academic stuff that are important.

So. What does "failing the high attainers" mean?