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

[BertrandRussell]

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

sandyholme - Seriously Bertrand was that the 'best' non selective school available 7% high attaining children!

My nearest non selective had 17 high attainers in a year group of 171.

Mum. The 'Elite' detest the middle classes or at least those who aspire to be like them.

To many sons or daughters of Police Inspectors/Secretaries were getting above themselves. The aspirations of these families started posing a threat to 'hegemony' of the elite particularly in accessing the top universities.

"in that the schools can be smaller while still providing the same quality of specialist support / teaching"

Can you link to evidence that smaller schools achieve better results BECAUSE they're poor?

Sorry- typo. 5% high ability.

Sorry, that should read 'because they're small'.

People on mumsnet always assume 'smaller is better' when it comes to schools and I'm not sure that this is supported by evidence of better outcomes.

I think the Tories are treading very carefully because as many vocal parents realise their assumptions of their children being on the winning side of this are wrong, this is a policy where support could rapidly go down the pan.

*I think we sometimes confuse two types of "house price schools". There are areas in cities where house prices have risen because of particular schools and they do seem to be quite socially exclusive.

This isn't quite the same as schools (often the only one in town) where prices are high because all house prices are high in the South-East. So house prices are high in say Wantage in Oxfordshire but as its a one school town it has 16% disadvantaged pupils which is actually close to the national average of 18%.*

That might be the case in one school towns. As soon as you get somewhere with 2 or more schools, one becomes the good school and house prices in its catchment increase significantly. The other becomes the failing school which no one wants to send their children to. And so it continues.

The outstanding school is then over subscribes, the catchment gets tighter, the house prices in the catchment go up.

Or, in the case of my closest school, you draw your catchment area to include the posh areas and exclude the poorer areas. It would be cheaper for me to send both my children to private school than to pay the extra to buy a house in this schools catchment.

I don't live in London or a big town.

"Seriously Bertrand was that the 'best' non selective school available 7% high attaining children! "
I don't equate "lots of high ability children" and "best".
It is a excellent school. It would be even better with the top 25% in it!

"Have a system that benefits the brightest and disadvantages the rest

-Have a system that benefits the rest and disadvantages the brightest"

Are you kidding?

If you have comprehensive schools turning out kids with 10 A* GCSE's and a 4A grade A levels and then going on to top universities (and you do) how on earth can this system be said to 'disadvantage' bright children?

If there was a fundamental problem with educating bright children in mixed ability schools then you wouldn't have ANY children from comprehensives going on to top universities.

I'd also like to point out that Finland - which is WAY ahead of us in the international education tables, educates children in comprehensive schools (usually in mixed ability classes) until the age of 16.

At the moment the Government could bring back 'public hangings' and sell the rights to SKY SPORTS and not worry !

Actually we could make Celebrities out of the hangman 'GIANT NOOSEMAN' and 'THE GREAT SCAFFODI ' could compete for the PIERREPOINT CUP every Saturday at 4 pm.

"Comprehensive Schools saved the Public School system."

Sandyholme - you do talk a lot of shite love.

Bertrand, strange you just continuously repeat the mantra what would you suggest for those who do not get into grammars ... You got a pretty good suggestion on this in fourth post on here but it's been ignored as all ride off on their particular hobby horses...
We need some schools for those academically inclined, some should be more vocational. And we lose the idea that academic is the best way - great vocational courses can be seen as a real prize by employers if set up right, and can lead to satisfying long term careers.
We all know with our kids that some are more practical than others, others more academic etc ... Let's stop trying to fit all into one hole and build great relevant paths for our DCs.

"I fully support it. It gave us fantastic grounding and 2 of us went to university."

If this is the sort of argument that the grammar lobby are coming up with 'It was great for me so they should reintroduce it', really it just shows how debased this whole debate is.

Honestly pro-grammar people - it's not all about you!

Education policy needs to take the needs of ALL children into consideration.

A system which disadvantages THE MAJORITY of children, and entrenches inequality ISN'T A GOOD SYSTEM no matter how much it benefited YOU growing up.

ffs.

I suppose I mean an education including Latin and Greek probably rather a vague statement. No i'm not Michael Gove. I'm extremely anti-grammar school while attempting to recognise that there is a reason people remember them fondly, resist losing them where they still exist and want to reintroduce them where they were abolished. For children who benefited from an abstract liberal arts type curriculum, they did offer something that was the equal of schools anywhere. Whether it was really what the country needed was another question.

And now we're back to opening more faith schools again - thought that was Tony Blair's top wheeze. Justine Greening may yet be the reason we end up talking fondly about the good old Michael Gove era.

sandyholme Thu 08-Sep-16 21:42:22 At the moment the Government could bring back 'public hangings' and sell the rights to SKY SPORTS and not worry !

lol

Please don't give them any more stupid ideas, they seem to be coming up with enough of their own.

minifingerz Thu 08-Sep-16 21:44:27 "Comprehensive Schools saved the Public School system."

Sandyholme - you do talk a lot of shite love.

It would be interesting to know if there was a growth in demand for private school places when Grammar schools were being closed.

Well i am glad i bring a 'smile' to your face then !

However, what i will tell you is the Public Schools were in trouble both financially and culturally in the 1960s ! They were out of fashion due to the fact grammar school pupils were getting better results and getting in to the establishment !

You can check that out....

annandale Thu 08-Sep-16 21:50:46 And now we're back to opening more faith schools again - thought that was Tony Blair's top wheeze.

No surprise there given his wife attended a faith school. The last nun left while I was there.

I think I'll end up with one Dec in the grammar school and one in a state school. I'm not worried about that in theory, but I'm worried about their confidence. Mine chose to do the 11+ but there's a very good state option locally. If I'm honest it's quite stressful!!
They go to a private prep school (lovely school but odd circumstances as to why they go there!) but I never considered private secondary and have an open mind about grammar as they are available here so a real and tangible option.
I went to a very good grammar school and my husband went to a posh private school. He hated every minute of it and I thrived at school- we are all different with different needs.
I taught in a state school and it was fabulous so I'm certainly not anti state but not completely anti grammar either.
I'm annoyingly on the fence!

Dc not dec

www.politics.co.uk/reference/grammar-schools

I'd be interested to know if prep schools do better when a grammar school opens in the area.

Sorry for the late reply mini, no I don't have any evidence, just anecdotes. Hence the full disclosure about the other school. The teachers I know who work there claim the specialist support is key, but I have no idea if that is true. Problem is, nobody has actually proven the best way to improve outcomes for pp children - if they had we would all be doing it.

And I wasn't referring to just children from poor backgrounds either - I was merely musing that specialist teaching and support costs money. If you have a big school that can be done without being selective because the cost is still spread across a lot of children with a particular need. And the comment about smaller schools was totally subjective. I wouldn't want a huge school for my DC.

t would be even better with the top 25% in it!

But why? As long as your child is getting the best grades and education he/she can, why would a school be better with higher ability children in? You said it's an excellent school. Why would it not have been excellent for your other child or indeed any other child whose parents wanted to opt their child out of the 11+? Why does having more higher ability children necessarily mean the school would be "better"?

And state secondary/public school secondary education split of kids who fail the 11+ broken down by parental income.