If you're anti grammar schools, then please answer me this:

[Proseccocino]

If your child had a gift for music, then you might send her to a school which excels musically.

If your child had a talent for sport, you might send him to an academy which excels at sport, one where he can really focus and develop in the area in which he is better than his peers.

And so on....!

So, if your child is intelligent, academically gifted... Why is it bad to say you would send her to a selective school where she can study along with other bright students?

If it's OK to separate children according to ability in sport or music or drama or technology, and send them to specialist schools which excel in these areas - why is it a different story if their talent with their academic ability?

Because Jasper, all children are different and therefore a school where there is a different atmosphere like the different atmospheres between different comprehensive schools may suit a particular group of children better. Would you agree every child is different and does not have equal abilities, not that they don't have equal worth but they have different level of abilities in different areas of life, should have a school system that works for them and if that means different schools then is that always a bad thing?

if you made a decision to tutor,

I broadly agree with you, except on this one point. And this is based on having lived in the area for 23 years, and having observed the system through a span of 17 years of having dc at state primary schools here.

I posted these comments earlier on the thread.

I would estimate that 90% of tutored children in our area are from ordinary - not poor, but certainly not wealthy - families, and are at state primaries.

You cannot tutor a child to pass, who doesn't already have the capability of passing the 11+, otherwise no tutored child would ever fail. And some do fail. You can maybe tweak a few points here and there, but no more than that. The advantage that tutoring gives is confidence.

You wouldn't enter a child who hadn't been taught to swim into a swimming gala. Why is there such an inverse snobbery about tutoring for the 11+?

I would add that the vast majority (95+%) of the children from my dc state primary who took the 11+ received tutoring of some sort. And I think that can be extrapolated over the state feeder schools in our city. And do you know why?

Parents see themselves as being forced into giving their children tutoring to compete with the wealthy families whose children are at private schools, where the 11+ is practically part of the curriculum. Unlike the state primaries, which largely ignore it.

In response to the OP if my DS was talented at music he would continue to do music outside of school/ county music and go to a comprehensive school with setting for different subjects.

If he was good at sport he would do sport outside of school and.... errr ...go to a comprehensive school.

Is this a bit of a city/ south east problem? We are rural and have a "choice" of several comprehensive schools. A few are "full" but generally if you are in catchment you will get in. They all seem to differentiate for different levels.... DS is in year 8 and his friend is G and T in maths.... he is happy and doesn't seem bored. Similarly those who struggle get along ok too. Its not a great school but its results for high achievers are good and the children are happy there and you can do GCSEs (including latin etc) or BTECs dependent on where your strengths lie..... with everyone in the same school.

I don't get what problem TM is trying to solve here........is it social inequality?..... Then why on other would you separate out the "clever kids" - I don't see Kent as a blazing beacon for reducing social inequality!

Our economy relies more and more on ideas, creativity and collaborative working.... which is what a good comprehensive school will surely be better to achieve this.

Im a working class comprehensively educated Cambridge graduate ( the sort of person grammar schools were set up to target) and not only did I get a string of good GCSE's and A levels I also learnt to work with people who would have both passed and failed an 11 plus. Would I have got 9 A stars rather than 5 at a grammar school? Possibly. But education is about more than that isn't it?

Yes, all children have different abilities which is why segregating them based on rigid criteria at the age of ten and letting that determine their education is a worse idea than sending them to a school which has the flexibility to meet their changing educational needs throughout their teens.

Lordtrash. Ia'm an 'Aspie' as well though i have the full set of Dyslexia/Dyspraxia et.al hence no A levels !

Earlier i posted that special dispensations need to be given for bright children with SENs that tend to have a 'spikey' profile for entry to grammar schools !

It is interesting that in two of the most successful selective 'areas' it is 40% of children that go to grammar not the usual 25%. The two areas of Trafford and Northern Ireland non selective schools tend to do better than Comprehensive schools in non selective areas!

The 40/60 model i think is the way to go !

But in a school of 1000 plus there are children at the ends of each spectrum. Plus a decent teacher will do differentiation within the sets.
Or are we going to set up a whole system to cater for the

"nickname the point is that there wouldn't BE students like student A, or not a class full, in most comprehensives. Similarly there wouldn't BE enough students at the lowest level to make a class full"

Why not? There is at DD's school. But that is because we don't have a grammar school system here.

DD's school has the best GCSE results in the LA by a long way. It is true to say that part of it is due to the socio-economic background of the area. But part of it is that the school is dedicated to meeting the needs of each individual student regardless of their level.

zzz Because it seems to imply that children who pass or fail the 11+ are different species. The "one" bright child in a comp feels isolated, miserable and unchallenged but the "one" bright child in a secondary modern feels proud and happy.

I don't deny that the top child in a secondary modern might very well feel great about it, I just don't see why the top child in a comp wouldn't feel exactly the same. And if that bright child in the comp would benefit from being surrounded by similar peers why is that not also true for the bright child in the secondary modern?

Am I reading this right? Because some kids wouldn't be motivated to work in a comp they need an extra-special prestigious school provided for them, even though plenty of kids do work hard in that comp and get a bunch of A*s?.

Wouldn't it therefore be a good idea to get rid of grammars altogether so universities and employers would know who could be bothered to work their asses off for their grades and those who expected it all to be done for them?

I must have misunderstood this surely?

Right. So what you are talking about is wanting your child to go to a good school. Not necessarily a grammar school, just a good one.

People often use comprehensive and bad school as synonyms. Also grammar and good school.

No I didn't misunderstand. I thought the "grammars needed for people living near bad comps" argument was because those schools didn't have the facilities or staff able to teach to that standard.

I didn't realise grammars were needed for kids who could get top grades in these "bad comps" if they had the motivation.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject. Regardless of where you stand on the principle of having a selective system, why is the 11+ the only test where parents are castigated for providing their dc with a chance to familiarise themselves with what is expected of them? It's all to do with the erroneous perception that it's only the wealthy who get their children tutored.

The primary schools do sod all, so it's the ordinary parents who often opt for tutoring to compete with the wealthy parents whose dc are educated privately and don't actually need to go anywhere near a tutor because they get coached at school.

SATs practice, intensive revision with past GCSE and A Level papers, mock exams, extra revision classes, tutors at GCSE and A Level if your dc are struggling, anyone? Or shall we just not bother? Sink or swim, eh?

Have people said they're against tutoring? If I was living in Kent I'd tutor! The issue around tutoring is to do with social mobility - it's difficult to argue that grammars will increase social mobility if people getting into then are tutored.

It's the government who've chosen to justify new grammars on grounds of social mobility - why they're trying to do that when there's no evidence for it is for them to explain.

*"nickname the point is that there wouldn't BE students like student A, or not a class full, in most comprehensives. Similarly there wouldn't BE enough students at the lowest level to make a class full"

Why not? There is at DD's school. But that is because we don't have a grammar school system here*

Statistically, you can't have an entire class of children who are above the 99th percentile in a comprehensive. There will be two or three in each year, because that's what the percentile tells you. Which means that once you get to 99.9th percentile, you are very unlikely to meet anyone like you until you go to university. So the top set isn't the answer for these children.

But grammar schools don't have to be the answer. In the US, they have 'gifted magnet' schools - a comp, effectively, but one which takes all the 98%+ students in the area (this number varies from 95-99.9 in some places like NY) and teach them as a stream for academic subjects.

No cost of building new schools, a bit of money for transport and bob's your uncle.

2StripedSocks: we don't a speak permanently in Ofsted Speak. Unless quoting the Ofsted category, surely good means actually good! I know Ofsted 'good' schools (comps) where kids are pushed to be hard working and focussed. Your local comp choices seem not to do that, so you have had to go for grammar. Do you think that a comprehensive school is inherently unable to push students? And if so, how do we account for the overall lack of increase in standards when comparing similar grammar and non grammar areas?

I accept and believe that the comps available to you are not doing their best, many other people are in the same boat. If I did not have a range of good and varied comps to choose from I too would be looking for an escape route. But right now I would be calling for good comps for all, not more grammars.

I'm not castigating parents for tutoring! If you live in a wholly selective area you'd be stupid if you didn't.