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?

2striped socks
But top grade expectation is there at my kids fully comprehensive school. Obviously top grade expectation is unlikely to be there in a comp in a grammar school system because the top grade kids have already been syphoned off.

It would be ridiculous to expect a lot of As and A*s at my ds's secondary modern. I was thinking about this on GCSE results day, actually, when one of our Year11s was quoted in the local paper saying "I'm so happy-!i've got loads of Bs!" I though- well, that's our school off the Mumsnet "possibles" list........

titchy I know you posted on page one but ...

Weird question OP. You're asserting that grammars are fine because they take kids at 13,14 and 16 as well as 11 - EXCEPT THEY DON'T.

I joined a grammar thru the 13 plus, they also admitted girls thru 12 plus as well as the 11 plus

They also take at 6th form .. Sort of like a 16 plus but related to GCSE result

My dd went via 11 plus and now goes to a different grammar for 6th form and loads of the girls who joined with her, are from High Schools

Not having a go, just saying that whilst they might not all, they do

I have to say, nearly everyone I know who is NOT in a grammar area seems mostly Anti the idea, if we are in a grammar area, we are more likely to be pro if our children are at the brighter end

I totally refute the no poor
Kids thing and no immigrants. Huge percentage of Nepalese and council. Plus I am not rich!
The difference in the parents is more that they may be more pushy than some

Meh my four kids would walk into a grammar school: they've all excelled at those CAT type tests. We have the cash to pay for tutoring or the brains and time to do it ourselves. I still think it's a bad idea.

My bright Mum sat her 11plus a month or so after her beloved older brother died very tragically in an accident. Even when I was a child, 15 years later, my Mum's family were still quite traumatised by this event. I can't imagine my Mum got much parenting in the aftermath of the accident.

Anyway, unsurprisingly, my Mum failed her 11plus and went to the secondary modern, where she was always top of the class and frequently derided for being a swot. All her plans went out of the window. After school she worked in a factory, then a succession of crappy cleaning jobs. She is very bright, loves reading, loves a good discussion about everything under the sun. She thinks she is a bit thick.

My similarly bright Dad actually didn't turn up for his 11plus because he didn't want to pass and go to a different school from his mates. He kicked himself when he was older and spent a lot of effort at night school in order to achieve what he wanted.

Now we can argue that we live in different times but do we really? Kids are always going to be denied opportunities under a segregated system.

At my comprehensive I absolutely excelled at English and History; got the highest marks in the year at both. At parents evening my teacher, (who I had for both subjects) recognised my parents from her secondry modern teaching days. She was utterly delighted that it was their daughter who was getting the chance to do so well.

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

Same here! My point is that if you felt you had to do this to access grammar because the alternative was unsuitable, that it is better to campaign for a better alternative than an extension of a system you engaged with because you HAD to.

Not sure I understand the question.....?

"
I joined a grammar thru the 13 plus, they also admitted girls thru 12 plus as well as the 11 plus

They also take at 6th form .. Sort of like a 16 plus but related to GCSE result

My dd went via 11 plus and now goes to a different grammar for 6th form and loads of the girls who joined with her, are from High Schools

Not having a go, just saying that whilst they might not all, they do"
No 12 or 13+ as far as I know. And transfer to 6th form is by GCSE grades- not by 16+

A decent comprehensive with streaming in all subjects should render the need for a grammar school unecessary.
As I've said before on other threads my DC did badly at 11+ they diidnt get into Grammar school because they bombed the 11+ exam and did not even get near to a pass.
They went to excellent comprehensives and now one is doing medicine and came in the top 10% in the latest exams and gets prizes in med school for excellence.
the other DC got a string of A's at GSCE and is now going to a top RG University.

I hate to think what would have happened to them if they had not gone to a good comprehensive with a solid streaming system.
I think the problem lies with the educational emphasis on differentiation in class. some children need to work at different speeds at different ages. some peak at 11 and some havent even got going.

Sorry to be pedantic- setting not streaming.

Bertrand - whats the difference?

Streaming is where children are grouped for all subjects based on performance in one- often English or Maths. Setting is where they are grouped for individual subjects based on ability in that particular subject.

from that I think my DC 1 was streamed in yr 7 and 8 and then setted after that in english and maths
DC2 was setted in all years. I wasnt sure about the differences.

A wholly selective is one in which there are no (or virtually no) fully comprehensive schools, so you have grammar schools and secondary moderns.

I grew up in Northern Ireland, which had this system. Everyone did the 11+ and there were no catchment areas. It was complicated by the fact that the schools were also segregated along religious/sectarian lines. It was further complicated by the fact that some grammar schools also admitted fee-paying pupils who failed the 11+. Those fee-paying pupils are the main reason why I am so much in favour of comprehensives. Of the four pupils in my year who failed the exam and got in by paying, one went to medical school, one has a PhD, one got good but not spectacular grades at A-level but was at least in the top half of her year with a talent for languages which she studied at university, and one was always in the top set and went on to art college.

Selection tests get things wrong, and a grammar system is inflexible.

A wholly selective area is one where all schools are either grammars or secondary moderns. No comprehensives at all.

Because there are counties where there are very few grammars. So in areas which are quite far away from the nearest grammar, you might have hardly any or even no pupils going to a grammar. Which would make the local schools effectively comprehensive, even if you couldn't necessarily call them that because they were in an area where you could send a child to a grammar.

I live in a comprehensive school area but there are some grammars in the next county which are 25 mins' drive from me. A few people from my area send their kids there, although they live in a 'comprehensive area'.

"But how can the comprehensive in a grammar school area be comprehensive confused??"
It can't. That's why I said "no comprehensives at all"

The same transport kicks in here with transport to sixth form college. The best two for outstanding Alevels results (selective by GCSE passes) are out in the sticks. Only transport option is college bus, nearly £600 up front.

Yes there are other sixth forms but they are less academically focussed.

bertandrussell

Erm. Obviously I imagined taking the 13 plus then?
My dd had 2 people
Join in yr 9 (13plus) and ahe is in yr 13 now so it's still current

Maybe the particular one near you doesn't? But the ones near me do (south east - Kent)
They do lose some pupils
Thru house
Moves, expulsion etc so being a business, they are keeping their seats filled

I didn't mean they TAKE a 16 plus. They can enter for 6th form, which is aged 16 plus - dependant on GCSE results
Again, dd did that last yr