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?

mini

I totally disagree, none of the comps round here or nationwide have teachers who could teach my dd, so we don't use them, good or bad.
When you are talking about outliers they need more than any state or indeed private school can offer. They need specialist education, although they are probably only a few in reality.
A good comp could support an academically gifted child, but the poor ones, no chance, the parents have to teach them when they get home.

Sorry zzzz, that came out wrong. Obviously I didn't mean that in a negative way, I meant in terms for their academic ability.

There are many, many successful comprehensive schools across the country. We've tried a grammar/secondary modern system and it didn't work. We tried a comprehensive system, and while it works in many areas of the country, it seems not to work in others. Finland is supposed to have the best education system, but I have no idea what it actually involves. We could copy their schools.

Finland schooling involves no testing AT ALL until 18 or homework.

No selective or private options and they don't start until they are 7.

sorry actually it's 16 and they have 30 minutes homework maximum.

Sorry Zzzz I'm peeling potatoes at the same time. Will be more thoughtful in future.

"We tried a comprehensive system, and while it works in many areas of the country, it seems not to work in others"

Comprehensives which work well are those which are well resourced, we'll run and take children from across the ability range.

The ones which 'don't work' are almost all schools with disproportionate numbers of poor and low ability children, particularly those with a high percentage of white working class children. Many of these schools co exist alongside private schools and schools which select according to faith criteria.

while it works in many areas of the country, it seems not to work in others.

We know the profile of the kids who go to those schools and copying schools in Finland which has a fairly socially equal society won't help.

Creating further social division won't either.

At primary school, I was "gifted" in English and nearly always came top/nearly top of the class in everything except maths. There are 2 grammar schools in the area (1 for boys, 1 for girls) and I took the test for the girls' school. When results came out, I'd done very well in VR but awfully in NVR - and so I didn't get a place.

By the beginning of year 7, we'd moved to France and I went to a local, non-selective school. Despite studying in my second language (and a shaky start because of this), by the end of sixth form I came joint 3rd in my class (out of almost 60).

Meanwhile, in England, one of my best friends was attending the girls' grammar, having done well in the entrance test after having tutoring since year 4. She moved to the comprehensive in year 9 at the "suggestion" of the grammar school. Doing well in NVR/VR hadn't been followed by doing well in other subjects.

Now, I'm back in my hometown, teaching at the comp which I would have gone to if we hadn't moved. The students are set in some subjects, while still having time with their other peers. The more able students are, in my opinion, put under undue pressure to concentrate only on certain subjects - even if they're also very good at music/sport/etc - and then go on a set route to an RG uni to study a "traditional" subject - even if they have a genuine passion and aptitude for, say, childcare or engineering and would rather pursue an apprenticeship. But at least they still get the information about all these different routes. From my colleague at the boys' grammar, it's apparent that the boys at the grammar get no information on all the possibilities which are there for them - and this is the main reason that I won't send my children to grammar, even if they might pass the test.

I really should not give a 'toss' about these proposals since i have only 1,3 and 5 years respectively left of my children's grammar school educations !

This is because the proposals won't effect any of my children and have no 'doubt' in 15 years when maybe i have a grandchild of 11, the 'left' will have resurfaced and abolished these changes !

"and copying schools in Finland which has a fairly socially equal society won't help."

Inequality and deprivation are at the very heart of our most entrenched failings in education in the UK.

And sadly we have a government which is intent on increasing them.

:-(

Of course grammar schools will help if the aim is to stop m/c children experiencing collateral damage which manifest themselves in schools serving an increasingly impoverished and disempowered working class.

If you child is academically gifted, then they should be able to access activities within the mainstream curriculum, in the same way that many children with additional needs learn and thrive in a mainstream school with extra support.

It's obvious why so many politicians and MNers (and all their friends!) support grammars; the demographic is middle class and it will be the middle class kids who will primarily benefit. Yes, some children from disadvantaged backgrounds will get into grammar schools but the vast majority of those who will benefit are those who have more opportunities available anyway. It will hinder social mobility but the bottom line is that most people don't give a shit. :( You should give a shit though, more opprotunies for disadvantaged children will help create a better world for your children to grow up into.

It was the middle classes that got rid of grammar schools, they need to be careful what they wish for.
You have a good comp next to you, but wouldn't it be great to have a grammar? You picture the grammar opening, and your DC proudly going off. Except what could happen is that the grammar opens and your kids don't get in (it's a gamble, why do you think so many parents stress and pay a fortune for tutors from a young age?). Your DC now have to go to the comp, except it's now not a comp, it's a school for lower attainers and the headline figures are much worse than before. The good teachers have left to teach at the grammar, the school is struggling to recruit, especially in maths and science, and there's a series of supply teachers.

Or even worse, the good comp next to you applies to become the grammar, your kids don't get in and now they have to be bussed off to the school for lower attainers.

'I want every comprehensive school to have a grammar school ethos'

Who said that in July 2015....

Read more:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3158029/Pupils-stand-teachers-enter-room-call-Sir-Miss-says-chief-inspector-schools.html#ixz

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3158029/Pupils-stand-teachers-enter-room-call-Sir-Miss-says-chief-inspector-schools.html

zzzz Erm well yes but the point I was making is that we are trying to be a society that is as inclusive as possible. Let's no move backwards, eh? Also, children with SEND that cannot be managed in mainstream schools are not comparable to gifted and talented children. That is, unless the G&T child also has SEND in which case, they should be receiving adequate support for that.

Ok. How about this: if a selective system is so good and fair for all.....why not sort out the comprehensive schools and secondary moderns first: get them all offering fabulous teaching, opportunities, diversity of offerings and then, and only then, roll out the grammar schools.........ie why is the govt focusing on the "top" 10% first: why not sort out the other 90% first.......and then, and only then, think about a selective system.........why do the 90% have to wait.....why can't the 10% wait instead?

Wilshaw has come out saying that reintroducing grammar schools is a backwards step.

He wants discipline in schools which is fine. I don't know any schools that introduced standing up as a result of his remarks (trust me, if they'd become part of the inspection handbook we would have!) but I also don't know any schools where the teachers aren't already called sir and miss.

I know he has come out against grammar schools, but he can't say one thing because at the time it did not mean anything other than a 'soundbite' then basically bemoan what he said , when it does mean something.

' Boys must stand when an adult enters the classroom during a lesson'.

In Lessons
Arrive promptly to lessons with all the required equipment, including your planner.
Enter the room quietly and immediately prepare for the lesson. Stand up when the
teacher starts the lesson until invited to sit down.

These passages are from the behaviour policies of Wirral Boys Grammar/ West Kirby Girls Grammar.