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?

What do you mean, Sandy? I don't follow.

The policies of both schools mentioned actively state boys/girls must stand for a teacher just posting 'spam'...

They are a group of children who are better educated in a setting that helps them learn at a pace and in a way that suits them.

No, teaching top set kids and teaching kids with SEN (especially severe LD that may require a special school) are not comparable. I say that as someone who has taught both. Teaching kids with SEN is way more complex and in need of specialist skills and training. That's why we pack our top sets full, but have very small bottom sets.

I know Sandy, but I don't see what your point is.

I know comps that have a policy of standing when a teacher enters too. Given that Donna said her grammar doesn't, it seems Wilshaw's 'grammar school ethos' is actually 'strict authoritarian' which you can find in either setting.

zzzz we are talking about the top 25% here, not one-off geniuses.

Top sets really aren't that special that they need a separate school.

"A child who fails the 11+ receives the message: "you're not very clever." A child who passes the 11+ receives the message: "you're very clever"."

You say this as though it's a bad thing, minifingerz?

But it's the truth, isn't it?

Should we instead tell all children that they are very clever? Should we hold the more able ones back?

"A child who fails the 11+ receives the message: "you're not very clever." A child who passes the 11+ receives the message: "you're very clever"."

Read up in the work of "growth mindset". Telling a child that they are clever makes them under achieve. They do not see the link between hard work and arraignment. A child told that they aren't clever may believe that hard work is not going to make a difference.

High achieving countries tend to have mixed ablity teaching up to the age of fifteen/ sixteen. British children do not do well in PISA inspite of being heavily setted/ streamed. German children are not top of the PISA rankings either inspite of selective education.

"A child who fails the 11+ receives the message: "you're not very clever." A child who passes the 11+ receives the message: "you're very clever"."

You say this as though it's a bad thing, minifingerz?

But it's the truth, isn't it?

Should we instead tell all children that they are very clever? Should we hold the more able ones back?"

Blimey. You really don't see any problem at all with telling 10 year olds they they aren't very clever, and they are going to the not very clever school and wear the not very clever blazer........? Really?

And no, we should not "hold the more able ones back"

proseccocino, you seem to have a lot of faith in the eleven plus exam's exam to sort the 'clever' from the 'non clever'.

I think the argument seems less contentious when you are talking about super selectives.

Super selectives are not loved by all. However, they serve such a small number of children in any particular area that they don't significantly affect the opportunities of those who don't get in.

zzzz, you seem to misunderstand 'special schools'. There are a variety of schools that serve children who can't attend mainstream schools because they have a particular disability, not because they are stupid.

Special schools don't cater well for all children, hence the drive towards inclusion in mainstream education. However, equally mainstream schools, including grammar schools, do not necessarily cater adequately for disabilities. Some children just don't really have appropriate educational provision, but that is for another thread.

The point is that there isn't a line with high ability/grammar at the top and low ability/special school at the bottom.

zzzz I don't think the top 1% are a breed apart either, after all they are in a class with the top 2% who aren't so different. I've taught 1 kid in 11 years who I believe needed a different type of schooling at the top end.

I genuinely don't see how one persons school choice effects the opportunities of anothers?

Evidence shows that in areas like Kent where there is still extensive grammar school provision, the bottom 50% in terms of income perform worse than in fully comprehensive areas. Only the top 3% (in income terms) perform better. Everyone else is pretty much the same. There is ample evidence to show that grammar schools lack children on low incomes.

If areas like and Kent and Buckinghamshire were producing amazing results, there would be far more of an argument for grammar schools. However, they aren't and there isn't.

Exactly Merrymouse.

Every study carried out by academics, who were probably in the top sets at school, have found that this is exactly what happens in a grammar system.

It is not what happens if able children are streamed in a comprehensive system.

zzzz How dare you make assumptions? My son goes to a special needs school and my partner has years of experience as a teacher in primary schools for children with SEND. We know that part of the system inside out. You picked one word I used when I was tired at midnight and totally missed my point. Whereas, you seem to actually think that a very clever child is in any way comparable to a child with SEND. It'd be laughable if it weren't sad and you hadn't attempted to be so patronising and in favour of segregation.

Why are we talking about special schools? [baffled emoticon]

My understanding of special schools and what they do and don't provide and who they do and don't serve is probably way beyond the average poster.

Yet, without stalking you across MN, all I have to go on is what you post on this thread. The existence of special schools for children with disabilities does not logically lead to the conclusion that grammar schools are effective.

Bertrand. I utterly amazed at your writing skills at 4.41 in the morning!
How do you write so well, at a time in the morning that i would be unable to string two words together.

Who is telling a pupil they are not very 'clever' other than people who make the 11+ a matter of 'life or death' and most bizarrely that tends to be the anti grammar brigade !

I think what makes those who 'fail' the 11+ terrible is the endless stream of negativity coming from the 'anti' mob.

If a 'child' keeps getting told how unfair failing the 11+ is every five minutes it is hardly surprising , some develop a complex over it !

This though is the aim , to make a child feel bad for their own political aims, rather than accentuating a child's numerous talents .

There is a huge difference between those children who need a special school and education and top set kids, and that is their ability to work independently.

You really can't say the bottom end need a special school and therefore the top end do too.