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?

I'd like to know if grammar schools truly are a reflection of diverse society and if they indeed do what they are meant to; promote social mobility. I've not yet seen or read anything to suggest that grammar areas reflect this but I'm fully prepared to accept if I'm wrong.

To show that areas where there are grammar schools either perform better overall or improve social mobility.

Research that explains the point of funding more grammar schools.

www.ifs.org.uk/docs/Grammar_Schools2013.pdf

Independent report from institute of fiscal studies.

Conclusion:

Our key conclusion is that there is a substantial difference in the likelihood of a child who is eligible for free school meals enrolling in a grammar school as compared with a similar child who is not eligible for FSM. This remains true even if we allow for the fact that FSM children have lower levels of prior attainment. In other words, amongst high achievers, those who are eligible for FSM or who live in poorer neighbourhoods are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school. For example, in selective local authorities, two-thirds of children who achieve level 5 in both English and maths at Key Stage 2 who are not eligible for free school meals go to a grammar school, compared with 40% of similarly high-achieving children who are eligible for free school meals. This is a substantial gap. One can observe a similar pattern of results for London and local authorities with isolated grammar schools as well. The origin of this work was a desire to consider whether some primary schools are better than others at assisting poorer children to access grammar schools. Hence it is significant that our major finding is that, across grammar schools as a whole, the proportion of children from disadvantaged backgrounds is disproportionately low, even taking account of pupils’ achievement levels.

zzzzz Mon 12-Sep-16 11:05:17 You do realise there is quite a lot of UK that isn't in Kent don't you?

????

zzzzz Mon 12-Sep-16 11:05:17 Are the non-full-grammar areas not part of the discussion?

I think it has already been said, a lone Grammar in a large Geographical area will likely mean that comps. still exist, simply because the top 25% will not be creamed off. The likelyhood is those Grammar schools will be SS Grammar schools. I think the concern people have, in the main, is that if an area becomes a full Grammar area then the comps. will no longer be comps. The full Grammar situation is what most people are concerned about (happy for you to correct me on my understanding here).

Am I correct in thinking your support for Grammar schools is based on the assumption that the top 25% will not be taken away from the local comps, more like the top 5% will?

Am I also correct in assuming that, in your mind, a Grammar system will work well for the majority of children with SEN?

Anecdote is interesting, but it isn't necessarily correct or enlightening.

You don't have to be a researcher or data analyst to look for information.

Or indeed notice the lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of grammar schools

zzzz That's because your experience seems to be skewed towards what is best for you and your family. That's not unusual, as humans we are inherently selfish. I am not anti-selective schools. I am anti-segregation, pro social mobility and pro equality of opportunity for all children, not just the ones who can pass the 11+.

It would be easy for me to say that my intelligent, well behaved, quiet yet shy and anxious teenager would benefit from X. However, I want her to be in a school that not only gives her a good education but a well rounded experience of society and the world. There is more to education than passing exams.

The problem isn't with Grammar Schools, it's with the 'Other'. BBC Radio 4 More or Less programme put this brilliantly.

bbc.in/2blFLs5

Zzzz nobody's asking to go off and conduct your own research, merely to find one that supports notion that all children benefit under grammar system.

Preferably one to show you son to prove to him that it really is just about teaching styles and that he will be better served if he doesn't pass.

Plenty exist to offer the counter argument so it shouldn't be difficult.

It is not my experience that DC are exclusively academic, artistic, musical or sporty. It is my experience that DC may be good at everything and so I think smart children who by definition ought not to find the GCSE curriculum challenging will benefit more from a school with a full range of educational opportunities. It seems entirely counter intuitive to me to waste academic DC's time concentrating on extra academics when they could be stretching themselves in other areas. I also think academic DC gain more from learning with less academic DC who may well challenge them and be better at thinking outside the box.

Similarly I am not in favour of specialist sport and music schools but I am in favour of all schools offering a broad range of options to all DC.

howabout Mon 12-Sep-16 11:31:50 It is not my experience that DC are exclusively academic, artistic, musical or sporty.

What exactly is your experience based on?

I live in an area where tests are conducted for:

11 plus
Music
Sport
Technology

I can assure you, very few would qualify for a place under all these criteria.

"One could of course say the same about "academic opinion" grin"

Bloody experts. What do they know? We've had enough of listening to experts. Go with your gut, that's what I say. Now where have I heard that before?

zzzzz Mon 12-Sep-16 11:40:21 tom neither of my sons are going to grammar school

Are either of them in a sec.mod?

zzzzzzzz- what school are your children going to? Because it does sound rather as if you have no idea at all how the school's round you operate!

No zzzzz

But, unless we are talking about super selective areas which take a tiny fraction of the population of an area (between 1 & 5%), that education will be worse than the same children would have received in a comprehensive.

That they come out happy and successful is despite a grammar system not because of it.

I have heard about the London Centric media , but the Kent Centric education debate is talking it to a new level!

The anti grammar school lobby are prepared for 'friendly fire' incidents to happen to good non selective schools to further their ideology !

If they were to destroy a good school , with their constant 'negative' associations and use of the word 'Secondary Modern' ,they would see that as on e school taking a hit for the team !

They would also put the 'destruction' of said good school down as collateral damage.