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 think a lot would be solved by measuring progression in schools rather than number of GCSEs At the moment it is in every school's interest to get as many A-C passes from as many pupils as possible.

They've already done this. The school measure from this year will be Progress 8.

But of course instead of having time to embed any new measures (or even see what the scores are for schools as these won't be out till Jan) the government decides that a complete overhaul of the school system is needed. FFS we haven't even sat the new GCSEs or A-levels yet.

The biggest difference is the tighter discipline; however, that comes from the headteacher having previously seen many children at her former school sucked into street culture, and stopping trying in school, due to peer pressure and the poor discipline in school that prevented learning. Wealthier families do not normally face such challenges.

It doesn't have to be street culture that children are getting sucked into. Just a culture that says that doing well, answering questions (or 'being a nerd') isn't see as good is enough to put a lot of children off doing well (or as well as they could). Lack of ambition etc etc.
I'm in a 'middle class' area too so not your rough area either. And the school was so called outstanding.

"I haven't heard any realistic suggestions on how all comprehensives will ever be able stretch and challenge academically gifted children, other than giving them a lot more money. Which we don't have. "

.....except all the examples that have been given on here and on other similar threads describing comprehensive schools and areas where they manage to achieve just that - without "giving them a whole lot more money"

I don't know much about schools apart from my own, but if it's any use, here's a list of the schools that got a letter from Nick Gibb last year congratulating them on attainment/Ebacc/value added/improvement.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517128/Key_stage_4_list_of_schools_receiving_ministerial_congratulatory_letters_2015.xlsx

Here's the criteria for getting a letter, you have to be academically non-selective state-funded.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517122/Key_stage_4_congratulatory_letters_2015.pdf

gifted maths students get put in lessons with kids older.

As a maths academic I would be horrified by this - this is not in their interests at all.

There's no satisfying you is there, socks? You wanted some schools that weren't in London so I give you the top non-selective schools in the country and now you're moaning because they're not directly in your backyard!

So your county has grammar schools and you're wondering why there aren't more non-selective schools on that list?

I didn't realise when you said 'selection by postcode' you meant London and the entire Home Counties.

How can the grammars be so far away as to pose no threat and yet have your kids go to them?

Striped, if I give you a school with massively above national average PP, you'll moan because it's in London. If I give you one in your own county, you moan because it's not right next door and has below national average PP. So what you want is a school right next to you which has bang on national average PP.

Some schools on that list have FSM of over 50% - about 75% was one I saw. So clearly some poor people are managing to live in those areas and aren't being priced out of those amazing schools.

I'm not saying that everyone has a great school local to them. Clearly they don't. But the fact that you bus your kids out to a grammar is part of the problem, not the solution.

So you wouldn't send your child to a "good" school- it has to be "outstanding"? When people talk about "failing" schools on here they don't mean "not outstanding" do they?

Isn't that the whole point? You are arguing against comprehensives because you live in an area that is already distorted by the existence of grammar schools. The instant that you have grammar schools in an area, you are disadvantaging the remaining schools in the area, as the "gifted" at 11 are creamed off.

There is no such thing as a "comprehensive" in an area where some kids sit the 11 plus and go to grammar schools.

Would you be so "pro" grammar schools if your kids had had a bad day on the day they sat the 11 plus and not got in?

All of Scotland is comprehensive. We also have fixed catchments, so you know which secondary your children will go to - but you can submit placing requests to go to a different one. Indeed, ds is a placing request at his school (5 minutes further walk than the catchment one - still closer than many who are within catchment), mainly because of the rugby played at school. To date, his school has been able to accept all placing requests.

What is an 'affordable' 3-4 bed house?