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?

rice yes it is and it's a really narrow definition of gifted too. A really well funded vocational system linked to industry would be great. It works in Germany...

riceuten Sat 10-Sep-16 01:02:26 In all my discussions on this subject and the pros and cons with colleagues, relatives, and parents, I only ever get one response - "BECAUSE I WANT MY SON/DAUGHTER TO GO TO A GRAMMAR SCHOOL". No empirical data, no assessment of the relative effects. Purely selfish reasons.

I can understand people making the most or existing Grammar Schools, after all they aren't going to go away and someone is going to go to them.

However, I really can't understand people trying to justify there being more of them.

Comprehensives are just a mechanism for keeping the poor in their place.

91 % of pupils taking GCSEs at the nearest comprehensive school to me achieved at least 5 passes at A to C; 51% of all grades were A or A; 38 pupils achieved 10 or more grades at A or A. At A level, they achieved a 100% pass rate, with 40% A or A grade and 75% A*-B.

Could you tell me how that school is keeping the poor in their place?

zzzz Sat 10-Sep-16 01:37:12 Surely the decision as t o weather this is a good idea is down tot he personality of the child.

Exactly. I have a friend with 2 DCs in the same all girls selective school. They moved one the DCs at the beginning of yr 9 becasue things were not working out well.

Grammar schools will not be the best option for all highly ably children. Unfortunately, many do not realise that.

zzzzz Sat 10-Sep-16 01:37:12 I personally feel there is much to be gained by being surrounded by equally able people in school

Why would they need this for education but not full time employement or are you already reasearching companies that only employ former grammar DCs?

The best paid job I ever had (just before having DCs) - a US company. None of my colleagues were former Grammar students BTW. There were plenty of high profile industry experts though, mostly American.

zzzzz Sat 10-Sep-16 02:08:20 Children aren't adults so I can't see the same issues at work and I sincerely hope my children will be researching their own careers and deciding the environment they'd like to work in.

My nearest selective has GCSE selection at the end of yr 8. Children need to either understand the value of a diverse portfolio or know what field of work they are aiming for by then.

Judy I would bet every avetage or above child would have an average increase in a private school.

Money does talk in education in England

talk in peace - you said this convo would go round and round until someone posted some evidence. Did you see the link I posted on previous page to a meta review of the evidence saying on average setting is bad for attainment?

JudyCoolio You'll find that any comp you mention will be dismissed. I found an amazing school with 52% disadvantaged kids getting fantastic results. And a poster looked it up and said " It's a house price school" Because all those disadvantaged kids were obviously living in the £2 million pound houses rather than a B & B.

If you have children who are very able I do think it is better for them not to be the one bright child in the class. Similarly if you have a child who just misses grammar school, surely being the top of the top set would be a positive.

Am I the only one here thinking... huhhh????

I have a child who is very able, and she is unlikely to be the only bright child in her class. Because she will be going to a comprehensive, which will have all the bright children from the catchment area along with all the other children. Great schools don't magic up cleverness from thin air. I suppose in theory she would be with more clever children in a super-selective, but I think it would benefit her more to be able to go to a nearby school which would mean less travelling time so she could have more time to study and be able to go to orchestra and other out of school activities.

"If you have children who are very able I do think it is better for them not to be the one bright child in the class. Similarly if you have a child who just misses grammar school, surely being the top of the top set would be a positive."

This really does completely sum up the "believing three impossible things before breakfast" aspect of the selective school lobby!

Within the majority of comprehensive schools children are set by ability. A child who is v intelligent will therefore be placed in top sets and will study these subjects alongside other intelligent students. There is absolutely no need to create new schools which will only benefit this group. There are many other issues such as that the selection process would favour those dc with parents prepared to tutor them to get in etc etc. it also begs the question of why we would not prefer to spend money on the weakest and trying to help them raise their achievement instead. To me grammar schools are about providing well off parents with a non cost private school style education.

Being top of top set is a disaster for a MN bright kid, they need to be sent to a special school for actually bright kids to confirm just how bright they are. This has the added bonus that the mediocre kids left behind haven't got true genius to compare themselves to so they get the confidence boost of thinking they're bright because they're top of top set. We'll ignore the fact that they've been labelled a failure aged 11, their school is called 'St Pleb's School for Not Very Bright Kids', and that the top of the top set kid might actually be as bright as the MN kid but who has been put in the 'wrong' school because of a flawed system.

But if you would effortlessly get 10 A*s in a comprehensive, why would you suddenly have to work you ass of for them in a grammar school?

Grammar school doesn't make you feel bright,quite the reverse. There you're just average and reminded of the fact every day.

Isn't it smug to want for your kids to feel that they're not bright while knowing that actually they are, because of the school they got into.

Unlike the kids who are told they are not bright and are labelled as such by the school they are relegated to.

I'm only anti grammar though because of the system I see at play every day round here.

Life owes no-one, but if a child is born into a better off family, they have an advantage over a child that hasn't. Grammar schools are state schools, they should be equally accessible to all, not more accessible to those with more money.

I know many grammar school parents, all have had their children tutored, if only to make sure their child takes the tests from a level playing field, but there are parents with shocking attitudes, who refer to other schools and pupils with very derogatory terms, and this doesn't help my opinion of the school at all.

I live in a grammar school area and I absolutely want my dd to get into grammar school. But what I'd much prefer is for her to go to a true comprehensive like I did. That choice is denied to me in Kent. And soon it seems for everyone else too.