why don't we either have grammars everywhere or abolish them?

[katebee]

I know life isn't fair (!!) but it seems strange that a child should get a completely different state education system depending on where he/she is born in the UK.

Is it correct that grammar schools have a higher budget per child than comprehensives? Surely the same amount should be spent per child whatever state secondary school he/she is in? If there are reasons to keep grammars in some counties why aren't grammars brought back everywhere? If the grammar school system is flawed (due to some children maturing later academically or whatever) why are grammar schools still in existance?

I don't know all the arguments for or against grammars or have a particular opinion as to whether they are the best system (I have never lived in a county that has grammars).

I just think that we pay the same level of tax uk wide so why not have the same standard of education nationwide - preferably improved everywhere. I think the postcode lottery of the NHS is bonkers too.

looking forward to lots of objective replies!!

And figroll's last post.

There is no such thing as a genuinely comprehensive education. Children have different abilities and learn at different rates. The Comprehensive system teaches the same things in the same way to everyone. As a result the brightest children under achieve and the others are taught that the only valued outcome is accademic qualifications which lead to admission to university to take a degree.

This has lead to a large number of children going on to a tertiary education for which they are ill-suited and emerging with a degree which is largely valueless.

To me the ideal system would be one which celebrated different kinds of ability and valued them all equally (with complete freedom ot move between different types of school). Children who are accademically talented should focus on the accademic. Children who are talented in other ways should be encouraged to persue those talents. I would far prefer my child to be a great carpenter/plumber/electician etc than to spend years taking a useless degree which leads to nothing.

The carpenter has as much skill as the lawyer so a child who pursues such a skill should not in any sense by imbuded with a feeling of failure. If they are, we have failed as a society. Certainly the lawyer is no more valuable to society than the carpenter!

I agree 100% with your post GooseyLoosey.
I am very relieved that the poor attitude to secondary moderns didn't apply to mine combustiblelemon-we did Shakespeare and French in the top stream which was = to grammar school.Many of us did O'levels and then went onto grammar school.
Grammar schools may have produced writers, musicians etc but they also produced those who left at 16yrs.
I agree with figroll-we should be concentrating on good schools for all.
I manipulate the system by deliberately living in a town with good comprehensives-we have four and they are all good. Many people do the same, whether they buy a house in the 'right' area, coach for tests, go to church etc.

It always astounds me how people assume their kids are going to pass the 11+.

I used to live in Buckinghamshire, where it was the 12+ (I don't know if they have reverted to 11+). In my day (looooong ago!) there was no coaching, practising, etc etc.

Now people spend gazillions of pounds on houses there and say "We moved for the grammar schools". What terrible pressure on their dcs. Every year there must be whole legions of sudden anti-grammar school converts who realise that they've spent £800,000 on a shoebox and STILL got to fork out for private school fees.

I think we're all hypocrites. Everyone loves the idea of grammar schools until that fateful moment when you realise that your dcs aren't going to be attending one.

I like the idea of grammar schools. I'm under no illusion that all my children would have got a place at one. Perhaps none of them would. But at least it would have been a possibility.

Good post from Gooseyloosey.

I think the testing at 11 puts a lot of stress on children

I went to a good comprehensive and consider myself lucky to have done so. We were streamed for most subjects after the first year or so so certainly didn't have to go at the pace of the slowest in the class. I got good results and went on to University.

I think the ideal would be decent comprehensives in every area, then there would be no need for grammar schools at all (I know this will never happen by the way!)
I think once the grammars start taking the brightest kids the other local schools inevitably suffer.

If we valued all skills equally, children would not have to be tested at 11 as they would be able to choose which school they went to and there would be no pressure on them to go to the accademic based schools.

I can but dream!

Not a bad dream, though, Gooseyloosey.

Grammar school always had around 3 times the budget of secondary modern schools.

I'd be happier at the thought of section if there was parity of resources. I'd also be happier if kids going to secondary modern had a well designed appropriate curriculum with the right level of specialist staffing , finding and resources. But this was never the case.

I've seem disappointed parents on MN moaning about how unfair the grammar school system is , but only once their dc has failed the 11 plus. Had their kids passed, they wouldn't complain.

Unless we get a situation when we are just as happy with the result, pass or fail, because the standard of the two schools is identical (but different is curriculum) then the system will always stink.

We are in one of the counties that does not have grammar schools and I am happy about this. Admittedly, dc's are only in Year 3 and 6 atm, so too early for me to speak, but I have seen how being in mixed ability classes has been good for them so far.

Ds who is low ability has been stimulated to greater efforts and been helped by the presence of supportive brighter friends in his class.

Dd who is G&T has had to hone her communication skills to get on with her friends, and her report specifically mentions how she uses her skills to help others. As she is dreaming of becoming an author and as I see academic potential in her, I am very pleased that she is being forced to learn to communicate. I have known terribly bright academics who are hopeless at explaining clearly what they mean and it seems such a waste.

So far so good.

Agree with gooseyloosey - your post echos a conversation i was having with dp about this very subject the other day...think of something like a hospital building - all the different skills of all the different workers (plumbers, electricians, stonemasons etc) who went into creating the actual structure are as important to the GPs and nurses in terms of enabling them to do their jobs are as the medical workers are to the rest of society.

The status of these jobs needs to be raised through bringing back technical colleges or an equivalent and we need to stop thinking in terms of 'classes' of job as this discourages children (who may well be much more suited to building houses than 'media studies' or some such nonsense degree) from being inspired to join these worthy professions.

"The Comprehensive system teaches the same things in the same way to everyone."

No. It doesn't.

My sister lives in a London borough which does not have selection but is next door to one which does. This has allowed her to get her son into a selective school; she feels 'forced' into the decision because despite her LEA not having selection the reality is that all the bright kids get creamed off into the selective system next door or parents decide to go private. However, when it comes to her daughter's turn, it will be much more difficult as there are fewer 'selective' places available for girls. OUTRAGEOUS - if that is not blatant discrimination then I don't know what is

Actually Fallen, in my experience it does exactly that. Perhaps there are good teachers and good schools who do not, but equally there are many teachers who sit at the front of an un-setted class and say the same to all of them and require them to do the same work at the end.

Goosey, I agree, it drives me mad that children are judged on how many qualification's they have, not everyone should be judged in this way. It devalues the degree system and leads to disillusionment and debt later in life. There shouldn't be the snobbery around the formal route.
We have hideous three tier system here, it stinks. If you are rich you buy a house near the best school, you tutor for the grammers (some of the best in the UK) which blocks the way for children with potential who can't play the system.

We haven't done this one yet, have we?...

Well, OK GooseyLoosey. But not in my experience.

Or indeed my classroom.

The comprehensive system may not teach everyone in the same way but it is aiming for the same end, the school is judged on exam success.
I agree with your dream GooseyLoosey.
I will agree with grammar schools when someone can come up with an argument for the excellence of secondary moderns. When I came to sell my house the esate agent had 'in the grammar school catchment area' on the particulars, I wanted to sell my house so didn't point out that it could equally read 'in secondary modern catchment area'! It amuses me the way people make the assumption that their child will pass. The people who bought my house were local, they were very angry because their DS was very bright and had failed, they had appealed and even involved a solicitor, but he was at the secondary modern.
I remember years ago teaching a girl who moved to Buckinghamshire when she was about 9yrs old. She was very intelligent, confident and articulate, I would have said not only grammar school material but future Head Girl grammar school material, she was mature, popular and a born leader. We were astounded when a member of staff came in one morning and told us that she had failed 11+, we didn't think it possible!

I have a friend who is a twin, she passed and her sister failed-you couldn't say that one was cleverer than the other.

Scrummy mummy, I think I would be,
I think it can be very detrimental to sit in a class and not have a clue what is going on, it then becomes all too easy to switch off and become disillusioned or disruptive. The problem is a system where only academic acheivement matters, schools should foster creativity, athletic ability and a talent for music. The shouldn't be any shame in training to be a plumber rather than a doctor.
I suppose the underlying problem is that some kids are simply brighter than others. I don't think I'm any more biased by having 3 dcs at a grammar than someone whose 3 dcs were at a secondary modern or comprehensive.
I don't know if my DS2 will get into the grammar, if I had to hedge my bets right now I'd say he probably won't but he is the most musical and sporty out of all my children, I am equally proud when he wins a race or sings as I am when DD is that kid who wins 4 prizes at prize giving for the 3rd year running, believe me, I love her dearly but she's never going to win anything for her singing!

"I think it can be very detrimental to sit in a class and not have a clue what is going on"

Virtually all comprehensive schools have setting. The problem with the grammar/ Secondary moderns is that there was no easy way of allowing a child with was exceptionally gifted at one subject and useless at another to be catered for.

A bright dyslexic child might be bottome set material for English, but top set material for Maths.

A bright child who is bored can be distruptive as well.

Saw something amusing and apposite on 'Have I got News For You' a few months ago:

"The left wing want to abolish grammar schools because they entrench privilege. The right wing want to keep grammar schools because they entrench privilege".

I passed my 11+.
I would have been completely devastated had I failed.
My brother failed and went to a Sec Mod. It was shite. Total rubbish. He still feels let down.
At my girls grammar we though we were the dog's gonads. We were so up ourselves it wasn't funny.

I don't support grammar schools, I support properly run and managed comprehensives.

it does seem odd that some areas have them and others not.