merrymouse A substandard comprehensive is a reasonable argument for your own decision to send your child to a grammar school, in the absence of any real alternative, however, it is not an argument for the grammar school system.........The solution, however is not to have substandard schools.
I couldn't agree more, in theory. but how do you get to that utopian point? Several posters (I can't remember who, sorry) have described a situation where some of the comprehensives in their area actually out-perform the grammars. In areas such as those, I can't see that the grammars would retain any of the academic kudos which drives the scramble for places where we are.
What I don't understand is what makes the difference? We are not in an impoverished inner-city setting, but in a tourist magnet of a (small) city. I think ours are the only state grammars in the whole county (2 single sex). The county is fairly rural, with not a lot of cash (for services, I mean. Plenty of monied people around).
Because the city is small, the catchment of the substandard school(s) is the same as for the grammars, with the grammars also taking children from outside the area, if enough places available. Of course, for years you have had the opposite, downward spiral effect of large numbers of children (esp. boys) who don't pass, or even take, the 11+ being sent to schools out of area, thereby skewing the local schools' pupil profile, I suppose.