Just wanted to say that I can't understand why its okay to select children on the basis of sporting prowess, language ability, and all the other so called "specialist school" criteria, but when we select on the academic ability there is an outcry of unfairness. My child isn't very sporting, but I wouldn't start up a campaing to get rid of specialist sports colleges on this basis. There are terrible double standards here. Ok if my child doesn't get into grammar I will be upset, but I will need to learn to live with this. In the same way that if he doesn't get into Oxford, I will have to learn to live with it. Rejection comes in many forms through life and we need to accept it. It may be that I failed to get an A* by only one point, but that one point was the one point that I needed to get and I have to accept this. Am I making sense here? My message is that we need to accept that some people are cleverer than others in the same way that some are better at Art than others. People want their children to go to grammar and see it as unfair that their children don't get in. But if they let everyone in they would be comprehensive.
Agree wholeheartedly! Little bit like the parents who want the sign the petitions to get rid of grammars - some of them I suspect have children who were not successful in the 11+ and are now on a crusade to get rid of them because the system didn't work for them! It would be interesting to do a survey on how many of these anti-grammar people have children that tried the 11+ - I bet the percentage would be high. My opinion is why shouldn'y my children, if they are academically able, be denied the chance of a grammar school education. We are a working class family and we are very proud of what our children have achieved - the grammar system is open to everyone unlike the private sector.