A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask

[moved]

If we are "all the same" then why do some three year old children read when others are still not talking? I am using the example with children who come from interested parents and who are provided with books, read to and the parents have broadly similar ambitions for their children.

[workhard]

Director raised some important questions.

The Scott Trust has published useful research on which type of kids benefit most from grammar schools. If I recollect accurately, it is not those who are not that accomplished and it is not those who are exceptionally talented academically. It is precisely those in between who benefit most from the grammars' approach. In other words, most of those who get in to those grammar schools.

Regarding any medical issues, I work in Special Needs and some grammar schools will be more supportive than some comprehensives: it just depends on their resourcing and, frankly, their particular ethos.

WH

[mike1880]

I don't think anyone would reasonably doubt that people tend to do things they're good at, and tend to become good at things they do.

Without going so far as to actually read a book that holds no interest (but I've skimmed to reviews on Amazon so that's basically the same thing really ) I understand Syed's third critical factor is opportunity, which is perhaps by far the most interesting aspect from the point of view of grammar school entry and 11+ testing. At which point I shall step aside in case Amber wishes to comment...

Mike

[Rob Clark]

As regular posters will know, this is a hobbyhorse of mine as I work in sport so will confine myself to saying success in sport is a combination of talent and application.

Plenty of top juniors never make it to senior level because they (or their parents) don’t wish to dedicate themselves to a single objective. Equally, though, the idea that we are all the same and anybody could succeed if they applied themselves is rubbish. You can make it to a certain level through sheer hard work but to play international sport you have to have the right mental and physical make-up and no technical glitches in your game.

I’m not qualified to say whether the same criteria apply to education.

[tiredmum]

I do know of children in grammar with low CAT scores for English. The grammars usually provide extra help for those who need it. .

moved- what would you say a low CAT score is?

[moved]

I've sent a pm Tiredmum

[Milla]

Hi, The Director. Honest, I don't think a parent on here undertakes any of this lightly. No-one signs up to this stress for fun. If we felt that the local comprehensive "served our children's needs" adequately then that is the route we would pursue.God knows life would be easier. Few people would do any of this on a snobby whim. I think that the thing one is more afraid to brook is why sacrifice one's child to a system, the comprehensive one, which at worst demands so litle from them or at best plays a frantic Count the GCSE game by drip feeding their students to gather qualifications almost term by term (the fast trackers). GSs frequently trust their children's intelligence by swelling the syllabus with more than mere exam fodder work. It's comprehensives that few criticise on here. Everyone tries to be respectful of the choices of others, particularly if those choices are Hobson's.

[TheDirector]

Just trying to get an idea of what different people think about grammar v comprehensive. For me, I just think Grammar Schools are a safer bet in terms of teachers (including their morale) and probably behaviour. At the end of the day, your child will be alongside other parents who have made a decision to support their children in this way. I went to my local comprehensive which was very good and never viewed a grammar school or a private school until 18 months ago. No axe to ground either way, just trying to get the views of others so that I can constantly reevaluate my judgement. None of this is easy, particularly when you are UNSURE what school best suits your child.

[Milla]

and you'll never know until you've made the (wrong?) decision.
All this guff about "choice" doesn't help, when the parameters for that choice shift and change and are predicated upon (possibly) silly tests.
Snobbish, possibly, but a greater chance of good behaviour (no guarantee either way, i know, I know) was attractive to me.
And schools aren't the be all and end all. Just the thing we supposedly have in our gift at key junctions. While we're pretending to be grown ups.

[yoyo123]

For me, I just think Grammar Schools are a safer bet in terms of teachers (including their morale) and probably behaviour.

not necessarily..
my personal opinion, but I know of a few grammar school teachers who allow children to coast and high school teachers who are really good at engaging the children and drawing out the best from them.

have also seen some appalling behaviour from grammar children.