I am vehemently opposed to the grammar system, which we got involved with because it was the only practical school for my children to attend- closest faith school.
However, while it was a good school, it's not actually a patch on the good comprehensive my youngest (who didn't get in - hence my vehemence
) is going to now. There are far more opportunities available at the comprehensive. Here he stands out, despite the fact it is twice the size of the grammar, and I wish I had saved myself all the stress with my others, as I'm not sure it's actually worth it in the end.
The thing is, if GS were abolished, all areas would be comprehensive and there would be a fighting chance for those who currently don't get in, rather than this feeling that at 10 or 11 these children have lost out on opportunity for success. Also it would be far easier to standardise the 'league tables' so people can make proper judgement - of course a GS is going to have 99% A-C or whatever the current method of scoring is, while a comprehensive might only have 50-60%. But that doesn't make it a toxic school - it just caters for wide ranging ability.
A further argument to get rid of the lot is that they don't really do anything to promote social mobility any more - the obscene tutoring that goes on effectively takes it out of the realms of those without access to either private tuition or simply materials to practice on at home, so a bright kid from a deprived background really has no chance.
Yes there would still be the postcode lottery and the selection by faith etc etc, but it would still be a far fairer system. (eg in Scotland).
Bring on the revolution I say