V.A.T, in school fees

Spot on JessM. It seems that the grammar school idea isn't only opposed by all the groups you name but also, by the majority of tory MP's as well as all the Labour and Lib Dem MP's. I don't get the impression from radio phone ins that the majority of people think it's a good use of money, or will lead to greater social mobility.
Is there any chance of the idea being ditched do we think?

Because it's the PMs pet idea. Not an original one it's true. But the PM sailed into Downing St saying she was on the side of ordinary/strugging/justaboutmanaging people and grammar schools is her "flagship" policy. (What else? Remind me are the Tories doing for this undefined group of people?)
Greening has got a poisoned chalice, with teachers, heads, education experts etc all saying that there is no evidence that grammars improve social mobility. And most people are not daft. Not possible for grammars to have a wide benefit if they are selective is it? The logic does not stack up.
Schools in England are having serious budget cuts with teaching jobs being cut - and the Tories are setting money aside to create grammar schools.

Why is she in favour of grammar schools if she is the successful product of a comprehensive school herself?

4 million children are now living in poverty in ordinary working families.

Do you think that Greening realises how many grammar schools she will need to help all of them?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39291999

Free school meals will be cheaper.

I got about as far as discussing the weather and going to do some shopping

If at first you don't succeed...

What....again!

Ja daphne, das war es und ziemlich einfach, nichr wahr? I remember we didn't go into it in any real depth at school. Give me Kafka or Thomas Mann any day!

Good idea* Fitzy*, seeing as Germany is about to take over Europe!

Actually, maybe I will have another go at German some day - post retirement project maybe! But like you Jalima, I'll probably stop short of Goethe!

We didn't do German at my school but I think I can translate that daphnedill

I did do German at evening classes some years later but didn't progress as far as Goethe!

Brings back terrible memories of German classes!

Was it "Der Besuch der alten Dame"? I did it for A level and have recently had to re-read it,because one of my tutees has to study it. Strangely enough, I'm quite enjoying it.

All I can remember about Goethe is "Leck mich am Arsch", which is rude, but it must be OK, because it's a quote from "Götz von Berlichingen"and was considered acceptable for sixth formers.

He he Jen I did a degree in German and still don't understand Goethe and Schiller. At my comp we read a play by Durenmatt once - no idea how I managed to get a top grade?

I agree with your post rosesarered

A 'girl from the council estate' (of whom there were quite a number) became Head Girl, we were all a very mixed bunch from council estates, not-so-well-off private estates, the 'posh' end of town and outlying villages.

I remember MIL telling me that she was informed that BIL 'passed' the 11+ but then had a letter saying that there were not enough places at the grammar school. He went to the local (excellent) secondary modern, then did a 5 year apprenticeship, became an officer in the Navy, later ran his own business. A lot does depend on teachers who encourage, parental backup and self-motivation.

Am sure that there are other things we may agree on Maizie we mustn't fall into the trap of stereotyping people.

At last something we agree on, roses!

There was no snobbery or bullying at all that I remember in my all girls grammar school.There was, of course a mixture of social backgrounds, including a lot from council estates ( including myself and sister). It was thought ( still thought?) that girls do better within an all girls environment and they compete better ( than with boys in the class.)
I dislike the idea though of 11 year olds feeling failures, and many of my friends were really upset, and their parents too that they had to go to the sec mod.
Good comprehensives have to be the best option for all.

I recognise that, daphne, except I left school after the first year in the sixth form because I was having to take languages (sorry) and being the only one who never went on holiday, let alone to France and Germany, was left well behind in my understanding of Schiller and Goethe.
Four 11+ girls against the rest.

DD, all you say makes sense. I wasn't suggesting the need for gender balance was not a sensible idea, not least because boys mature later. Some credit in scoring is also given to younger kids whatever their gender as children of that age make demonstrable progress over a single year. All this is just grist to the mill in terms of what you say about the unfairness of basing so much on a single test at 11. Added to all this is the fact that kids can do much, much better in 11+ tests with coaching, despite the original intention of creating a coaching proof examination. Go to any of the remaining grammars and I have no doubt at all that they will be filled with kids that have been heavily coached by tutors and/or prep schools. State primary schools don't coach as far as I know. Indeed one Head I know told me they were not allowed to in his area.

Mine was very much like gilly's school. It was a direct grant grammar. 75% of the girls' parents paid fees and the other 25% didn't. The 11+ results were published in the local paper, so everybody knew who the free place girls were.

Bullying and snobbery were rife. Nearly all girls stayed to 18 and most of us went to university, although the ones who went to the most prestigious universities all had parents who were top professionals or academics. In my year (I don't know about other years), all the girls who went to Oxford or Cambridge had been fee paying and had encouragement from home. I don't remember anybody who lived on a council estate. I was probably one of the poorest, so the idea that grammar schools provided social mobility was nonsense as far as I was concerned.

I expect that the decision to make grammar schools single-sex was to do with the fact that most of the older ones were originally very old foundations, when only boys were educated beyond elementary level. Girls' schools didn't really exist before the late nineteenth century and were often founded by early feminists. Some of them still exist today as independents and grammar schools.

Boys and girls do mature at different ages,so it's probably reasonable to give boys a "handicap". I worked at one comprehensive school, where the policy was to make all sets gender-balanced. At first I objected, because it meant that top sets had boys who were less able than girls in the second set. However, the boys did tend to catch up by the age of 13 or thereabouts.

When I was 11, all the schools in town were single-sex.

My point, Fitzy was that selection for grammar school was really quite arbitary. It was not the equal opportunity for all Nirvana that people make it out to be.

I have to say that my girls grammar school wasn't in the least bit like gillybob's. I don't recall any blatant snobbery or bullying. However, looking back, I don't think it offered a particularly good education. It really squandered the talent it had available. Top 10 -15% of girls in the area yet at least half left at 16 and only a handful made it to Uni.

There was an attempt at keeping gender balance but that was to some extent at least a result of the fact so many grammars were single sex. I was at a mixed grammar and, in my year at least, there were quite a few more girls. I wonder whether the decision to make so many grammars single sex was actually driven by a wish to ensure gender balance without openly giving boys an advantage in competing for the same places?

When I passed my 11+ the boys and girls grammars were at opposite sides of the town so I assume each school took how ever many they had places for. I did quite well in years one and two in grammar but in year three (when it all seemed to move up a gear) I began to get left behind and couldn't cope with the extra work and subjects. Most of my peers came from a completely different background from me (to get this into prospective there were only 2 girls who came from my primary, I was one of them) and most had quite privileged lives, private tutors and professional parents. It was soon apparent that I was "not one of them" and used a mix of humour and humility to get me through. I was actually bullied by younger girls (shamefully) who looked down their noses at me. The teachers...... Well they walked around in their sweeping capes full of self importance and probably couldn't give a stuff about the skinny little kid from the council estate who was never going to amount to much anyway. How right they were.

Just before I post this I would like to say that there was one teacher who recognized my love of books and literature. She said that I could have been good at English if I could have had some help with grammar (my biggest failure) . Needless to say the "help" did not come. But I had a lot of respect for my English teacher.

I don't know Fitzy. Did you listen to Toby Young's programme about meritocracy? He raised some interesting questions about equality and the way society regards achievement.

I suggest that schools can only go so far in achieving equality. The solution (if there is one) is to address the inequality in home background and the aspirations of parents.

As an example, the Miliband brothers both went a state primary followed by a comprehensive, but when they went home, they sat round the dinner table with some of the most educated people in the world. Most children don't have that opportunity - and probably don't want it.