V.A.T, in school fees

me neither!

I will say no more

Except that I didn't enjoy school dinners

That was to Maizie

I made a few pertinent observations on the Grammar school thread the last time round, really can't be bothered to start it all again.

The secondary moderns provided a very poor standard of secondary education
I cannot agree with that as the local single sex secondary modern schools in the town where I grew up were excellent; some of my friends went to them and they had good results and went on to Technical College or to do good apprenticeships.
And the dinners were better

Sorry to wander off the OP again.

They were all wearing cardigans and pearls, and court shoes
I had a good giggle at that Lillie, the thought of grammar school girls wearing cardigans and pearls. Many came from poor backgrounds or 'just about managing' homes.

I am not pro selective education particularly, but I hope that comprehensives are encouraging and teaching to a higher standard than some did a few years ago.

Sorry, still wandering off the thread but I wanted to explain why I asked that question.

To get back to the point - the dinners were apparently better at the girls' Secondary Modern than they were at the High school.
Did we pay for them in those days? I can't remember, but no-one took a packed lunch and only about two girls went home for lunch and had to have written permission.

Nothing like making a thoughtful contribution to the discussion, roses

We seem to have wandered a long way from the OP, and in fact had this thread about Grammar Schools just about six months ago.Is this what getting older means?

Teachers and academics I follow on twitter have big disagreements about many aspects of practice and pedagogy (well, mostly the teachers do) but they are unanimous in opposing the introduction of more grammar schools. It's not political bias either as they cover a whole range of political beliefs.

Whitewave the process certainly isn't totally arbitrary, but it's also a long way short of perfect. Moreover there are children that undoubtedly benefit from going to a grammar. But in terms of overall benefit, comprehensive education with appropriate setting/streaming must be best.

To my mind the choice of child that goes to a Grammer school is totally arbitray.

There are artificial lines which make no educational sense whatsoever drawn up that separates children at 11 or 12 which state that " you are good enough and you aren't"
Quite wrong in my opinion. In fact you could argue that if more resources and better qualified teachers go into grammars, than those children that would benefit most are those that are struggling. Children that find academia a doddle will survive and attain regardless of the regime.

Mazie we agree on your main point- state education is not a bad thing, and in my view it's much better now than when I was at school, and among other things I put that down to the expansion of comprehensive education.

Well they would say that wouldn't they. Petra.
How about the majority whose kids didn't get in?

And what about the thousands in Southend whose children don't go to a grammar? Is their education meeting their needs? How does it compare with money per pupil? What are they achieving at the end of their school life. What are the grammar school children contributing to society at the end of their school life?

There are far too many questions over such a system for my liking.

Rigby one other way is to compare results on leaving school and then see how those whose school results imply parity measure up against each other on a level playing field at university. Mazie says those from the state comps. outperform. That doesn't surprise me at all. I would be astonished if it were not the case. Hence the age old debate about the advantages of private education and the need to level things up (or down?).

I was also dragged along to the NCDS (survey 1958 - present) at regular intervals and was always told by psychologists that my potential outshone my attainment. Why? Because I wasn't be stretched at the comp, because there was no differentiation in the teaching and because half the class were disinterested or worse still, disrespectful and disruptive.

The good side, however, was that I learnt more about real life at the comp than I would ever have done at a grammar/private school.

Thanks, Fitzy. That makes it clearer:-)
I actually think there are at least two possible explanations.
1) The comp. child is, indeed, brighter and all that private education has done is push their pupil beyond what is actually achievable by them without continual support
2) Is similar but slightly different. That the privately educated child is unable to achieve without continual support; i.e without being pushed and spoonfed..

But this is a bit of a diversion from the point I was trying to make, which was that state education is not the Bad Thing which seems to be the predominant assumption on this thread. I was using the example of the superior performance of state over private pupils, in this instance, to illustrate my point.

hardly anyone is pro grammar schools these days
I think the parents of the 4,500 plus pupils who go to the 4 grammar schools here in Southend might disagree with that statement.

Maizie I agree with you - the only way to compare schools in any meaningful sense in terms of exam results ( and there's a whole other discussion to have about what else different types of schools offer) is to have a measure of their ability when they started the school. As you say, grammar schools are incredibly selective and of course select across a population from a large area and not just the la in which they are located. And independent schools are incredibly diverse - some again highly selective, others basically just taking anyone whose parents can afford the fees.

You're right Maizie that we will never know how a child might have fared at a different school, so we usually base what we do know from our own experience.

I think I understand what Fitzy means. As a child coming from a London comp where the education was average and the expectations somewhat lower, I sailed through exams, got offered unconditional offers at universities and ended up with a better degree than many of the privatel/ grammar school educated children.
A bright child will do well anywhere, anyway.

I said I agreed with you up to a point. State grammar don't seem to particularly outperform what one would expect given their intake. But a disproportionate number of private schools have quite stunning results.

Mazie I agree with what you say up to a point. I also agree that the latter part of my post could have been clearer! What I meant was, if two kids from different schools (an independent and a comp) get the same A level grades, go onto the same uni, And the comp kid then does better, that indicates that the comp kid is the brighter and it was only the advantage of going to the (better performing) independent school that allowed the independent kid to get equal A level grades.

Exactly what I meant Fitzy54 in my own experience.
I'm glad that someone understands what Fitzy is trying to say. I wonder if you could explain it to me because I'm baffled.

Fitzy
But, on average, kids will do better in public exams if they attend a grammar...
This is a meaningless statement as we have no idea how individuals who attend grammar schools would have fared had they attended a state comprehensive.
Of course, grammar school results are better over all than comprehensives because they select only the children who are going to achieve good results. It's little to do with the quality of the teaching. In fact, it is entirely possible that, given their intake, some grammar schools may not be achieving the results they should be because they are coasting on the fact that their pupils are very intelligent and are easy to teach.
I'm afraid I cannot fathom the rest of your post.

Exactly what I meant Fitzy54 in my own experience.

If I only have the pieces for Thomas the Tank Engine available to me, parents paying £1000s a term cannot expect me to make Henry the Helicopter. You can't buy a brain!