Why are grammar schools elitist?

[cooky1257]

and the conclusion to this list of issues (of which I'm well aware, but which don't afflict all comprehensives by any means) is MOAR grammar schools?

Are you suggesting that the report fills parents of bright pupils with confidence that non selection is the best option for their child?

 

[Greg]

Are you suggesting that the report fills parents of bright pupils with confidence that non selection is the best option for their child?

This seems wrong-headed - the well documented "London example" suggests non-selective secondary schools can achieve the same kind of improvements that non-selective primary schools are making across the country.

I think you're wedded to grammar schools because your son had a good experience, but that isn't a good foundation for national education policy IMO.

Anyone who proposes selection must also propose exactly what is the plan for the the other pupils.

 

[cooky1257]

This seems wrong-headed - the well documented "London example" suggests non-selective secondary schools can achieve the same kind of improvements that primary schools are making across the country.

I think you're wedded to grammar schools because your son had a good experience, but that isn't a good foundation for national education policy IMO.

You are avoiding the question.
Including step children 3 went to local comps, 2 to grammar school. Are they all well rounded decent human beings? Yes. Did the choices I/we made for them and their education suit the individual child? Yes. Had my local comp a similar achievement record as the grammar schools I'd have taken that option(all other things considered).

I don't have an ideological dog in this fight and actually think we don't need an expansion of grammar schools, I think we need an improvement in comprehensives(again this is a generalisation as some are very very good).

I've also posted up thread that the findings of the London example are very important and the mind boggles at cuts to Surestart.