Does this damage children

... but threads always wander and develop into something else.

oh, I see the thread has moved on to the grammar school -v- comprehensive school debate.

Well, at least where we live there was Hobson's Choice, none of that angst.

The only damage being done to the child is the attitude of its parents, how will children cope with life as adults if this is the sort of parenting they are experiencing. What has happened to common sense !
And that is what this thread is all about!

DGD are very excited at the thought of Sports Day soon - especially the ice lollies!!

The difference is that now we do have good comprehensive schools. I was state educated in the 1940s/50s but my children, born in the early 1970s came to secondary school in the 1980s when a conservative government was drastically reducing spending on education.

When DC reached secondary school age, we looked at locals schools and discussed them with my sister, a teacher in the state sector in another part of the country. She was horrified by how poor the schools were in our expensive area of Berkshire and as a result we sent our children to private grammar schools. We made a conscious decision not to get them coached for the entry exam and they got in entirely on their own merits.

My eldest GC has reached secondary school age and it is so pleasing to see that secondary school standards have improved so much in the intervening decades that private education has never entered the frame. She had a choice of three local state schools and her parents said the standard of education in all three was excellent and their choice of schools had more to do with other practicalities like closeness and how easy the journey was and where her friends wanted to go than educational standards.

luzdoh, many thanks for your post in support of good comprehensive schools.
Failing the 11 plus is never a positive thing for any child. I had 8 primary schools, sat the 11 plus in school where everyone had been sitting 11 plus type tests for months. My previous school was awful, even by 1950's standards. There was no national curriculum. I discovered later that in another area, I;d have 'passed', my 'fail' was due to the number of GS places available for girls. Grand eh.
I've been fortunate. I was able to do A levels in my early 20's for very little cost. I went on to do a professional qualification subsidised and paid by the Home Office. I was in my late 20's by then, single parent etc. These days, my qualification would have left me about £60,000 in debt. The public services I subsequently worked for wouldn't have had me because I'd have had to continue working as a PA to pay the bills.
Some will argue GS's helped their children and I'm pleased about that. GS did not and will not help the majority. Good comprehensives will.

It is impossible to compare how children got into grammar schools before, say, the 1990s and today. In the past the 11+ was a school test like SATs and parents did not get involved, beyond helping their child with work and tests sent home from school. Now, many of the children applying to go to grammar school will be having out of school coaching from professionals specialising in this field of coaching.

Children whose parents cannot afford coaching will be at a disadvantage compared with these well coached well trained children. Some of the children will be from disadvantaged families where home life may not be as culturally enriched as other families so their chances of getting to grammar school will be hit by a double whammy: lack of coaching as well as the wider cultural background children from homes full of books whose parents can afford to take them on outings and holidays, however modest, will have.

I think I shall have to agree to disagree. I have no axes to grind, and the fact is my daughter did do well there. I had other schools in the area, including two other grammars and a comp. We chose the one that best for for her.

No matter what other's thoughts or experiences are, I am not going to change my mind.

We had the choice, we took it and she made the most of it. I cannot waste time thinking about if she could have done well at the comp.

I am happy with both my children's education.

There is a difference between a school and a set. And as far as individual cases are concerned, exceptions to everything can be found everywhere. It doesn't mean the whole idea is wrong. One succesful grammar school child does not make a good system.

rafichagran I was waiting for the reply from the people/person who was fine in/out of a Grammar School.

Yes, some people will be OK but you can't tell if they would have done even better in a Comprehensive School. I did not expect my youngest to get a better education than her sisters, but she did.

Having Grammar Schools is a very bad thing for all children and for society. Good Comprehensive Schools are best for all children, for the very academically high achievers and the non academic people who will be essential workers and members of society as adults. It is important that they grow up together and know and respect each other without the false idea of the elite going to Grammar Schools. A properly run Comprehensive can be a wonderful School. It enables the academic children to learn to talk to all people not just to other academically able people. This is important for them if they are going to go out into the world of work and meet people from all walks of life there.

Some children develop a bit later, especially those with Summer birthdays who are the youngest in their school year. Once deemed as having failed the 11+ they have that stamp on them as if on their forehead, for the rest of their lives.
At my primary school I started school and went through with my best friend "Em". On tests of spelling, "composition", history, geography, nature study (1950s) and Sums we were always about 2 marks apart, either one of us being higher. Her birthday being in August, she, a very shy girl, sat the 11+ one year ahead of me. She went to a Secondary School. She told me during the 11+ she was so scared she was shaking and couldn't even see properly!

At my Grammar school we were given our places in the whole year (over 100 pupils) in the school exams in the first three years. Year one I was 5th. Year 2; 4th, year 3; 3rd out of over 100. Do you think that my friend Em was less intelligent than the, let us say 95%, of pupils in my school year?

How fair do you think the 11+ can be? What lasting effect does it have on people's lives?

I would say it is evil and invidious.

As for saying the Grammar school was good for my daughter and the other school good for my son, that's just 2 children from a loving home. And you do not know how they would have done at a good Comprehensive. Remember, my daughter who would have gone to a Grammar school had we not moved, went to a Comprehensive and did better than her Grammar School sisters in terms of a broader and richer education and achieved the good A levels she required.

Over-all, having a dual system which is run by elitism is*bad for the majority* of children and ultimately not good for society.

The only damage being done to the child is the attitude of its parents, how will children cope with life as adults if this is the sort of parenting they are experiencing. What has happened to common sense !

Grammers schools are harmful? My daughter went to one, got excellent results and is the most well rounded person I know. She is a very respected writer/joutnalist, and gains respect wherever she goes for her excellant standards of work, and very pleasant and honest approach to people.
Yes the grammar does have its faults but I do not consider it harmful.

My Son did not go to a Gramner School and got the best education for him. He is also very happy how his life turned out.

I live in a Grammar School area, and if I had a child in education now I certainly would not dismiss a Grammar School Education if they were selected, but I would also look at the Comps and I would choose the best school to suit the child. Also some comps have a Grammar set.

Not everthing is all good and all bad. Education is the same, good and bad. That includes Grammar, faith and Comp schools.

trisher, my predictive text has also named you trashier, I have to be vigilant to stop it appearing.
I'm in total agreement about the GS/bringing back secondary moderns discussion. The argument that GS gave working class children the ability to 'escape and better themselves' died a long time ago.
We need excellent education for all our children. Schools in less affluent areas need more money, more resources and excellent teachers, who stay.

That's OK luzdoh actually I quite like 'trashier" wish I'd thought of it!!
Kent sounds bloody awful. There is enough difference between the comprehensives in poor areas and those in middle class ones withoout bringing back grammar schools. (and if somebody is going to tell me that a grammar school would sort this out. No it wouldn't. It would simply cream off some teachers and pupils, and create another division)

11-12 tears old? Years! Sorry, I think it's the predictive text again, she mumbled....

Trisher OH CRUMBS! Sorry! Blooming spell-corrector! this is most embarrassing! I did not call you the name above which I refuse to rewrite! Sorry I didn't see it to put it right! I know I wrote Trisher !

I'm soooo sorry! I hope you can see the funny side......

I hate spell-correcting predictive text....

trisher Hello trashier, I like your comments btw.
I noticed you said
"The days when we gave children in primary schools positions in class and published individual results for academic work are (thank goodness) long past."

Oh! Please let us pray this remains the case!!

If our government brings back grammar schools this will no longer be the case.

In Kent where they retained the selective system, sending approx. 10% of primary school children on to the Grammar Schools, the selection was done by ranking order. The class teacher or Head had to list the children in the final year in order of academic merit. The 11+ was given as a way of balancing the schools with each other. The children's school work may be asked to be seen if the Assessors were finding the decision difficult.

The effect of this? Parents started to put their children into the most formal Nursery School they could find and then the Infants' School that fed into the Junior School which achieved the highest number of Grammar School places. That school would spend considerable time drilling the children in the tests. At the school gate mothers compare the reading book their child is sent home with against that of the other children, from the age of 5 onwards....
At 11-12tears old for the rest of their lives, 90% of the population think they have "failed" and are second best whatever you say about it being simply a system of finding the most suitable school.

It is well known that the Grammar Schools do give a better education, they attract more highly qualified teachers, the children behave better because they know if they don't do their work etc they could lose their place in the school.

All 3 of my daughters were offered a grammar school place. The older two went ahead to the Grammar school in Kent. Then we moved and the youngest went to a Comprehensive School in a different area without grammar schools. She gained A levels as good as and better than her sisters and also had a far better all-round education, doing lots of extra courses and qualifications. She mentored some younger pupils in numeracy and reading and she took games in a local primary school where she gained a qualification to teach games to children. She is now a senior research pharmacist in a big teaching hospital.

Grammar Schools are harmful. Harmful to children and adults, to education, to Society, to commerce and to industry.

They were predicated on research by Sir Cyril Burt who was later found to have forged his data. So they were invented on a false premise.

They are the brain-child of elitist, vote-grabbing, authoritarian, cruel, unimaginative, uncaring, narrow-minded, mini-despots. Oh - I went to a Grammar school, so I do not have an axe to grind. I have vast experience, I was a Teacher and I did research into Educational Assessment. Then I became a Psychologist and of course I am a mother.

Sorry I should have made it clear, it was when my son was at school, very tired after a late night so must have written in the present tense.
Yes I dought that would happen now ,much is the pity. My Grandson who is reception eats very heathily, but loves a lolipop as a treat, and naughty Gran will often but it. My daughter knows and does not complain.

well, could be sugar-free ones

But they are worse imo

Oooh rafichagran the sugar police parents have obviously not reached your son's school yet (don't worry they will be on their way). Even when I was teaching we had parents who objected to a child being given a sweet as a reward, and as for a lollipop....well they were almost as bad as drugs.

Well said rafichagran

And I speak as someone who has never, and will never, win a running race

#twoleftfeet

Jalima, you have got the nail on the head, let's recognise the Children who have done well, and give a well done to those taking part. Every child at my son's school got a lollipop, and the next day the winners only, were given a certificate at assembly. Everyone happy.

My daughter who I said upthread was academic but not good at sports, realised from a young age she was not good at everything, she congratulated her friend who won, cheered people in her house on,and wanted Red house to win. She in my opinion learned alot. She was also pleased when she heard her little brother had won the bean bag race. This by the way did his confidence alot if good.

I agree with you about the parents, and the silly woman on the television, but really I have not seen it happen at my children's sports day, and I think there parents are in the minority.

Let's keep sports day, let's keep the competition, and let's celebrate talent, and most of all let's make sure all the children enjoy themselves, like my son did, because before he won all he wanted was the sticker and the lollipop.

I don't think my DSs ever told me when sports day was due, so I was surprised when other mums informed me that they had seen them performing well. When we were at secondary school, there were 'fun' races like the slow cycle race in which we had to ride as slowly as possible and the last to fall off was the winner. I never even managed to win that - I blamed my bike! However, I was second, with a partner, in a three-legged race which was the pinnacle of my athletics career. No pushy parents around then: my mum was probably on the other side of the field watching my sisters in the Primary events!

If there is to be a sports day in a primary school it should be a relaxed fun day with children given opportunities that suit them, winners acknowledged briefly with a sticker and all taking part receiving an award.
Which is exactly what I said happens at the DGD's school!!
Everyone gets a sticker - whether it be 1st, 2nd, 3rd or Well Done!
They are all in houses, the points are totted up and the scores given at the end, much excitement to find out which House won - learning teamwork as well.

With that in mind, I agree with trisher that sports day should be a fun occasion.
Sorry - but there is absolutely no-one on this thread who has disagreed with that - and that, I thought, was the whole point of the thread started by Anniebach!

As someone whose DC were at school in London, albeit years ago, I have experienced the types of 'pushy parents' standing with their stop-watches (yes, really) timing their children to make sure they were a second faster than last time and parents arguing with the referee in team sports and, along with everyone on here, think that behaviour has no place in school sports.

When my children were small and and complained that 'life's not fair' I always used to respond that they were correct and I was glad that they already understood that fact. Fast forward thirty years and I hear my daughter responding to her own children in the same way.