Difference in grammar schools vs high schools

Flyingwithwings What?! No finishing school
In Switzerland?

Why are your family worth £30 million FanDabbyfloozy!

The girls from both families are 'delightful' and a credit to their parents. DD 2 (yr 9) has been to both of the families home for parties sleepovers etc.

There are perfectly entitled to educate their children anyway they like, however it is a bit of picking the best out of each system and making it work for them.

One of the girls went to Primary until 9 then to a Prep school to 11 to make double sure of entry . She informed DD 2 she will be going to Boarding school for sixth form !

This is ideal because it means the children get to socialize and mix with the people who are going to be their 'accountants' solicitors and finance directors at grammar school !

The public school is the final 'micromanaged ' part of their education and comes in the sixth form giving them the 'edge' the connections and thus enabling them to use their privilege .

It is in effect of having your cake and eating it!
Lucky them... but three girls missing out on a grammar education because of it

However, there are apparently two families with girls at DDs school who are worth £ 30 million each . They think sending their girls to state schools is 'cool' and trendy.

Proof that you just can't win!

• Send your kids to an independent school = buying them a privileged education
• Send them to a state grammar school = stealing an education from someone more deserving

I give up!

My other grandfather, the one disabled by polio, was perhaps an example of the stark choices for disabled children growing up in a poor industrial community in the early years of last century. He had no great education, but got on by organising [bossing around] others in the building trade. Only other option was institutionalisation. Ended up as the head of his own building company. Made a lot of money, lost a lot of money [his transport varied from chauffeur driven Rolls to those odd pale blue invalid cars that were around in the 1970s].

You could say that he was 'aspirational' - but he was probably one of a very, very tiny minority of disabled businessmen in that era, and many others like him would simply have been consigned to institutions or died relatively young.

Equally, the rightful expectation of work out of the home for married women, which it would be unthinkable to withdraw, is a contributory factor to the need for a larger number of jobs to employ both male and female workforces. We may still bemoan the glass ceiling, but the career choices even for my mother, with an Oxbridge degree, were the civil service or teaching, and for her mother, no policeman's wife was allowed to work because it was seen as a potential route for corrupting / nobbling the officer concerned....

Is it romanticising to think that poorer people were more aspirational in general in the past?

Yes, I think this is romanticising. You and I are the products of the aspirational few. Many boys left education at an extremely young age to go into manual work - farming, factories, mining, trades, but also to under-employment and unemployment. I don't know whether the lack of such jobs, the raising of the school leaving age, and the academic requirements even for apprenticeships means that teenagers are at school longer but have no obvious source of decent employment and thus are disengaged? At a very harsh level, the existence of the welfare state means that choices are somewhat less stark for those who do not have employment - but I know that no civilised society would tolerate the harsh consequences of having no welfare state system...

Can'tkeep. Yes I agree with all you say but don't know the solution. We're from similar backgrounds. My paternal DGF worked on GWR and died at the Somme leaving a widow and 3 boys under 6. The first 2 left secondary school at 13 but my DF (no3) won a Grammar place. The teacher visited my Granny at home and asked if they could find a way to keep him on at school after 13 as he was very able and the brothers and agreed to let him not contribute and managed to keep him at school until 18.

He had an inspirational English teacher who wanted him to go to Cambridge but they couldn't afford that. However he got an office job in the civil service and never stopped educating himself so his life was transformed. I guess it was geographical mobility which made things change, when I was young you went to your local school, Grammar or Secondary Modern, no-one moved for catchment as far as I was aware in my small town.

Is it romanticising to think that poorer people were more aspirational in general in the past? Teachers I know find the biggest problem is crowd control with up to a third of the class not wanting to be at school and their parents not caring if they come or not. Is this disaffected segment of the population larger today? I'm sure education is the solution to many of our current ills and divisions. It's how is the problem.

(In the interests of fairness, I should point out that it could be because these children came from overseas in Y7 or later. However, I should imagine that in-year transfers of children arriving from overseas are relatively rare given that in-year places at the school are scarcely 'open to all comers')

Again continuing to browse schools mentioned on here, only 90 of Pates' 121 year 11s last year had KS2 SATs results and are included in their Progress8 measure.

It is likely that the remaining 30 came from private primaries - is it right that families able to buy private education in the primary years take 1/4 of the places in the grammar school? it certainly doesn't match the old-fashioned grammar positioning of 'schools for bright poor children'

I am a staunch 'anti grammar' poster on here, because i cannot support their current ethos, intake and effect on surrounding schools. I could be entirely persuaded to become a supporter if they focused on children from deprived backgrounds and if selection at 11+ could be by a process that could in no way be influenced by the quality of primary schooling or by any training for the assessment.

Lazy, I agree. My mum is a grammar school ex pupil, and it totally transformed her life. While my family now appears to be 'entrenched educated MC', my grandfather attended school only sporadically, as the eldest son of an invalid mother living in the most difficult of circumstances, and left unable to read fluently at 14. His subsequent studies at night school, and later at police college, left him with the profoundest respect for education, from which my mother benefited hugely via the grammar school system. While my other grandparents came from slightly less straitened circumstances - though my other grandfather was disadvantaged by his disability through polio - none would have been judged to be anything other than working people, maybe lower middle class in 1 case (and teased as being 'very posh indeed' as a result).

Cantkeep I'm sure that's true and it's such a shame as the original idea has been lost. Both my DF and DFIL went to Grammar schools from the deepest poverty (in 1920s/30s) and it transformed their lives and opportunities.

Even when I went in 1967 we were still a real mix and plenty of people qualified for free school uniform/meals/transport. I did for the latter except it was for 2 miles away and however slowly we walked/cycled/drove we lived 1.9 miles away!

My best friend went to Grammar from a children's home...

'Thirdly'

Grammar schools are not inhabited by the monetary elite !
However, there are some very wealthy parents who by sending their children to grammar school acquire a kind of 'inverse' snobbery while protecting their children's education !
For these type of parents it is a win win situation. Firstly they can claim to support state education secondly they can attain their children are brighter than their peers children who might have passed less 'competitive' private school exams. Secondly there are in a very controlled social environment with similar peers whether that be financial or academically.

However, there are apparently two families with girls at DDs school who are worth £ 30 million each . They think sending their girls to state schools is 'cool' and trendy.

The problem is these parents that have the means to provide a 'Grammar' school education for their girls privately are denying 3 other ' Local' girls the chance of a grammar school education !

Pates' Ofsted report, while not that up to date (2013) states "The pupil premium funding is used to make sure that those students who are eligible for free school meals are able to take part in activities outside the school."

The school I work in - primary - uses PP money to fund trips, after school and holiday activities for these children, as well as for in-school academic support.

Other schools in Cheltenham (on a roll here):

39/161
50/268

As i have said before, i think here is a strong argument that an equyal % of PP children should be assigned fairly to all schools. It would prevent both grammars and the leafiest comprehensives from benefitting from disproportionately privileged intakes, and spread the burden in terms of time and support needed by such children more equally.

Thus although there may be children from disadvantaged backgrounds - Pates Grammar school, cited often on here so it is top of my mind, had 2 in last year's year 11, out of 121

This is what I was referring to.

Of those 2 pupils I wonder how many school trips or after school activities they can afford to engage in.

61 out of 165! Sorry, that really would have been an unusually high percentage!

Lazy, I agree with your grammar vs private school comparison. I would say, though, that statistically, grammars have a smaller percentage of children from deprived backgrounds than the population as a whole. Thus although there may be children from disadvantaged backgrounds - Pates Grammar school, cited often on here so it is top of my mind, had 2 in last year's year 11, out of 121 - there are not as many as you would expect from the local population as a whole. Balcarras had 16 out of 210; the secondary nearest to Pates had 61 out of 65, an indication of the 'norm' in that locality.

Just RTFT and there was a massive difference in parental backgrounds and wealth between the Grammar/Direct Grant schools and the Independent in our experience. At my Grammar and my DD's school everyone was basically (at least) quite bright or had potential, from all sorts of backgrounds, which we liked, and at the public schools they attended in 6th form that was different with almost everyone comfortably off and adding the super-rich and the old money (who may have little money but might have the stately pile).

As a result I have 5 adult DCs who are as comfortable at my extended family's working class village hall knees ups as they are meeting a Duke or the Rockerfellers at a wedding (I kid you not) "I sat with some nice American people called Rockerfeller who some people were getting excited about" said DD4. Her friend who is trying to get into film production had a 'little black book ' and was noting people whereas DD was totally unfazed and had no idea why her friend was so excited or who they were. She's an NHS nurse so hardly going to be of use!

I like the fact that they're like that I think it's great and has made them less judgmental and less impressionable.

I suppose it depends where you think 'monied elite' starts! That is why I modified it to 'relatively monied elite', compared to the local average.

Genuinely wealthy people will tend to go to private schools. Those who are comfortably off, in a wholly selective system, will tend to be better-represented at the grammar. Those who are extremely deprived will tend to be more highly represented at the secondary modern. So the average parental income at a private school > average parental wealth at a grammar > average parental wealth at a comprehensive > average parental wealth at a secondary modern if all those schools serve an area with particular demographics.

However, regional varations being what they are, it is entirely possible that average wealth of a grammar family in a generally deprived area may be very similar to that of the average wealth of a comprehensive in the home counties! it's why you have to be careful that you are comparing apples with apples.

Oliversmum, I would query the 'monied elite'.

On the first page of this thread there is talk of extra curricular activities, which presumably cost money, exchange trips which cost money. Then buying your own books. Funding the school. Someone even mentioned how well the year 7 orchestra played. I presume that these pupils didn't learn these instruments in the school free of charge.

Friend was on income support and used to regularly get letters home which involved payments for various school trips etc non of which she could afford. Her ds was the only one from his primary who passed the 11+ who was raised on income support.

My DDs went to local Direct Grant girls' school (mix of state and private: not many left) which was very much like my old Grammar school and not at all like a public/boarding school. Poor facilities, emphasis on academic over art, drama, sport but excellent all round broad education and results which opened doors. We had to make an effort to provide locally the sport and creative things the school lacked.

They chose to move in 6th form to independent sector (one got a 50% scholarship) for the broader experience. It meant we only had one set of serious fees at a time. It's socially harder for boys to move at 16 though.

Sorry again, yes I had misinterpreted it. The £20,000 was a blip - it looks as if they raised:

£140k ro end December 2015
£200k to end December 2016
a further £113k+ to date in 2017, targeting £125k in the 8 months
target for 2017-18 is £150k

Balcarras by comparison:
2014/15: £15,000
2015/16: just under £40k
2016/17: Just over £50k

So Pates has a track record of raising around £150k per annum, Balcarras a significantly increasing trend but with £100k seeming significantly aspirational based on current rates.