Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

I thought this thread had been put to bed long ago. DC at SS grammars do better than their peers in comprehensives, the DC in High Schools (in Kent) do slightly worse. However there is (or perhaps more accurately was) a problem of differentiation at the top of the grading system.

the secondary moderns offer the same qualifications and the same essential curriculum as the grammars, and get roughly the same results as middle and bottom sets in comprehensive schools.

While the grammars get roughly the same results as top sets / streams in comprehensives (studies show that Kent overall does no better than comparable non- grammar system counties).

Which kind of points to the whole thing being pointless academically, while creating needless division.

Also how does it serve the literary genius who needs really slow paced learning in maths? Or the maths whizz who cannot put the simplest essay together? Where setting in a comprehensive supports both.

The issue isn't the grammar schools, it's the secondary moderns.

When they set up the tripartite system, they thought that about 30% of children would need or be able to complete a basic academic education in 5 years. We can see from kids GCSE achievements, that well over 50% of children can complete a basic academic education in five years, and frankly the modern economy needs that better educated workforce.

So, in complete grammar areas like Bucks and Kent the secondary moderns offer the same qualifications and the same essential curriculum as the grammars, and get roughly the same results as middle and bottom sets in comprehensive schools. But they have to start with 11 year olds who have been made to feel like failures.

I don't think you can generalise at any school. My twins went to a government primary and then different grammars which were so different we pulled our traumatised child out of her exam sweat shop and moved her to private. Of all my children's schools its my son's grammar I recommend the most and my daughter's old grammar I say to avoid. I prefer my son's grammar to my daughters £22k a year private.

It's a false herringbone.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression @Floofyduffypuddy, so I'm not sure what you mean or to which point this refers to.

Children are effectively locked out of the curriculum from reception if they need to learn in a slightly different way or have Sen.

Yes. It seems so unfair. That's why early diagnosis helps.

I think it's more about the child and what environment is right for them.

Even in a special provison school there will be streaming. .

Saying DC would do well in Fagin's pick pocketing shop....maybe but we only get one life. School should be a positive experience and a safe place

I know people who have been to grammar , super bright but with no social skills or confidence or get up and go . Yes going to grammar is an advantage but it's not everything . Confidence , charisma and being liked by people gets you a long way as you are forgiven your faults and doors open for you .

@TeenDivided there’s no way that an average MC child would get a place at my DS’ grammar, tutored or not. Also, there’s no pass mark. Top 120 scores get a place.

@RampantIvy

It's a false herringbone.

Children are effectively locked out of the curriculum from reception if they need to learn in a slightly different way or have Sen.

That is the heart of the so called selection process.
But I guess it's a great political sound bite.

True @TeenDivided, so not as damaging overall.

@LeCarre .. it's an age old problem of how to motivate dx who don't want to be educated!

A lot of disengaged DC will actually have very valid reasons, usually Sen that's undetected and unsupported.

Their self esteem and interest in school is already crushed by the time they leave primary and probably with "label's".
They know very well at a comp that they are struggling to engage and with streams in school it already shows them are they top or bottom set.

That has far far more bearing on them day to day than what's happening in other schools!!

It's all absolute nonsense.

Tiffin is super selective isn't it?
Super selective areas are less of an issue as they only take a few pupils from each remaining school.
The issue is more with Kent / Bucks which are still fully selective.

No something like separate sciences or 2 MFL is likely to be primarily about ability.

Just because people don't pass the 11+ doesn't mean they don't want to learn.
But languages are hard (due to our rubbish funding/teaching at primary) and 3 separate sciences has massive content, quite a lot of which is conceptually hard.

Why should an average MC tutored child get a place at grammar due to having organised well off parents, above a brighter poorer child whose parents couldn't afford tutoring?

Exactly faff.

You may get the next Shakespeare's at secondary Modern who didn't get into grammar purely on maths skills.

I think it's a bit of blame game.

Not necessarily. I used to live in a grammar area (Tiffin) and know several pupils who didn't get in despite being super bright. The reason? No coaching. They went on to ace their GCSES and beyond. I personally know one who went to Cambridge, another to Bristol. So bright kids do go to comps. And often parents may disagree with grammar and have faith their children will be ok.

@TeenDivided

Then the school needs to create the environment of aspirations to get dc to take an interest in mfl or science.

It's all very latent, inactive, waiting for others to do something!

@sunshine7981 .. what you are describing there is parental influence coming through the DC.

@Floofyduffypuddy In grammar school areas it is more than the top 10%, more like 20%+.So you have taken away the whole of the top set effectively.

This can mean that the remaining school doesn't have sufficient pupil of interest/ability to run things like single sciences or 2 MFLs at GCSE, so the few children who could have done them miss out.
Similarly the very good mathematician who is also dyslexic can't make it to the grammar but finds few peers amongst top set maths.
Before you get to the tutoring pressure and marking children as failures at 10.

Good comprehensives can be good for all levels. If your comp isn't good that is failure of leadership not of the comp system per se.

I've never understood the argument that secondary Moderns are bad become their top 10 have been taken away.

Why is one.school purportedly bad just because of the existent of another? It doesn't make sense.

Most comps stream as well so where is this amazing egalitarian experience of mixing the least able pupils with the most able?

I wish the focus around grammar would move away and look at what's wrong with comps /secondary Moderns.

We are not in a grammar area but near one.
Our comps are supposed to be outstanding and yet the tops sets are sparse.
They're still failing on great destinations.

They also seem to lack general aim and purpose and having had a child in that top set I know she was only good because she's of sound ability not because the school properly supported her and I knew student's with ehcp also failed in the lower sets..

The only ones it's seemed to suit were middle ability DC who had some movements up or down in sets.

I can't see anything wrong with having more grammar that support children who need a faster pace and more schools that specialise in Sen to support them.

Being mixed does nothing for anyone.
And my observations are people are clannish and stick to what and who they already know!

But he will be bored and unhappy without a peer group or does that not matter either?

A good comprehensive school will set children. DD’s school set for English and maths from year 7, so they were with other children of similar ability. It makes complete sense to do this.

@TizerorFizz makes some valid points. I feel that some of the parents on here of DC who went to grammar school are looking down from their ivory towers and only seeing the negatives of secondary modern/comprehensive schools. We don’t have grammar schools round here. DD aced her GCSEs and A levels and went on to achieve a first class degree in a STEM subject at an RG university – all from a comprehensive education.

a lot of people who object to grammar schools do so not because grammar schools aren't good, but because of the impact of grammar schools on those children who don't get in.

This hits the nail on the head beautifully @greatestsnowonearth.

This is very accurate.

I live in a grammar school area. The grammar schools take the brightest kids (AND the kids who aren’t particularly bright but who have aspirational parents with the time and energy to coach them endlessly), the faith school takes the religious families, the private schools obviously take the most well off children…

And so if you are a non-religious hardworking quiet child without lots of money who didn’t quite pass the grammar exam, you find yourself in the school all the best teachers avoid, where all of the behavioural problem children are funnelled, plus all the other children are from families which are not rich / aspirational / religious / naturally bright.

The grammar area ‘comprehensive’ is not comprehensive, it is a place where quiet hard working children get beaten up, and I’d rather move house than let my child go there 😔

The grammar schools are wonderful for children who think fast and work hard, and it lets them focus without distraction from slower/disruptive learners. As someone who was picked on at school for getting As, I have a lot of sympathy with the need for grammar schools. But it has a nasty effect on the school that takes the bottom of the pile.

And the worst bit is that those children know that they’re at the bottom of the pile. 😭

As others have answered, @Delectable, the ban on the creation of new grammars stems from the 1960s with the move to form comprehensive schools out of the previous mix of grammars and secondary moderns; many LEAs carried through the process swiftly (fully in Wales) but some dragged their heels; hence today's geographically messy outcome (in England).

Whilst 'Yes Minster' is parody, it is actually a very good insight into the dysfunctional working of government policy. I rewatch the episodes (and re-read the accompanying books) at regular intervals because many episodes are relevant to today's politics!

@thing47 makes the key point on this thread; academic and non-academic development is not linear - whether at school or in the workplace. Better to have processes that allow for that and not on 'one shot' opportunities, like the 11+.

To pick up @RampantIvy's point about the Progress 8 scores of grammars vs comprehensives, I have not seen large scale studies on this. However, in my part of the country, a fair number of the best performing comprehensive (all with mixed rather than 'leafy' catchments) have better Progress 8 scores than the nearest grammars schools (these being sufficiently distant not to impact on school selection behaviour by local parents in our area).

This suggests that (some) grammars take in bright cohorts but add little academic value. It probably means natural academic progression has been 'pulled forward' from Y7-9 into Y4-6 and that seems to rely heavily on access to private tutoring, as attested by the threads concerning 11+ strategising and anguish that populate Mumsnet. You could argue this is not good use of limited public money.

By contrast, a well-run comprehensive streams students and allows for movement up and down sets across subjects. My DC, all late-bloomers academically, benefitted from this. Obviously comprehensives in large conurbations can be situated in areas with challenges socially and economically but resource targeting (which already happens to a limited extent) might be a better and fairer way of addressing the issue rather than creating (or indeed persisting with) grammars.

Finally (long post this morning, I know!), @TizerorFizz makes some interesting suggestions that grammars might have been 'captured' by the middle classes in a way not envisaged back in the 1950s. Again, I have not seen large scale analysis on this but David Kynaston's excellent books on post-War Britain are rich in social data and his analysis suggests that, sadly, working class children (especially working class girls) were most definitely 'crowded out' of the grammar system.

Mumski yes see what you mean. My son fortunately has passed the Kent test for September- I visited 5 secondary moderns and a faith secondary modern (12 miles away) was indeed our only decent option if he hadn't passed.

@starpatch I think you will find that the house price inflation near good schools problem happens also in non grammar areas and indeed extends to comprehensives as well as primaries so the good schools are still out of reach if you can't afford the house prices.

In our area it is all about religion as the good secondaries are all faith based so you get families suddenly attending church a couple of years before school applications need to be made. We are the wrong religion for all good faith schools near us and so the grammar was the only good option.

I know a lot of parents want grammar schools. However those parents in non grammar areas if you have a decent comprehensive in your area that streams you are well off. I am in East Kent the secondary moderns don't stream at all, the better ones have 20% of children gaining decent grades in english and maths. Its all decided on one test at age 10 as others say, if they don't pass their chance of getting good GCSEs plummets its an awful system. It also really favours those from middle class backgrounds who can tutor and buy a house near a good primary school- my experience of grammars is they just entrench privilege.