Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

Hi TizerorFizz

I’m sure they do. I’m thinking of people who send their children to independent day schools rather than famous private schools. Not having the choice of a grammar school has not made those people send their children to the nearest comprehensive - they’ve just opted out of state education altogether.

@CruCru
I don’t think you realise that parents choose private when grammars are available. Me for one. DD passed with a very high mark but we wanted something different from the schools on offer. Single sex or co ed grammar. It was personal preference like everyone else. However in the south of the county in particular there are DC who could go to grammars but don’t. We have some highly successful preps which feed major private schools.

@Mumski45
I’m well aware girls do better at single sex and mine went to one. Boys seem to do pretty well at our boys grammars here! People fall over themselves to get boys into DCG at Amersham. I would not think anyone there thinks their boys would do better at co ed. there’s one just down the road in Chesham but DCG is usually seen as the most sought after school.

If a school has poor discipline then often SLT are to blame. Often in a truly shocking school (which is your description) it’s u likely to be full of the best staff. I have never been into a school I would say was shocking. If you think teachers and SLT set the ethos and are responsible for behaviour standards, it is difficult to see how they are doing a good job. They might elsewhere of course.

Here few teachers go from secondary to grammar. It’s interesting that teachers stay in their type of school.

@CruCru I agree that there is a significant demand for grammar schools where they exist, particularly in areas where there are few grammar schools and no full grammar system. However this demand for individual schools does not outweigh the dislike of a system which allocates kids to what is perceived to be a 'better' school at age 11 when many kids are not ready for the test. Teachers in particular are generally not in favour of the grammar system as what they achieve for individuals does not improve the outcomes for everyone.

@TizerorFizz
Of course most parents want their children to do well. Children with involved parents who don't have the resources to escape the worst schools by moving into more affluent areas can go a long way to improving their educational achievement.

How on earth did you deduce that "You have a very low opinion of other peoples DC, the parents themselves and the teachers" as it is most definitely not true. I have said nothing at all about teachers and actually have a very high opinion of them. I feel particularly for those in the school I am referring to as they have an impossible job. I may have a low opinion of some individual parents and their lack of interest in their children's behaviour and education but I don't think you are right to make such a sweeping generalisation.

I think you are missing my points which are

1. What is right for individuals is not always right for the majority. Eg girls do better in single sex education but boys generally do better in Co-Ed. Some high achievers do better in an environment where they have stimulation, competition and lack of distractions whereas in comprehensives the middle cohort can be better incentivised by having the ability to mix and learn from higher achievers. One size does not fit all.
2. Parental involvement is a significant factor in the success of most children and in the behaviour of children in the school environment.

I’m not sure that I agree with you there, TizerorFizz. I think that many people who choose private school for secondary might not if they also had access to a grammar school.

@thing47
In schools, as defined by government stats, there are high achievers, middle achievers and low achievers. If you know anything about education at all, you must know this! Therefore no secondary modern in Bucks is bereft of high achievers. They obviously have the majority of middle achievers and some low achievers are in them and some in special schools. If is therefore wholly wrong and somewhat offensive to say 75% of DC are lower achievers in the secondary schools. Very many parents would not agree with that. In some areas of Bucks it’s nearer 80% in the secondary moderns. So please be accurate. High achievers can do well in secondary moderns.

@TeenPlusCat

I agree. Few comps are single sex. My DDs thrived at single sex. Some parents see their value. Single sex grammars here are sought after. A few are co Ed and serve one town only and are very old, eg RLS Buckingham and WBS at Marlow. Other co Ed’s are Burnham, SHF Aylesbury and Chesham. 8 are single sex but paired. Parents have views on what they prefer and choose but Buckingham parents get co Ed and there no other choice.

@Mumski45
I’m sure most parents want DC to do well but plenty don’t have the resources to escape from the worst schools. You have a very low opinion of other peoples DC, the parents themselves and the teachers.

@CruCru
The regulations around admissions for each school prescribes how each school determines who should get in. The “restriction” was the Labour government who got rid of the grammars. They are not universally popular. They won’t return in any number.,

A lot of grammars appear to be single sex? Certainly more than comps? (What proportion of comps are single sex?)

I wonder whether if they were made mixed sex then
a) kids wouldn't have to travel so far to get to their nearest
b) some demand might drop off from people who want them more because they are single sex than for the educationally selective nature?

Do we have another inequality, whereby bright girls get to have single sex education but other girls don't? (iirc 'studies' show girls do better in single sex, whereas boy do better in mixed).

I think what strikes me about grammars is that there are people who really, really want them. They are prepared to move or to have their children catch a train or bus to get to one, even if it is in another county. If there is such demand, it's weird to restrict them only to certain counties.

I remember when Theresa May was PM there was a proposal to allow councils to make some schools in their borough or county grammar schools. Except Labour said Absolutely not. It didn't happen in the end but, if it had, only those living in areas with a Conservative council would have had new grammar schools.

@TizerorFizz yes absolutely you could call me hypocritical however I didn't say it was OK for me and not for others. I have to do the best for my kids in a system not of my choosing. I am not going to send my kids to a poorly performing school which does have a reputation for shocking behaviour which impedes the ability of other kids to achieve their potential. Some parents pay to avoid these schools, others suddenly become 'religious' for a couple of years, I chose the selective route. All of which should be unnecessary but it comes back to my point that what is right for an individual working in an existing system is not right for the majority. Most motivated parents will try to find a way to 'play the system' to do the best for their own kids hence the high performing schools are popular.

Of course the kids in those schools are disadvantaged by the system, I'm not denying that. But what also disadvantages them can be parents who are not motivated to support them enough either by academic expectations or managing behaviour by supporting the schools behaviour management.

There is shocking behaviour in all schools including the grammar which my DS attend. The difference is the magnitude of it and how it is dealt with. We can't deny that these schools exist and should be investing what we can to improve them. However the timeline for such improvement would not work for my DC.

Masters don’t necessarily go to people who are the most all round intelligent.
Sure, but nor do grammar school places.

They are given to people who want to do them and don’t want to get a job just yet.
I don't think they are 'given' to anybody. You have to have done pretty well in your first degree and then applied to study one. I guess it's slightly more straightforward if you are just staying at the same university for another year – I recommended DD go to a different university in a different city as a more proactive decision.

There are lots of reasons for doing a Masters beyond your slightly dismissive approach. They include, but are not limited to, a desire to study something in more detail, wanting to slightly shift from the direction suggested by your under-graduate degree, realising that you will need further qualifications to pursue the career path you desire, an interest in conducting some original research…

I’m also mystified that people think Bucks secondary moderns are somehow full of low achievers who are useless.
Who's saying that? I'm certainly not. What I am saying is that if you separate out the top 25% of the cohort (as determined by the 11+ at least) and send them to grammar school, then by definition the remaining 75% are deemed to be lower achievers (again, as determined by the 11+). Even if this is the case at the age of 10, there is no guarantee that it will be true at the age of 16, or 18, or 21.

@Mumski45
Why are the DC in the non grammar schools disadvantaged by that? I can show you results in schools like this that would make many parents jump for joy where there are “shocking” schools. You have chosen to go 20 miles to separate your DCs from a shocking school and presumably shocking children. Other parents make similar choices. It’s very hypocritical of you to say it’s ok for you but not others. Are the DC in your shocking schools not disadvantaged by that? At least most Bucks schools are good! None are “shocking”. I guess that’s the problem with looking firm on other kids who are less fortunate. Not clever enough snd not the right religion. They are truly disadvantaged and you say they are “shocking” and luckily walked away. But you are no different from anyone else. The religious schools select and so does the grammar. You ARE in a selective area. It’s just controlled by churches.

The issue on threads like this is that what is right for an individual given the local and family circumstances is not necessarily right for the majority.

We make decisions over where to send our children based on our own unique circumstances and the schools that are available.

As a parent I have chosen a grammar school 20m away for my 2 DS. All our good local school are voluntary aided and have admission criteria based on religion. My DS' are the wrong religion and would not of got a place in one of these schools. The alternatives locally are shocking. Both boys are thriving and are proud of the school and community they are part of. We are not in a grammar school area and there are only 4 genuine grammar schools in our LEA. Parents choose whether or not to put DC in for the 11+.

However I do not support the ideology behind full grammar school areas which really do result in segregated schools which disadvantage many pupils.
However the alternative is not always ideal. Whilst comp areas will claim not to segregate you do get segregation by religion and by wealth as access to good schools is limited by house prices.

At the end of the day I have seen a lot of evidence that the real predictor of success in school is parental support expectations and involvement with efforts by the school system to circumvent that only having limited influence.

@cantkeepawayforever
There’s also the issue that we have had comps for 50 years now or longer. If the parents of DC are not in a higher socio economic group then maybe it’s not meant to be? They just might not be able to do better. Someone still has to do the less well paid work in this country and the schools their dc go to should be better. Everyone deserves good schools.

@EssexCat
If you read my posts you will see plenty want to learn in the other schools. People just see negatives at the non grammar schools that are a tiny minority. It’s very silly. As I have said, plenty of DC in non grammar schools are well supported by their families snd of course they want to learn.

Winchester comps are fantastic. It must be fab not to have to worry about 11+. I quite like Hampshires approach (don't live there 😞.)

It also has a lot to do with the quality of the schools and progress 8. It’s not just about attainment. Also not all of Bucks is from a higher socio economic background either.

It’s worth stating that I would never seek to see more grammars. There was a big move to change from comps to grammars in the MK area in the 80s and 90s. It failed. So changing what schools are and his they have evolved it a big deal. When MK was developed the grammars already there were scrapped. They and the new schools were comps. Great decision. Except hundreds of DC now take the 11 plus exams for Bucks grammars. Strange what people want.

Comps in some areas fail more DC than good secondary moderns do. That is an undeniable fact.

I think you have to be very careful in making that type of statement, because you must match the socio-economic background of the families attending each school - and of the wider community - before comparing the schools.

A secondary modern in a wealthy part of Bucks, within easy commuting distance of places of good employment may look good vs a comprehensive in a deprived seaside or ex-mining town with poor transport links. However that is nothing to do with the school type, and everything to do with the socio-economic background of the families who attend the school and the surrounding community.

I think there is also a somewhat ludicrous division over “wealth” on this thread too. My ironing lady paid for tuition for her DD. Didn’t work but she totally thrived at her school. Plenty of others I know cut back on expenditure to pay for tuition. The bigger issue is parents being conned to think DC who are average will pass with tuition. They won’t.

Do DC reality keep looking over their shoulders at the DC in the grammars? No. I don’t believe they do. Most make the absolute best of school. My ironing lady’s DD got on and achieved highly at her school and got 103 in the 11 plus. My friends DD got a first at uni with a similar 11 plus score. However these DDs would have struggled at a grammar. Both came from supportive homes. Secondary modern is not equivalent to failure. Of course DC can go and get a masters! They have dropped subjects they don’t like and found what they are good at. Masters don’t necessarily go to people who are the most all round intelligent. They are given to people who want to do them and don’t want to get a job just yet. Or want academia. Many hugely bright people don’t have them and don’t need them. But if it floats your boat, then that’s great. But plenty from secondary schools can get them.

I’m also mystified that people think Bucks secondary moderns are somehow full of low achievers who are useless. Why feel sorry for them? They mostly go to good schools and plenty out perform the beloved comps! Why Wouk’s anyone not want a secondary with 30% high achieving DC? In some comps that figure is 10%. How is that making the comp better? Comps in some areas fail more DC than good secondary moderns do. That is an undeniable fact.

I can actually see that working at school without the brightest can be a huge advantage. Your child might be top! They might actually thrive. They won’t have the continual pressure of being not as good.

Totally agree with you that some children might benefit from being a 'big fish in a small pond' and others might do better without the pressure of a grammar school environment. I just feel that all these children could be accommodated within a genuine comprehensive where you can more easily move up and down between sets – I'm not convinced the grammar school/secondary modern split is the answer.

According to quite a few people there are plenty of bright children not selected for grammars. Ones that go on to get firsts from uni etc

Indeed. My DD would fit this category. And in fact while you say it isn't possible to turn an average child into a top 10 child, DD's 11+ score was decidedly average but she now holds a first-class Masters from the second-ranked university in the UK (for her field of study). But I have tried to avoid specifics because I'm trying to make more generalised points regarding our school systems and structures rather than the nitty-gritty of individual children's performance.

I've still yet to hear a good argument why a grammar school/secondary modern structure is better than a comprehensive one, other than for the minority of children at the grammar school.

This is an interesting thread. I don’t really have a view on whether grammar schools are good or bad. I do know of a secondary (in a town close to where I grew up) where they have completely removed all setting and streaming because the head thinks that even that is quite bad.

I do think it’s quite weird that grammars are only available to families in certain counties. I know that if I really felt extremely strongly, I could move to Kent or Buckinghamshire. However that would mean quite a major uproot.

I would have loved to have gone to a grammar school. My school was good in many ways but, particularly in the lower part before we were put in sets, you really noticed some of the teachers’ lack of ambition. Once I was in sets, it was a lot easier.

Someone unthread said that it’s nice that children mix with lots of people from different backgrounds. I see the theory behind this but my friends all ended up being top set girls with floppy hair who played musical instruments. I think I have got more insight into the lives of those with different backgrounds from MN than from attending my comprehensive.

Erm... yes grammars are absolutely brilliant fir those that are coached and have the means to pass the 11+. What about those that don't pass?

In theory, kids at secondary moderns aren't being disadvantaged at all. The idea is that both sets of children get an education to match their needs - a faster paced environment with more academic subject options for the grammar school kids, and a wider range of subjects including more practical and vocational options (alongside the core traditional subjects) for the non grammar school kids. Teachers recruited for their skills with different groups of learners. The more academic of the non-grammar kids being in the top sets in their school for the more academic subjects, and not having to compare themselves to the top 25%. The less academic kids getting targeted preparation for practical apprenticeships.

In practice, it doesn't often seem to work like that. Grammar passes reflect social as well as academic divisions, due partly to tutoring and partly to the generally greater ability of wealthier parents to support their children's education from a young age. Social, behavioural and SEN challenges are disproportiinately concentrated in secondary moderns, which then find it harder to recruit and retain good staff. Falling rolls in the least popular schools lead to massive budgetary problems, putting further downwards pressure on performance. Some secondary moderns do manage to thrive, but lots don't.

There are also substantial appeals to get into the best secondary moderns too!