New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

What if a child 👧 a amazing at maths but severely dyslexic and struggles with English. I don't think it's just grammar schools that are guilty of this though. DN who is very good at English, was not good at maths (barely scraped a 4 at GCSE) so was put in the 'lower half' of the year for this reason. She was clearly much cleverer on the humanities side than her 'relegation' showed her to be. In the end her parents intervened in Year 9 and asked her to be moved over to the higher achieving cohort side. She didn't do well in the STEM subjects but aced (8s and 9s) her other six GCSEs.

@Itiswasitis90 how would you feel about the system of your child failed the 11+ and a child who had been heavily tutored or attended private school got in over them? Would you be thrilled for them to attend the alternative, because if not it’s a rubbish system. All children are entitled to an excellent education. Not just those who pass a test on a certain day at 10 years old.

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds are regularly not getting into grammar schools because they are not tutored for years to pass the test. It’s absolutely not the way children from disadvantaged get a better education. It may be only your experience but the system should be based on all experiences, not one persons. What if a child 👧 a amazing at maths but severely dyslexic and struggles with English. What school do they go to? It may be only your experience but surely you have to see beyond that.

@ElephantLover I agree with you totally. DC1 has legacy confidence in his own ability issues from his grammar school days. They are fine for the super-competitive who thrive on trying to outdo their peers but less good for those with good brains but less drive to succeed.

I think the opposite- bloody Labour shutting the grammar schools, the only time a child from a disadvantaged background can get a good education.

Yes, you get well off parents (Corbyn's parents for example) taking spaces when they could indeed pay for private school but I don't begrudge it because it makes the school more diverse. My son is on FSM and he has well off friends and it doesn't cause a divide, it makes his aspirations higher, he sees how they live in comparison to his council house.

They take bullying much more seriously then comp in my local area, this is my experience.

Though different schools and areas aren't the same this is my personal experience before I'm piled on.

Terrible idea. Fucking tories

I think grammars in theory are not bad IF the alternative is seen as just as desirable (ie providing equivalent or better education for less academic kids - eg bigger choice in subjects, smaller class sizes, more extra curricular).

Really, how on earth can that possibly work? The problem with secondary moderns is that expectations will be low and good teachers won't want to work there. There is absolutely no way to avoid that problem, because the whole premise of a secondary modern, literally, is that it's the school for the exam failures. Building snazzy new science blocks and offering fencing classes and stuff is not going to make that problem go away.

It's not about being genius or having other challenges. Some children just have the type of brain which "gets" academics without needing to try really hard.

I agree about the tutoring though, as in parents getting their kids tutored to the max because the kid will eventually need to go it alone and not all people enjoy an academic career, certainly if they've been pressured into it.

Well yes a very small percentage of the population fit the criteria for ‘genius’. But they generally only have that ability in limited subjects. And quite often they are neurodiverse so have other challenges. And some people have absolutely brilliant minds for non academic subjects. But those people are a tiny minority even in a very selective school. The most import thing is still good old fashioned hard work. And self motivation. Tutors are ok up to a point but generally it falls over at some point as kids get older and don’t blindly follow the will of the parents

I agree children shouldn’t be pigeon holed age 10. The biggest effect will be on those who are poor, have SEN, are recent immigrants etc, so basically the ones who are more vulnerable and deprived. Personally I prefer the comprehensive system but think that we have to accept that different needs require different things. I think teaching in ability sets can be helpful as long as they are re-assessed regularly. And there seems to be a pervasive view that SEN students must have low ability. This isn’t the case at all, most SEN does not impact on intelligence but it does pose a barrier to learning making it more difficult to show ability. There is a gap in provision for the able who also have SEN which is best met by proper support in mainstream schools. Primary schools are often very averse to diagnosing SEN so often those kids don’t get any help until secondary (or often no help at all!)
the fact that we have many high achievers who failed the 11+ and grammars replacing their own students at sixth form with those from the local comp shows that the selection process really wasn’t fit for purpose.

For instance my ds will seek out and read (at his leisure) words, language, history etc. He was telling me yesterday he's learnt about 4 new different measuring techniques (que a long explanation on said techniques that I don't understand) and said it with great enthusiasm and detail. He'll talk of the 20s and 30s pre war as if he was there and have a favoured point in history beyond your usual school subjects. The way his brain retains all this information and how he can articulate the context and language is astonishing. It goes way beyond being in top set science or maths for instance. Some kids just learn this stuff and seek it out when not in school because its of general interest.

I think its a great idea, my son attends a grammar school and we are low income family (also classed as people who are very unlikely to go to university.)
He has never had a tutor but weekends we worked hard using relevant books to help him pass.
He is doing extraordinary well and as he's quite reserved, I know he would of had a rough time at comp school as he didn't have it easy in primary school. Now he's confident and doing things he would have never dared.

Me and his father went to comp and never went to university. So we want the best for our child and I know grammar school is his best chance at giving him aspirations for the future.

This is my personal experience and my opinion before someone tells me I'm wrong.

The odd thing about these periodic discussions is that they ignore the clear research findings that grammar systems are shit for social mobility.
Disclaimer: I went to a grammar and thought it was great but that anecdote doesn't outweigh the massive amount of research that generally they are not good for our society.

It's hard to explain tbh. Some brain are just.. they get it. I don't know how but they do, and they enjoy it (unlike me.)

It goes beyond top sets of the mandatory subjects, it's just a kind of brain that "is" something else. Where they can read a paper and get it with brief explanation, they just get the logic and reasoning and retain it. You just can't buy that type of brain activity.

I was referring to the dc who are tutored to pass the 11+ then left to it.

I’m not actually disagreeing with you @Rosewaterblossom despite it looking like it.
my experience is the grammar system failing the kids it’s set up for. That private schools and affluent engaged parents are able to buy the grammar education which is pushing out the children it’s designed for. The ones with the logical brain regardless of family engagement and income.

its happened fast in our area, it almost felt over night. You’ll get the odd one or two that smash it on the day and manage it. But for the most it’s not working anymore. See the above comments from teachers about untutored children not getting in anymore.

If you’ve a parent who
a) knows you need to do them
b) can help answer the questions and explain the reasoning.

From my experience, grammar is for a certain type of brain which cannot be bought.

How so? the lessons they are taught - English, Maths, Science etc - are surely for the same type of brain as are found in the children in the higher groups of the non-grammars (as the 11+ is not a perfect test, there is a very large overlap between the lower groups of grammar students and the higher groups at non-grammars).

I agree that some children, who are found in grammars where they exist and in comprehensives where grammars do not, have brains that enjoy logic puzzles, vocabulary questions, brain teasers etc. Some of these children are also very able at school subjects. Some will go on to perform highly right up to university and go on to highly selective universities.

However, it is wrong to assume that grammar schools are full of such 'outliers'. There is a very high overlap between 'grammar school pupils' and 'non grammar school pupils' in terms of actual academic ability measured in a holistic way, and only a very, very tiny percentage who are not equally well catered for in well-funded comprehensive systems.

Why would they struggle when they continue the tutoring?

There's plenty of papers you can do at home which doesn't require tutoring at all.

Agree that 'Greater Depth in the National Curriculum subjects of English, Maths and Science' is pretty much zero use in many of the 11+ tests used for grammar selection - which instead demand exceptional speed and skill in the very particular (tutorable) skills that fall under 'Verbal reasoning' or 'Non-verbal reasoning'

If children who were highly tutored for years prior were only getting just about the pass grade they couldn't have been that academic to begin with and would have struggled badly at the school.

As I said, not a stealth boost but more to make a point, my ds scored well above the pass grade which was 308 and he was 374, probably far beyond those kids who were tutored to the hills. Tutoring doesn't necessarily mean a child is built for grammar or that they'll pass/do well and if kids are just passing, as in 1/2 points over, they will probably struggle at the school.

From my experience, grammar is for a certain type of brain which cannot be bought.

Not when they are being tutored on the reasoning side. youll never come across that unless tutored.

The opening of new schools thing is daft for all schools, though - local authorities can identify a need but are unable to create a new school themselves and so have to tout round academy chains or free school openers, trying to persuade someone to open one for them. It's not a 'grammar' issue as much as an ideological refusal to create a reasonable solution to founding new schools where they are needed.

I don’t know that stat.i know anecdotally from school playground chat it was close for a lot (either side). It was a big year for appeals due to some issues.

I do know over 60% of places went to out of borough their year, the year before 25% went to out of borough.

agree With @cantkeepawayforever . I think grammars in theory are not bad IF the alternative is seen as just as desirable (ie providing equivalent or better education for less academic kids - eg bigger choice in subjects, smaller class sizes, more extra curricular).