Why white children are not getting into grammar schools

Not like they are now, I meant in 1900-1908 not say 1990, I know the Liberal Government introduced some under Lloyd George

Yes it is the value system, but the value system is also very much a class thing. We literally see upper-middle-class parents 'cruelly' sending their young kids off to boarding school, or see intense tiger parenting everywhere in expensive London prep schools. Meanwhile, it is mostly working-class locals who lean into the whole "let kids just have a happy childhood" mindset.

Well, I feel like I have said too much, but I just wanted to add two things that people usually overlook.

First, research, especially Annette Lareau's Unequal Childhoods, shows that setting high standards and keeping kids on a structured path is an upper-middle-class thing, whereas the whole "happy childhood, just let them play" mindset is mostly a working-class dynamic, regardless of ethnicity.

Second, immigrant families are not a random mix. Most were already well-educated or had the drive to move abroad in the first place, so comparing them to the local average is not comparing like for like. Immigrants are basically equivalent to the local upper-middle class in terms of values, just with less money. That is why they push for grammar schools, while the local upper-middle class goes down the private school route.

No it’s no laziness it’s a different value system. White Brits do not see tiger parenting and forcing children to work harder harder harder to be worth the sacrifice. White Brits, me included, tend to believe that a bit of tutoring is fine but too much is removing the other things they hold valuable in childhood like down time, sports, fun with friends, the child’s own desires and opinions and wants. Whereas some BAME cultures are more parent-led and believe that rigorous education and tutoring processes are worth that sacrifice for the betterment of the child’s future.

It’s just different cultural standards and beliefs.

No it doesn’t… white Brits are white people native to England, Scotland and Wales. It’s an ethnic group it doesn’t mean all British citizens who are also white. Those would be White Irish or White European or specifically British-Romanian or British-Polish.

As I said, in Sutton's first round, white children still make up a large group, maybe around 30 to 40 percent, so they do apply. It is just that you rarely see them make it through to the second round. For super-selective schools like Henrietta Barnett, it is different because the proportion of minority students is already so high and the exams are so competitive.

I do not think tiger parenting is absent among white people either. Look at London private prep schools and selective indies: there is no less tiger parenting there, even while those schools are very diverse and white students are the majority. True, working class white families may not place the same heavy emphasis on academics, but I also do not think tiger parenting is the only way to get into selective schools. I agree that over-preparation is toxic and does no one any good. However, framing 11-plus prep as a binary choice, where choosing not to prepare is a brave defense of a happy childhood and everyone who passes must have sacrificed theirs, is far too simplistic.

If your child is grammar school material, give them proper preparation and let them have a go. Do not fear your child being a cultural minority in a grammar school, just as minority families previously embraced going to predominantly white schools. That is real bravery. And this would help the grammars become more diverse！

Grammar schools have become monocultural. No parent wants their child to be the only brown black or white child in the class. White children are not failing to qualify, they simply don't apply. Parents are unwilling to buy into the culture of tiger parenting. That's a choice parents make and its not a lazy one, in some areas its a brave one.

Sure. All I am saying is that whether grammar schools actually help disadvantaged kids is one question, and why white children are underrepresented, which this thread is about, is another.

Apart from innate ability, a child's academic success IMO really depends on parental investment. That comes down to two things. First is total resources, where wealthier families naturally have more to offer. Second is how those resources are allocated based on family preferences. Ultimately, it is about whether a family chooses to put their money, time, and personal effort into education rather than elsewhere, and time and effort are by far the bigger factors. While some immigrant families are wealthy, it is really their high allocation of resources that makes the difference.

So they are not necessarily disadvantaged then. That was previously your.point.

OK. That might just be because the ethnic families getting into grammar schools actually have higher incomes than average white families. We know full well that parents' income is strongly tied to how well kids do in school.

Ethnic groups in this country are mixed too. There are children from all social groups in grammar schools - doctors' children, etc. And if you look at indicators such as Free school meals figures you will see that grammar schools have fewer children from this group than other local schools. The children may be from non white families but they are not necessarily from disadvantaged groups.

Look at the title of this thread. Surely the ethinic groups getting into grammar schools at way higher rates are the disadvantaged ones compared to white children.

Moving beyond ethnicity, the universal truth is that immigrant families care more about education and upward mobility than locals. Whether they come from Europe, Asia, or Africa makes no difference. A grammar school place, regardless of its real value, is a scarce resource that everyone goes after. It is also basic human nature that insiders or established groups feel their interests are threatened by outsiders, which in this case means incoming immigrants. This is a very common human tendency, and if it is not handled properly, it can lead to tragic consequences, as we have seen time and again in history.

I'm not sure what you mean. White Brits are a diverse group and that includes groups from migrant communities such as the Irish and Eastern Europeans.

But White Brits are NOT less informed, less well-off, or more disadvantaged than ethnic minorities. So in this respect, grammar schools do work for their original intended purpose.

Again you are implying that this is laziness on the part of white parents. White parents also advocate for good schools. They use tutors at certain times like getting grades in public exams. They take their children to libraries and exhibitions and read and talk to them. They volunteer in PTAs. However many reject the intensive pressure that some parents put on their children to take an exam in order to attend a school possibly far away that ultimately will probably make no difference to their outcomes at 18. The very same outcome could be achieved locally at a comp which will have high achieving children in its cohort. Creating more grammar schools will not improve outcomes. It will just mean that more (academically weaker) children will be admitted. We need to look instead at the areas where white working class children underachieve more closely. I would guess that this is not in big cities like London but often in the former Red wall towns further north. Their underachievement is not due to a lack of grammar schools but to a whole set of economic factors.

Er no they don't! What an awful generalisation

A lot of parents font understand the system and how more informed parents play it to their advantage. Plus have £££ to help them in the game.

It's shit for the disadvantaged and doesn't work for the original intended purpose.

White Brits value fun, art, childhood spirit and freedom to relax alongside a ‘good enough’ education and educational level. Many BAME cultures value academic excellence above all - for many, academics are viewed as the path to a good life whereas white Brits often expect a good life no matter their qualifications.

There was a post on here from a teacher recently complaining that OFSTED had challenged them on poor attendance of a disadvantaged child, and the teacher’s attitude was that the child was doing well to attend school at all. I think OFSTED and examples like yours show the problem of low expectations.

I once taught in a primary school where all the dc were Indian because of the demographic of the area. It was a deprived area.

Anyway, in reception the parents were allowed in to the classroom in the morning and they used to get their child on to the carpet and berate them almost, telling them to listen to their teacher. I remember one four year old turning his head to talk to whoever was next to him and the mother was back as quick as a flash and she turned his head physically with her hands and hissed ‘teacher’ at him.

Anything you asked for support wise at home was done. Everyone was listening to their children read and reading them bedtime stories and further up,the school they were all doing their homework.

Yes they did, do you really think benefits in the UK were only introduced in 2000?

Students need the right to live in the uk to be eligible for a grammar place.

An awful lot of grammar school pupils have private tutors.

Could be both, but many need catching up unfortunately