I teach in a grammar school

[workstealssleep]

I will respond Tĥursday evening. Thought I would start this as I can't sleep. Just in case anyone has questions about my grammar school. I have also taught in comps.

I live in a grammar school county so roughly 25% go to grammars, including my DS (just started Y7). I'm a bit worried as his handwriting and spelling are really not good (he was judged as emerging/developing - not sure on terminology now - at the end of Y6). SATS were good and obviously he passed the 11+ which we didn't tutor for, just did some practice papers over the summer.

My question is, to what extent will his grammar school question whether he should be there? Is that a thing, or do they usually get on with whoever gets through the 11+? It's mainly the unreadable writing that worries me. Obviously we're working on it but he finds it quite a challenge and school have raised it.

It shouldn't be an issue. Most schools do reading and spelling screening in Year 7, so he may get help with that. He sounds veey bright. I'm sure he will be fine.

Which type of school have you preferred teaching in and why?

Is the behaviour better in a grammar than a local comp?

Do you think the 11+ system is the best way to select children? Would it be better a bit later, or for there to be more opportunities for children to move between the two? Does tutoring skew the system?

I probably prefer teaching in the grammar, to be honest. I like the faster pace and enjoy it when the students understand things easily. But I miss the diversity of comprehensives, and in my experience they can be a lot more fun.

Yes, the behaviour is much better.

I don't think the 11+ is fair at all. Most students get lots of tutoring. This means lower income students miss out, and some students who were tutored do struggle. I also find it really unfair on the students who travel really far to school. That is no fun for a child.

What subject do you teach? Do you stretch the most able within the school or do you just teach the national curriculum?

What do you think of semi selective grammars OP? Like ones who take 60% based on distance with no test and 40% based on academic ability and can be living anywhere

Also what do the TA's do in secondary grammar? Are they ever expected to take a clsss or do marking?

That is a brilliant question. I'd rather not say what I teach, but it isn't a core subject. We teach the exact same stuff that I taught in comprehensives. I don't believe the teaching or the curriculum are any better. And I think teachers can be lazier/less skilled, as many students are just easier to teach.
In my school everyone is obsessed with trying to get Grade 9s at GCSE, but beyond that, they aren't stretched a lot.

Do you think there should be more grammar schools - like the old system?

A bit specific but something which has been on my mind… My DS8 isn’t sporty at all. He’s very bright, excels in English & anything tech related (he’s a coder). He’s sensitive. We’ve been considering tutoring him for the 11+ but concerned about it being an all boy school. Do you think he’d struggle?

I think tutoring should be banned as it's unfair on the children who get into grammar school and then struggle - it must be awful for them, so intimidating. They should be in schools where they can spread their wings with their own talents and feel that they are achieving, not failing. However I have no idea how you could manage to ban this. I don't know if this is still the case but kids who excelled at secondary moderns used to be able to transfer to grammar later.

I don''t think Grammar schools should be eliminated however. I went to a Convent school, it was loosely streamed on academic ability. I used to literally get angry as a child when other kids didn't understand- it was boring and very, very annoying. Even in my early teens I felt my time was being wasted.

I had a real shock when I went to Uni and realised how mediocre I was... 😟

My son went from a mixed to an all boys grammar school (age 12) and found it very difficult for the first year - though it may have been exacerbated because he had very long hair and was small (he is an adult and it's still waist length)! Luckily he also had a couple of close friends from junior school join at the same time so he wasn't alone.
There were tales of boys being dumped into the waste bins... the sort of 'japes' from old kids' stories. I never heard of nasty violent bullying.
DS isn't sporty either, and you don't need to be at grammar. I got the impression that outsmarting the teachers earns you kudos 😁

Thanks for this! I don’t know if any of DS’s friends will be going. I think that would be a big deciding factor

If you had a bright child would you put them into a grammar school? Does it mean they're less likely to be teased for being 'geeky' and more likely to do their best?

Is it possible to get in without tutoring, or do they need to know how to attack the test papers?

Considering grammar for our very bright DD who is getting bored at primary school, gets teased for being bright and is starting to 'play dumb' but it would mean a house move into catchment so it's got to be right.

I think the child needs to know what the test papers are going to be like, and have a go at some.
I know this seems daft, but a friend's daughter failed because the tests were so easy she thought there was some hidden catch that she was missing, and failed. She excelled at the school she went to but was not challenged at all. A couple of years later she did a test and got a scholarship to a very expensive public school.

I think your DS would be fine. There will be lots of bright, sensitive, non sporty boys. They find their tribe.

I would send my bright child to a grammar if that's what they wanted, but personally I wouldn't choose single sex education. I wouldn't tutor them though. I would rather they have a go and miss out if they don't pass, than be tutored, and never know if it was the tutoring that did it. And what if they are tutored and still don't pass? 3000 children took the entrance test for 150 places at my school this year.

I am absolutely fine with my children going to a comprehensive though. I think they actually get a better overall experience, and as I said before, I think the teaching is at least equal (though maybe not the behaviour).

I think only the very brightest children get in without tutoring. Very few don't have any.

And definitely, it is easier to be geeky or bright and still fit in. In my school the students do congratulate each other if they do well academically.

I went to a well known grammar called Pate’s in the 90’s. I was not tutored, it didn’t exist - but I did really well and achieved all As (although flunked the Oxbridge interview). I believe therefore I potentially would have won a place today regardless; although some of my old school friends feel strongly that they wouldn’t in today’s tutored environment . Without tutoring, kids from all backgrounds won places back then. In those days there was a small catchment (just the local area) and quite a range of ability in the school, Some left at 16 to work, and so on. Do you feel that grammars have lost their original meaning and are now just a replacement for private schools for those who cannot afford fees, but can fund tutors for 2-3 years of hothousing? Also, my A levels (History being one example) involved colossal amounts of notes and essay practice but limited actual analysis from us. Has that changed? Finally I hear that today the pupils there are very stressed and have more MH issues related to pressure. Do you agree?

Yes. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Did you teach at "genuine comprehensives" - ie those in areas without grammar schools? If so, what are the differences between being in a top/extension set or high ability student in comp and being a grammar school student?

Yes, both types of comp. If you are in the top set of a non grammar, there tends to a culture of pretending not to be clever. The expectations from parents may not be as high. You might do really well, but likely will stand out if you do.
I still genuinely believe that bright kids will do well anywhere if they want to though, and the teaching can be as good or better at a comp. There is just more pressure on kids at a grammar. I'm not sure that's healthy for teenagers.

Sorry, I missed the question about TAs. I haven't had any in my lessons in 5 years. We only have 3 in the whole school of 1000+ students, and they are only ever in core subjects.

Are you Lincolnshire or Kent?

Thanks for answering our questions op, very helpful.

DD is at a superselective grammar and loves being around likeminded people. But it sounds like they're constantly having tests (roughly 2-3 every week in various subjects so not all in one go). Do you think this is a common trend in grammars and does it help students for their eventual end of year exams /GCSEs/A levels? Or does it put unnecessary pressure on them leading to mental health problems?