Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Does Grammar School not exist to some people?

669 replies

tippytoesah · 02/08/2019 08:37

Surely it must do?

I've never really discussed schooling before with DH as DC is still so young. But I did recently and mentioned that if he showed promise or wanting to take the 11+, we would support him in any way possible.

He looked at me as if I had two heads and said "What's an 11+? Confused"

He really didn't know it was a thing and had never heard of it. I was shocked and mentioned it to SIL and her friend who also have 0 idea what it is!

I'm not from around here and I grew up in Essex. It was quite a big thing in that county, or at least the area I was in. You either went to a non Christian school which was absolutely terrible, went to a Christian school who were actually half decent or you did the 11+ if you were really bright. It was encouraged and supported.

Does it not even exist in some places then? I will look further into it but DH and close relatives/friends seem to be as clueless as him... maybe it isn't a thing in that part of the county

OP posts:
TatianaLarina · 03/08/2019 10:55

Kent does not have secondary moderns it has grammars and comprehensives.

ChimpyChops · 03/08/2019 10:56

We have three here in Plymouth, two girls and one boys.
We used to have a mixed grammar but that was shut in the early 90s.
My brother and husband went to grammar school, my husband hated every minute

Not compulsory to undertake the 11+, my son didn't do it last year.

Matildatoldsuchdreadfullies · 03/08/2019 10:57

In Kent the secondary moderns aren’t called secondary moderns - they’re called high schools. It still doesn’t make them comprehensives.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

General education Secondary education
AlpenCrazy · 03/08/2019 11:00

In Kent the secondary moderns aren’t called secondary moderns - they’re called high schools. It still doesn’t make them comprehensives.

Yeah none of them are called comprehensives - because they aren't! Top set missing = not comprehensive

They have a variety of names (all euphemisms for secondary modern) - high school, academy, free school etc

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:00

“Kent does not have secondary moderns it has grammars and comprehensives.”
Kent has no comprehensive schools.

TatianaLarina · 03/08/2019 11:00

Where in Kent the whole top set is missing so it's not comprehensive at all it's secondary modern

As I said before that grammars do not take all the intelligent children in a borough. They only take some. Some bright children are not ready to be tested at 11 and develop later for example, That was one of the old arguments against them.

There are plenty of bright children in the comprehensive system in Kent, quite sufficient to make the comprehensives truly comprehensive.

SlocombePooter · 03/08/2019 11:01

Bertrand it is a bold to put out a statement using wrong data, and really not helpful to others on the thread.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:03

“There are plenty of bright children in the comprehensive system in Kent, quite sufficient to make the comprehensives truly comprehensive.”
That really is rubbish-i’m sorry. You can’t call a school comprehensive if the “top” 23% of the cohort is in another school!

Matildatoldsuchdreadfullies · 03/08/2019 11:04

I certainly agree that there are lots of bright children in Kent’s high schools.

But the fact remains, when 25% of children are creamed off at 11 (and in the coastal towns it’s closer to 30% after appeals, and the Dover/Folkestone tests), the high schools cannot be described as comprehensives.

JacquesHammer · 03/08/2019 11:06

Two of the North Yorks grammars are super selective and have catchment. Places are like hen’s teeth!

TatianaLarina · 03/08/2019 11:13

That really is rubbish-i’m sorry. You can’t call a school comprehensive if the “top” 23% of the cohort is in another school!

No. It’s not ‘the top’. Some bright state pupils go into the grammars the rest stay in the comprehensive system.

MaddieElla · 03/08/2019 11:13

Both my daughters go to a grammar in Lincolnshire. One just taken GCSEs and is predicted 8s in everything. Absolutely no chance of that in the local comp, so for my DD it was the right choice for her.

For kids that pass the 11 plus but struggle when they begin at the grammar, it is picked up on very quickly and it’s very easy to move over to the comp.

NormHonal · 03/08/2019 11:14

There were no grammar schools in the area where I grew up, and no grammar schools where we live now.

Matildatoldsuchdreadfullies · 03/08/2019 11:16

Tatiana, the majority of the academically brightest/most tutored children go to the grammar schools. And it doesn’t help the high schools to pretend that they’re comprehensives.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:17

“
No. It’s not ‘the top’. Some bright state pupils go into the grammars the rest stay in the comprehensive system”
Do you know 1) the proportions of low, middle and high attainers at Kent grammar and high schools and 2) the %of pupil premium children in both types of school?

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:18

“One just taken GCSEs and is predicted 8s in everything. Absolutely no chance of that in the local comp“
Really? Why not?

Gwenhwyfar · 03/08/2019 11:18

No grammar schools in Wales.
I only learn recently that they still existed in some parts of England. I associate them with pre-comprehensive school times. They make no sense now that we have comprehensive schools.

TatianaLarina · 03/08/2019 11:24

But the fact remains, when 25% of children are creamed off at 11 (and in the coastal towns it’s closer to 30% after appeals, and the Dover/Folkestone tests), the high schools cannot be described as comprehensives.

Unless you really believe that those exams can identify every single bright pupil, that there is sufficient room in the grammars for every clever child, that all pupils tested at 11 are ready to show their true potential, that every bright child will do justice to themselves in the exams, that children whose first language is not English may not have significant extra hurdles etc then all you’re really doing is siphoning some children on the basis of a random exam and a random age.

That the 11+ was never particularly good at identifying intelligence and potential was one of the major problems with it.

It is a great disservice to all the the clever children in Kent comprehensives to assume they cannot achieve and that the schools are thus somehow second rate.

Every area of this country has selective private schools. In ever area a % of the bright children will go out of the state system completely. In that sense no comprehensive is truly comprehensive.

TatianaLarina · 03/08/2019 11:29

the majority of the academically brightest/most tutored children go to the grammar schools. And it doesn’t help the high schools to pretend that they’re comprehensives.

Some of the brightest go to the grammars (some go to the independent schools of which are many - Tonbridge, Sevenoaks etc).

Some of the brightest stay in the comprehensive system and it doesn’t do them any favours to treat them as if they are somehow sub-par on the basis of one exam.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:31

“It is a great disservice to all the the clever children in Kent comprehensives to assume they cannot achieve and that the schools are thus somehow second rate.”

Yes, it would be a big mistake to dismiss the Kent High schools-
Many of them are excellent and the children (including my ds) do very well. But they are not comprehensive schools. And it is very odd to persist in pretending they are. The vast majority of high attaining Kent children go to grammar schools. So it is impossible for the cohort at high schools to be comprehensive. And it is damaging for the high schools to be measured as if they were comprehensives. They cannot possibly get the headline results that a comprehensive school in the same location could.

MillicentMartha · 03/08/2019 11:33

Tatiana, if 30% of the DC who pass the test are creamed off, even with the blunt tool that the 11+ is that’s still a high proportion of the brighter DC. It’s disingenuous to say that the remaining schools won’t be affected. Only 7% of DC go to private schools nationally and most of their tests are less rigorous, so have a much smaller effect.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:48

A massively important point is that high schools rightly focus their attention on the low and middle attainers that make up around 95% of their cohort.

TatianaLarina · 03/08/2019 11:49

The essential point of comprehensives is that they take all abilities.

The old secondary modern philosophy focused more on vocational and practical subjects, the teachers were not necessarily required to have degrees, and thus some were paid less than grammar teachers, that is in part why they came to be seen as inferior.

Now, grammars and comprehensives have the same national curriculum and require the same teaching qualifications.

Mammyofonlyone · 03/08/2019 11:52

North Yorkshire - our nearest secondary is a grammar and most people get tutors for a year in advance to get their children in.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2019 11:52

@TatianaLarina - do you think it is fair and equitable to assess a school with 7% high achievers against the same criteria as one with 70%?