Does Grammar School not exist to some people?

[tippytoesah]

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+? "

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

I suspect that the assumption that they are Nationwide is because of all the stuff in the press & government about allowing Grammar schools & the return of the 11+, however this really seems to only apply to the Home Counties, not the country as a whole (although the fact that there is a 'rest of the Country' outside of London and the Home Counties seems an odd concept to many, especially within Government)

I grew up in NI, which was completely divided into grammar schools and secondary moderns, and now live in a city where all the state schools are comprehensives, and I much prefer the comprehensive system.

“Also loads of working class kids take up the majority of grammars here.“
You’re talking about Kent, I believe. Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?

however this really seems to only apply to the Home Counties, not the country as a whole (although the fact that there is a 'rest of the Country' outside of London and the Home Counties seems an odd concept to many, especially within Government)

And it doesn't apply to a lot of the Home Counties! The reason the Grammarification projects of various Conservative Education Minister's hasn't gone as far as they wanted is because in some very successful home counties areas - everyone regardless of political persuasion is proud of their local non selective school system, and fight hard not to allow any kind of selection in by the back door. E.G. not letting Grammar schools "expand" into their areas.

Also loads of working class kids take up the majority of grammars here
I’m not sure that’s true. We do the Bexley and Kent tests here and parents with money start tutoring their kids from year 4 for the 11 plus. If your from a poorer background you will be competing with kids who have 2 years of doing practice exams where as you are going in blind having never done a single practice paper because the schools are forbidden to teach to them.
I went to grammar school 30 years ago and I was one of only two kids in the whole year from a council estate. My niece finished grammar school 5 years ago and she was the only girl in her class from a council estate. They’re not really that great for social mobility.

Molly this is why Lincoln is a stronghold of comprehensive schools despite the surrounding county being all grammar. When it was proposed to reintroduce grammars in the city over 20 years ago there were massive protests by parents, and we kept our comprehensives.

Why does everything have to be defined by how much social mobility it achieves.

Social mobility should just be desired uplift not the sole defining factor in employing a selective or any educational policy. The state should ensure that schools attain the best results possible , for those most able.

So what if only 1 out of 100 children from grammar schools come from the poorest families!
They have not attained the required academic level whether this is through parental, family apathy or opportunity is irrelevant for me.

Grammar schools should exist for those who can pass the 11+ or entrance exams.

@mainstreet Social mobility is very important as it leads to a happier, safer society.

However, there are a number of ways to achieve best education or social mobility.

The girls grammar I went to in the 70s/80s let girls do O levels and CSEs. I had friends at the local secondary moderns (yes we did all mix quite happily) that did O levels - most did.
I was also on free school meals at the grammar - I wasn't alone in that either.
In my London Borough everyone had to take the 11+. No one was tutored in those days so it didn't matter if your family couldn't afford it. Because everyone sat it, it was the job of the primary schools to teach the pupils what was required.

I missed out in the 11+ as army family returning to UK just before year 7. The alternative school was an absolute dump although I was happy there. We moved again in year 8 to a non-grammar area where the standard of teaching was much higher.

We live in a city with 3 grammar schools with massive catchment. I think it used to be 5% of city in our city go to grammar but must be less now with the birth bulge coming through this year. My DD has ASD. She is quite bright but not a genius. If it wasn’t for her difficulties in school she might have had a chance for grammar but it wouldn’t be right for her. She needs a high level of pastoral care and differentiation in her learning. She is going to the most popular comp which outperforms a couple of the grammars in many areas. They have put together a fantastic package of support for her.

Seeing my friends putting their DC through tutoring and the angst of the 11+ has been painful to watch. I’m glad we hav

Def they have more than enough stress with SATs, poor kids. Also, good point about moving for work, there must be areas where people are reluctant to relocate to, purely because of disliked school options.

“Grammar schools should exist for those who can pass the 11+ or entrance exams.”

Those children do just as well in the top sets of comprehensive schools. The selective system is divisive and destructive for individuals and for society.

When comprehensive schools first came in, the children were not put in sets or streamed. The whole point was to mix all abilities and treat them the same.

“When comprehensive schools first came in, the children were not put in sets or streamed”
There’s not much point in talking about how things were 40 years ago!

Incidentally, there is a very good case for well managed mixed ability teaching. I’m no sure how I feel about that- but there are convincing arguments.

Seeline Actually longitudinal studies are extremely helpful for assessing results, so that is a useful point!

Yup in my bit of Kent it seems those that pay for private at secondary are primarily those who's DC fail the 11+

So it's not really "creamed off" (bleurgh expression)- more the case that those that can, go to grammar.

Yup in my bit of Kent it seems those that pay for private at secondary are primarily those who's DC fail the 11+

Same in my area-private is where you go if you’re ‘rich and thick’ according to my not very PC neighbour.

“Yup in my bit of Kent it seems those that pay for private at secondary are primarily those who's DC fail the 11+”

Really? In my bit there is only one private school I can think of that you could get into if you weren’t 11+ material.

Fwiw i was in a comprehensive school in the early 1970s and we were streamed into sets

We did some testing in English and maths and were then put in sets for almost every class. On the basis of my results I was put in the top set for French, having no knowledge of French at all, alongside kids from another feeder school who had all done French for two years. The issue wasn’t resolved for two terms of hell after which I was put in the lowest set who were now two terms ahead of me

Comprehensive does not mean mixed ability. Comprehensive means accepting all abilities.

I agree with all your posts Bertrand. DD went to the local comprehensive and ended up with AAA at A level. The school had 45% of students achieving A or A at A level last year. This is in an area where there are no* grammar schools.

“When comprehensive schools first came in, the children were not put in sets or streamed. The whole point was to mix all abilities and treat them the same.”

Not in any I knew of. Apart from anything else some did CSE and some did O Level, with different curricula and exams.

Incidentally, there is a very good case for well managed mixed ability teaching. I’m no sure how I feel about that- but there are convincing arguments.

You can't argue with the theory, that's for sure. The reality can be a little different. It was all the rage when I was learning to be a teacher - streaming and setting were considered a cop out I think. In reality and inevitably there was/is too much teaching aimed at the middle range as they were/are usually the majority. It also depends on how extreme your mixed abilities happen to be.
It's also demanding for one teacher to prepare and teach suitably challenging and appropriate work for each level,each lesson. At secondary level that can be 30 to 40 lessons a week.
You need to be a really good classroom practitioner with sound pedagogical and subject knowledge,well organised,enthusiastic, flexible,up to date and have suitable backing in your department, SLT etc. Oh yes,and proper funding and resources - and another pair of hands helps.

It can be done but I've found that a little sub division is often more practical.

My ds’s school disnborh- setting for some subjects, mixed ability for others. He really enjoyed the mixed ability for history in particular- everyone had the opportunity to contribute to discussions regardless of ability, then they had break our groups with particular graduated follow on tasks. But it was a particularly strong history department.

Really? In my bit there is only one private school I can think of that you could get into if you weren’t 11+ material.

Different part of Kent to you. I can think of at least 4 private schools near me that take DC that haven't passed 11+.