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'm in Scotland and was confused the first time I heard about Grammar/ 11+ on here.

There are a few schools near me called "XTown Grammar" but they are just the same as any other state school.

I still don't really know what differentiates a grammar from a standard state school in other parts of the country, or what the 11+ involves.

There are such a tiny minority that don't take the test in my part of Kent. In both my DCs years, I can think of 2 children out of 90.

Both these were low ability and didn't think it was a worthwhile exercise.

I do know of the one or two children at the local secondary modern who's parents didn't want them to take it.

But these children are such a tiny minority in our area.

the comprehensives, the catholic schools (of which there are several), the science and technology colleges, performing arts schools etc

I think I know the area/schools you are referring to

Catholic schools are obviously selective
The "science and tech" and "performing arts" schools are just academies (secondary moderns) with fancy titles trying to big up their supposed specialisms.
And there aren't any comprehensives. As the top set is missing.

It's a fucking atrocious system no matter how you try to spin it

Kent’s a big place. And as has already been discussed exams at 11 aren’t particularly accurate indicators of ability. The idea that the exam sifts all the brightest children is misplaced.

And there aren't any comprehensives. As the top set is missing.

So disrespectful to all the kids in those schools - they’re perfectly intelligent!

The Catholic schools are not academically selective.

Kent’s a big place. And as has already been discussed exams at 11 aren’t particularly accurate indicators of ability. The idea that the exam sifts all the brightest children is misplaced

Agree with all of that yes.

I don't think anyone is naïve enough to say the test sifts all the brightest. It's well known it's not great. The head teacher and individual appeals supposedly pick up some of those wronged by the test but not all.

In my DSs year I can think of two super bright boys that didn't pass, and know of one that did this year but didn't get offered a grammar place.

It's a truly cruddy outdated socially unjust system that needs scrapping. Not going to happen in Kent any time soon as

1. Costs too much to change it
2. Not in the interest of MC parents with DC at grammars so those with DC at sec moderns are continually shouted down

JoJo but loads of kids in the Sutton Grammars come from miles away. They are super selective, I.e take the top scorers in the test regardless of where they live. There was a woman on MN the other day planning to send her 11 yo on a 1.5 hour journey each way in order to attend a Sutton Grammar.

These schools don’t have anywhere near the effect on local comps as the fully selective system in Kent for example.

We know that overall the grammar system in Kent does not raise achievement. Overall the results match those of comparable counties with a fully comp system.

Does anyone know whether Kent sends proportionately more kids to Oxbridge than comparable comprehensive counties?

If not I cannot see that ‘most’ Oxbridge students from state schools have come from Grammars.

@TatianaLarina come on... how many children in Kent Comps get straight 7-9 at GCSE? No one is saying they aren’t clever but there are few traditionally academic children in those schools.

So disrespectful to all the kids in those schools - they’re perfectly intelligent! The Catholic schools are not academically selective.

Didn't mean to be disrespectful apologies if sounded like that

Not saying there aren't bright children in sec moderns just that much lower % of high ability

Catholic schools are selective by faith

I still don't really know what differentiates a grammar from a standard state school in other parts of the country, or what the 11+ involves

The 11+ is an exam that children in year 6 (10/11 year olds) take to decide whether they go to grammar school or not. Grammar schools are highly selective, and usually it is the children of more well off parents who go there because their parents can afford to hire tutors for them.

I feel that this system is morally wrong as many children don’t peak academically at this age and are written off and made to feel like failures if they don’t pass the 11+

When I sat the 11+ in 1970 it was still compulsory. We didn’t get tutored for it because everyone took it, and the school didn’t make a big deal of it.

I don't think anyone is naïve enough to say the test sifts all the brightest.

That’s precisely what people are saying: that in selective areas grammars take all the brightest so that the comprehensives are not truly comprehensive. Not true at all.

That’s precisely what people are saying: that in selective areas grammars take all the brightest so that the comprehensives are not truly comprehensive.

Certainly IME the majority of the brighter children are in grammars. That's not to say there are no bright children in the sec moderns. But there aren't a whole sets worth per year usually of high ability children in a sec modern.

Come on... how many children in Kent Comps get straight 7-9 at GCSE? No one is saying they aren’t clever but there are few traditionally academic children in those schools.

I think the problem is the low expectations of those schools not any deficiency of the pupils. They have sufficient bright children that they should be doing better.

There’s a big socio-economic divide in Kent. Some of the worst performing comps are in deprived areas, whereas the best performing grammars - Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Judd, Skinners are in very wealthy areas.

@ShrodingersRat many but not loads kids at Sutton grammars are from other areas (the girls’ grammars are part-catchment and the boys are completely super selective).
I think the reason why the system works here is that the demographic is skewed - the attainment in primaries is very very high (Top 5 LAs in England) so there are plenty of high attainers to go round all the schools (even some of the true comps admitting on distance have 50%+ of high prior attainer intake).

I’m sure there are some bright kids who don’t go to grammar in Kent/Bucks/etc. I’m more interested in whether remaining in a non-grammar school in areas with full-on grammar system compromises a pupil’s academic prospects in the way it used to do. Which is why I asked about Oxbridge, as a very blunt tool.

Just had a very quick google and this article for example mentions how the selective state schools represent a significant percentage of the state Oxbridge intake.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/oxford-university-cambridge-oxbridge-admissions-state-school-statistics-bias-a7194406.html%3famp

In Bucks every child takes it but many are tutored. It’s perfectly possible to get a place if DC isn’t tutored but better off families don’t leave it to chance. Therefore pp children in Grammars are a small percentage.

However some of the secondary moderns (and they cannot be called comprehensive) do have over 30% high achievers and get around 15% to RG universities. At several A*-C A level grades are over 60%. However that’s not all of them and parents buy houses in catchment for the best secondary moderns. Therefore money speaks whether you want a grammar or not! There are parents who are very pro their local secondary modern and want the best outcomes for DC. At many of the schools, they get it.

No. The test isn’t perfect but a few DC do better because they are at the secondary modern and the pace is a bit slower and there is less pressure. That suits some DC. Some are over tutored for the Grammars and don’t do as well.

There is an overlap of abilities in both types of school and DC can apply to the Grammars for y8 or y9 or 6th form if they wish. It’s not perfect for all DC but there are few who hate the secondary moderns and few seek to transfer because of off days for the tests. If DC can see secondary modern DC going to Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, Sheffield, Exeter etc why would they move? If they are not at the grammar, it really won’t matter! It could even be for the best! I know lots of DC who could have gone to a grammar 6th form but didn’t apply. They achieved highly at the secondary modern.

I am becoming increasingly puzzled by some posters. Are people saying that a Kent High school with 7% high ability pupils should get the same number of 7-9 GCSEs as a Kent Grammar school with 85% high ability pupils, and it is only low expectations that prevents this happening?

“Just had a very quick google and this article for example mentions how the selective state schools represent a significant percentage of the state Oxbridge intake.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/oxford-university-cambridge-oxbridge-admissions-state-school-statistics-bias-a7194406.html%”

The top schools listed are mostly ‘super selective “. So their students would be very high achievers whatever school they went to. And it is likely that their parents are self selected aspirational for their children - to have put them in for the test, sent them to schools further away, moved to be in catchment etc etc

Though ‘Oxbridge Culture’ in a school plays a part. Isn’t there an Academy in E Londin that last year sent huge numbers to Oxbridge ?

Apologies as haven’t read the full thread, but grammmar schools are very much a thing on NI. I e just discovered a third of children here go to them, including mine. I’m not originally from here, so it was all new to me.
There are currently 67 grammar schools and 135 non-grammars, so grammars make up about one third of post-primary schools. As a result, about 45% of children in Northern Ireland attend a grammar school.9 Sep 2016

I don’t disagree, Schrodingersrat. But it just shows that it’s a bit disingenuous to use the overall stats to suggest that the state percentage represents ‘normal’ comprehensive schools, or that the state school kids attending Oxbridge are representative of society. The biggest lack of diversity at Oxbridge is not BAME across the board, but students of lower socio-economic background and Black British students.

And while this is an issue far wider than ‘secondary moderns’, one of the biggest criticisms of the old system was that it settled children’s futures at 11. So is it still the same? Some posters have said it’s not, which is good to hear. Other suggest it rather is.

When comprehensive schools first came in, the children were not put in sets or streamed”

Mine used sets. As a secondary modern it had an an O Level stream but when it converted to a comp we were in sets.

We started all in a mixed ability group but by the end of first year (now year 7) we were i sets for French,other sets were introduced each year or 1/2 year.

At fourth year (year 10) you were in O Level or CSE sets. Some subjects were only available as a CSE eg typing and some only as O Level (Computer studies).

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.

It might not be irrelevant if you child's appendix burst the day before the 11+ exam.

Don't forget the reason grammars ever existed was nothing to do with poor children being given opportunities, it was entirely down to numbers, after WWII there would no be enough managers, civil servants etc so grammars were invented to increase the numbers.

Grammars also generally work against females. Where you have separate boys and girls schools you often have to achieve higher on the 11+ to get into a girls' school than a boys.

“one of the biggest criticisms of the old system was that it settled children’s futures at 11. So is it still the same? Some posters have said it’s not, which is good to hear. Other suggest it rather is.”
It doesn’t settle their futures in the way it used to. But if you tell a 10 year old something about themselves then they are inclined to believe you. Particularly if it’s something that’s confirmed by their background and the people in their social circle. If you tell a 10 year that they are on track for a levels and university then they believe you. The reverse is also true.

Crazy to hear that people don't have grammar schools!

In our County, we have at least 7 that I can think of, but I do believe that there are more. Some have always been mixed sex, some are mixed sex when it gets to sixth form and some have just moved (last year) from single sex to mixed sex school.

It was quite normal to go to grammar school, if you could pass the 11+ and that's what I did.