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

in der his? In this

Phone is on drugs again.

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

Do people in grammar school areas not have access to Google, or something

@TapasForTwo
The school had 45% of students achieving A or A at A level last year.

This basically beats Hills Roads' stats of 41% A*/A last year which is the best performing state sixth form in East Anglia and attracts students from neighbouring counties. Results are available on their website. It's also extremely selective.

I repeat, your state comprehensive is as far from the average state comprehensive as it can get with those results.

None up here in the north some have it in their name but means nothing

'The north' is a big place, and this isn't true. I live in a northern area which still has grammars and the 11+.

I'm also with Bertrand on this - I don't believe it's a good thing.

EBearhug
Bilateral in this case means a school which is partially academically selective (12%). Children apply for and sit the same 11 plus as for all the grammar schools within that consortium, and are taught in a separate grammar stream. The rest of the school is not selective as in a regular comprehensive.
Some comps are partially selective but I don't think they are taught separately in the same way.
Historically bilaterals were in more rural areas after the 1944 Act where separate sec mods and grammar schools weren't sustainable. I taught in one after it had gone comprehensive and was told it was the easiest transition ever from one system to the other.

Has there ever been a thread from a parent whose DC failed the 11+ (with or without tutoring) in praise of the grammar system and suggesting all counties should adopt the system?

Thanks, campion. I hadn't heard of them before.

Not read the full thread as there are over 600 messages!

I went to a state grammar school, as did DH. Neither school was "super-selective" though - mine had a catchment area of 3 miles and however bright you were, if you didn't live in that area, you didn't get in, so it took kids from the local area. I do object to the super-selective type that take kids from 20 miles away, that's not how the system should work.

We live in Hampshire so we have the comprehensive system here. However, as someone said above - there are comps and comps. We live in an affluent area and some of the comp schools in Hampshire are higher in the league tables than some grammar schools.

But in the end I object less to grammar schools than I do to schools that select by religion. At least grammar schools select on the ability of the child (yes I know you can be tutored but you still need to be bright), selecting on religion is nothing to do with the child and should not be allowed. Given you can't discriminate in an an employment context, I can't see any good reason for discriminating in an education context.

A lot of the Kent high schools have 'Grammar Streams' and offer what would be on offer for a top set at a traditional Comprehensive school !

Therefore It is ambiguous to state that Kent has no form of comprehensive education across any of its schools. This being both in terms of a schools cohort and its academic achievement/profile.

DS goes to a grammar school it’s over 20 miles away but he catches the train. He’s naturally clever and it’s worked out brilliantly for him. It was his idea to go and he passed his 11 plus with flying colours.

main

• Why do they have to call them 'grammar streams'?
• Why does it have to be a stream not just set for each subject?
• What if you're not 'grammar stream' but still for example excel at MFL, do you still get the same offer?

And if what you state is the case, why do the grammar pupils need to be in a separate school, if a 'grammar stream' could provide for them anyway?

From what I read, many non-grammars in grammar areas fail to attract sufficient pupils to triple science or 2 MFL so these fall by the wayside and aren't timetabled.
Plus of course being told implicitly you are a 'failure' at age 10.

many non-grammars in grammar areas fail to attract sufficient pupils to triple science or 2 MFL

Which also happens in non grammar areas, particularly in run-down areas.

Well, yes. I know of 'outstanding' comprehensives in comprehensive areas with above average national results that don't offer triple science or double languages.

In affluent and comprehensive areas, that should say.

Very true Kazzy, of course the "best" comps attract people who are able to buy in the area.

I can see why parents would apply to a grammar miles away if their local school is poor and they can't move house.

It's a complicated picture.

The thing is, all schools should be good schools.

Whether a school is good isn't dependent on its model, it is dependent on its management.

So when debating the grammar v comp, we need really to be debating whether the models themselves are intrinsically better, or worse for different types of pupil, or whether they are equally good but just different.

3 models:
Full comprehensive
Grammar & Secondary Modern
Super selective & broadly comp

How are different types of pupils affected:

• high, middle and low achievers
• affluent, average, disadvantaged
• SEN from whatever backgrounds

Do we accept a system if it is good for affluent high achievers, even if it is worse for disadvantaged pupils from any background?
Do we accept a system which is good for average income mid achievers, even if it is worse for the outliers?
Do we accept a system that forcibly separates children by exams aged 10.

Anecdotes aren't data.
Data from 30 years ago is worthless now.
We need to somehow look at the models, not at individual schools, because everyone wants and deserves good schools.

3 models.....Grammar & Secondary Modern

There's a 4th being grammars alongside comps. Not all grammars are super-selective. Not all comps are "sec mods" just because they're close to a grammar or two.

Kazzy I'm not sure I agree.

A grammar near a 'comp' will suck away enough of the more able kids such that the 'comp' isn't really a comp any more.

Unless the grammar is only taking say 5% (maybe 10% at a push) of 'available' kids then it is my belief (that I can't back up ) that it will have an impact on the demographic of other schools.

Jeez some people have too much time on their hands @campion and just to blow your mind all the 'grammar' schools in the Black Country aren't necessarily grammar some are private if you want to get that picky.