Why is it not ok to have openly high expectations of DC

[Tigersteakpie]

Ok so I've been thinking about this all day and I'm still not sure about the psychology behind this.

We are in a grammar school area, not super competitive but you know. It's grammar school.

My eldest DS is about to go into y5. We have started some home tutoring over the summer (using an online 11+ prep thing) and from December onwards he'll be tutored 1:1 once a week as well.

Our DS is not a genius, he's probably slightly above average. But he works hard and has a good attitude. We are keen for him to go to grammar school if he can. We are not pushing it on him at all, but the grammar schools are significantly better than the comprehensives around here, so naturally we'd like him to go of possible.

I'd say that around 50% of his classmates are also being tutored either by parents/online things or by actual tutors.

But there seems to be this unspoken rule that it's NEVER EVER DISCUSSED. Not even if there are a group of say 3 of us together who all are in the same boat, tutoring and begining to prep to take the 11+.

It's almost like it's boastful to even say you are taking it? To admit that you'd hope your child might stand a chance? To admit that actually you would quite like your DC to do well if they can.

On the flip side he also plays a sport. He's pretty good and plays for a localish team that do quite well. There is a LOT of talk about how well the DC do at sports/musical things/extra curricular things.

I just don't get it. Is it just where I live? It's not even as if it's me talking about it loads so people openly avoid it. It's just never mentioned!!!

Most people don't actually agree with grammar schools. But if they're in your area and everyone applies then you just go along with it. So discussing it is awkward.

@Boobtubetrain I'm not sure that I agree with you there..I don't think "most" people don't agree with grammar schools.

I know some do but I dispute your suggestion that it's most. For a start, plenty of people apply for them....

I think it's cultural. I come from a culture where having extremely high expectations of children is openly spoken about; when I got e.g. like 5 As and a B for example my parents would openly ask what went wrong vis a vis the B.

The children talk about. My DD was in Yr3 when she asked if she needed a tutor for her 11+... I'm guessing because her friends did have tutors.
We moved to a non Grammar area. Her new Primary is actually more academic. The difference is the catchment school is good for all levels. Previous area, there was a school that was truly bad that some of the children would have to attend due to not living close enough to the other schools, only escape being passing the 11+. (I mean failing Ofsted bad, not just could be better...)

Obviously I'm generalising, but they apply because they're the best schools in the area in terms of results so why wouldn't you want the best for your child. That is not the same as agreeing with them as a matter of principle. Often the alternative is not great. But for anyone with left leaning politics it's not a decision you can easily justify. Hence, it's not discussed.

We are in a grammar area and it's not like that here. Ds1 is going into Y6 and takes the test in a few weeks. People just say what their dc are doing, there's lots of options here (better if you're a girl or Catholic tbf) and there's so much choice it's obvious that grammar isn't going to be right for everyone. Some kids definitely wouldn't get on with it and their parents are relaxed about that. Here getting into grammar school doesn't indicate much about life chances and there's always the risk that you might find grammar hard but thrive at a non grammar.

There's also not a big thing about the kids being in competition with one another and I can only think that any parents who think like this are running the risk of giving dc funny ideas.

I think as a previous poster mentioned there’s often a bit of a backlash if you ever imply that your DC might be good academically.
I remember once saying in passing to someone that my DS had done quite well in one of those National maths challenge things - I mean well by comparison with others in his class not particularly well nationally - he’d got a silver certificate. And about 2 years later this person mentioned it again and told me that the people in her DC’s class who were good at maths actually got gold certificates not silver. The tone of her comment implied that I’d been boasting about my DS and she wanted to show me that actually he wasn’t all that 😂
I was shocked that she’d even remembered it after that much time and that she had taken it that way. But I made a note to myself to be careful about discussing my DC’s academic progress to anyone again.

It’s because it’s all desperately unfair. Grammar schools are “supposed” to siphon off the most naturally academic children but there’s nothing natural about it at all, it clearly benefits those with the most able and involved parents with the knowledge and means to enlist the right tutoring etc.
No wonder people don’t want to shout about playing the system even though it’s the system that’s at fault not the players.

So I'd be interested to know... Am I right in thinking that 40 years ago, grammar school was the norm? That everyone took the 11+? I assume nobody was tutored. Did parents discuss it at all? I'm guessing not?

Why do you think the grammar schools are so much better than the non-grammars OP?

@Comedycook

Yes in my experience other parents never admit their DC are being tutored or discuss any of it really.

They want it to appear it all comes naturally that's why

I think more like 70 years ago....1944 Education Act was something to do with it. 40 years...1981...not the norm.

What annoys me more than anything is that these primary schools don't help any of the kids prep. Surely that would be the fairest way of doing it?

I totally appreciate that some people can't afford tutors and that without preparation their DC will struggle when they could otherwise have passed. I also know some parents aren't even going to know about the exam or take their kids there etc.

Surely it would be better if schools could support those who might pass and encourage parents to get capable children to take it.

Our school won't talk about it all. We asked outright and were told it's policy that they don't discuss it. so they won't even say 'no don't bother your child is nowhere near the right level'.

We had to do lots of googling to work out what DS needed to learn, when the exams were, what we could do at home to prep etc.

This has derailed the threat but it's important, no. Maybe it is all linked to money/class

But it depended on the area, wide variations across the UK, as now.

In our area the grammar school results far out shine the local comprehensive results. The schools have less behavioural problems. To be honest they just look like easier places to go to school and achieve your potential.

I'll be honest. We'd pay for private if we could. But we can't.

@Boobtubetrain yes ok longer than 40 years ago I still think I'm in my twenties.... Alas I'm not.

It is definitely connected to money and class, no question!

Grammar schools don't just select on ability (even though that in itself is debatable), they also select by stealth..... expensive uniform, not the nearest school for many so transport costs. All designed to keep out the undesirables. To be fair, many now have a range of measures to combat these things and to attract disadvantaged children. But the fact remains that grammar schools are overwhelmingly middle class. The proportion on free school meals is tiny.

You do have to be careful what you say as you can never be sure if others hold strong views. I attended a grammar and also taught at one for a while. My DC attends a private school. I was absolutely tonguelashed by a slight acquaintance on a crowded commuter train a few years ago. I hadn't seen her since our (same age) DC were babies and she asked what school my DC went to so I told her (just 'X school', it wasn't some kind of stealth boast). She then gave me a 20 minute lecture about the evils of private education and grammars despite me trying repeatedly to turn the conversation (I was confused at the time about the relevance of the grammars, but I guess I must have mentioned the school name when I was on mat leave from them).

It was so bad a stranger congratulated me for keeping my composure, as we got off! She was on her way to a funeral too, so I was conscious of not wanting to be too argumentative.

It was mortifying. I can see why people would rather not bring any of it up tbh and I never do unless I'm 100% sure of the other person.

And to be fair, there are people with principled objections to both grammar and private education (they tend not to like it if you push back on the religion, house price and SEN aspects of our ridiculous system, however).

Depending on where you are, only a small percentage pass the test. In some areas 5%. So primary schools are hardly going to waste time coaching all children are they?

I live in Scotland, I don't think we even have grammar schools here? But anyway, I think there is a difference between having high expectations and I'm usually the resources that you have available to help your child reach their potential - whatever that potential might be.

The expectations one is quite negative I think. You expect your child to do well, so apply that to them and then what if they fail? Or their own expectations are different to yours? This happened with my cousin - she was really bright as a child and so her parents just expected her to become a Dr and told everyone who would listen that that's what was going to happen. She did do well at school but then sort of rebelled and dropped out of uni, had a baby really young and now literally works at McDonalds (in management, she actually has quite a good job anyway).

The thing you're doing is just helping your child to teach their potential. As long as you're not pressuring them or showing disappointment if they don't do as well as you would hope then I don't see the problem? If they want to go to the grammar school then they will know they need to work. If they don't, and it's something that you want then have a think about that. Not talking about it is normal. I've got the opposite, my son is lovely but lives in his own planet, I can't see him doing anything spectacular academically and that's fine, but I don't talk about it with friends because what's the point?

DS is sitting entrance exams next week. I’m not “pretending” to be laid back though; DS has ASD and although he wants to do the exams, I know him well enough to know that his anxiety might well get the better of him on the day and he’ll melt down and refuse to do it. Obviously I hope he doesn’t, but if he does nothing on earth will persuade him in that moment. So although he’s had tutoring and we’ve done the preparation, my seeming lack of investment in the outcome is necessary!

Ime the ridiculous system where primaries aren't allowed to prep for 11+ has come about because a) there aren't nearly enough grammar places if more people applied - they're massively oversubscribed and there's essentially a ban on opening new ones; b) they're not evenly spread and many areas have none; c) it would mean not having a National Curriculum because you'd have to give schools the flexibility to teach the grammar test maths, verbal reasoning etc, but why would you do that in a non grammar area and d) plenty of teachers are opposed to 11+ anyway. So it would be utterly toxic politically.

The grammars were given a choice of becoming comprehensive or going private in the 60s when Tony Crosland was Education Sec. The idea was the comps would be so good that the demand for grammars would wither away. Kent MPs did not want to convert their grammars as it was so unpopular with constituents (I looked this up in Hansard once). I assume this was the case in the other areas that retained them. It was never compulsory to convert but many people were genuinely pro-comprehensive so it didn't have to be.

I guess also private education was much more affordable then.

Why do you think the grammar school pupils get better exam results op?

State primary schools are focused on the education of all. They can't be expected to hive off a group of more able pupils to tutor for the 11 plus. It's not in the curriculum!

As a child I lived in an area where the grammar school system still operated. If you passed you went to the grammar, if you didn't you went to what was called a secondary modern - no choice, you went to your local school.

Our head teacher did take a group of those they were putting in for the 11 plus to practice question types. I was in that group and did pass. Not all did. Certainly not everyone was put in for the test. Most of the children lived on a council estate and in those days, very few went on to grammar from such an area. I was seen as clever, to my embarrassment. (I had not long moved from a very middle class school.)

I did well at school but it wasn't a good experience overall. Went comprehensive two years later and lost all the attributes of a grammar - all the good teachers fled when a sixth form college was opened.

My view is that grammars do well because they have the more able pupils, not necessarily because they are better schools. And to be bottom of the pile in a grammar school is not a good place to be. Better to go to a good comprehensive that has to work to get the results.

Sorry, off topic, though answers one of your questions OP. As for the original question, I think it's considered bad manners for us British to boast or be openly proud of academic achievement, even though everyone wants it for their children. The school system over values the academic too, which makes it embarrassing if you boast about your child but they then don't achieve top grades at GCSE and A level etc.

Re exams- in my day you simply could not say you had revised hard, you had to pretend you hadn't and didn't give a toss. Which is ridiculous but probably part of the same thing about not boasting.

People don't want to admit tutoring because your son is competition and you might hire their tutor. I'm from London and the best tutors are hired years in advance and you need an older friend to tell you who the best tutors are.

I suspect that there's also a fear of failure. They don't want the risk of their child being embarrassed if they don't get a place and others knowing.

If you want to discuss it then someone in the year above would be a safer bet (especially once the test is over)