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!!!

@Phineyj

The whole discussion on grammars is also muddied because people know/know of people for whom they had a genuinely meritocratic effect. I picked up a social history book recently at one of those outdoor museums (where they preserve old buildings) and my old school's name caught my eye. The large farming family who'd lived in the rescued building had sent their two girls to grammar in the 50s. Both became senior teachers -- one a headmistress. The mum and dad only had a basic education. The brothers had gone to agricultural college and into the forces.

Grammars are not needed to perform that function any more -- virtually all schools give access to the exams you need to progress and girls are entitled to the same education as boys.

My mum's experience was that she couldn't go to grammar because her family couldn't afford for her not to be working at 15. I question whether they were ever genuinely meritocratic.

@TheWayTheLightFalls

It’s about the risk of failure I think, the idea that you/he/they would be embarrassed at trying and failing.

This, especially if their child is average. A relatives child got into grammar with a lot of tutoring, but he can't manage with the work. It's a hard one, entrance exams are a skill which I think it's worth tutoring for the test. How much tutoring they need to get in, I don't know some of its natural ability and enjoying being stretched.

Regarding choice parents, parents in the English state system 'express a preference', they don't make a choice. But in all areas you can put down a range of schools (it's 5 or 6 here I think). The problem we had with the primary admissions process is that due to population growth, there were school "black spots" where there was a realistic chance of your child not getting a place at all (of course one has to be found eventually but at one stage it was hundreds of DC not placed in the first round). We panicked and went private. I was worried about wraparound care and how we were going to.manage our commutes with no choice of school location. Of course we're extremely lucky to have the cash to do that but I don't accept that it hurt anyone -- in fact it will have opened up a place for someone else's child.

Oh, I'm not claiming for a moment that the grammars changed UK society in some major way but they did open up a new academic option for some bright working class DC (you only have to look at the bios of writers, politicians, civil servants, teachers etc of a certain age to see that). So did the Assisted Places Scheme. The good comps open opportunities too. The cost of uniforms and travel to school were barriers too (and still are, unfortunately).

Making education better for everyone is a noble aim but I think there are very few people who'll make that their key decision point with their own DC. And people's views sometimes change when faced with a reality like a child with SEN or some special talent. The current system also doesn't take into account parents' need to work, especially mums.

The main issue is how much the options and outcomes vary by area in England. But I wouldn't see the solution as closing good schools.

It's because they might not get in...tutoring is not a guarantee.

My brother went on and on about my nephew's prowess and I just smiled. He didn't get in. It was then a bit embarrassing really.

Far better to just say where your child is going when the time comes.

(Of course Grammars get the best results they only take the most able children. It would be a bit odd if they couldn't get decent results wouldn't it?)

I found out (as we moved) the boys grammar school had no 'catchment' area and any boy in the country could apply. And they would just take the top 200. That didn't seem a good use of resources. (The girls grammar did have a big catchment, but at least it meant the children were relatively local)

It's probably competitive parenting, OP, the opposite of 'trying makes you a winner' etc. The fact they feel reflected failure if their kids don't get in, wounded pride and so on.

Which is terrible as just trying is amazing. That should be celebrated. There should be no shame for kids in knowing they gave it their best shot, regardless of the outcome, and parents should absolutely reflect that in their actions, too. Then again we are a culture not set up to fail which means a lot of people don't take risks, don't really try, put pride ahead of all else, and don't know how to mentally cope when things do go wrong. They learn as kids that 'failure' is something to be ashamed of. Which it isn't. Trying your hardest, not reaching the goal, dusting yourself off and trying again or trying for something else - all while still feeling good about yourself - is what I always try to instil in my boys. We all fail sometime, we all win sometime, might as well learn to embrace both for all the benefits they can give you.

Why though - it's a nationally funded system, not locally funded. And a student that gets a place is by definition local enough to get there (I don't think any grammars have boarding houses any more).

I think it's a reasonable point about trying and resilience but we are talking about 9 and 10 year olds (11+ exams are early year 6, enter before that).

I think this must be just in your school. Here friends of mine, their daughters sat the exams for 2 Surrey independents and we discussed how the exam prep was going.

OP: "40 years ago, grammar school was the norm? That everyone took the 11+? I assume nobody was tutored. "

No, no this is not correct. It was very rare. And even with tutoring only the very brightest got in. It was not common at all. Very rare.

Phiney

I agree I know and have met so many successful people from a few generations before mine that went to grammar often without parental input and had excellent careers.

Back then you didn't need your parents to do any ground work for the 11+ it came from the place supposed to educate you, the school system.
Now entry to grammar has been removed from the school system and put into parents hands which disadvantage the child who is capable an all rounder but unfortunately their parents can't it won't help them access the grammar.

Throwing all these dc under the bus really suits people who want grammars closed because they can say... They are unfair

We need more schools not less.

And I'm always aghast, especially from the usual grammar haters on here when they expend so much energy attacking the grammar system and they don't ever mention the need for supporting sen within the school system. which would make a far far greater impact on outcomes for everyone in evry way rather than destroying grammar.

@PurpleOkapi

I'm more familiar with the American system than the British one, but I think it's oversimplistic to say selective schools only get better results because they have smarter or more privileged students to start with. Yes, that's a huge part of it. But a student with above-average natural abilities isn't likely to get an education appropriate to their talents at a school where a large majority of students perform below grade level. Even if that school has excellent teachers and the reasons for the low performance are some combination of poverty, parental neglect, and low natural ability - none of which have anything to do with the school - that's still the level the instruction will be geared to. It's naive to think a high-ability student would end up with the same level of knowledge regardless of which school he went to.

Comprehensive schools have streaming to cater for different abilities. My DD got 12 gcses at her non-leafy comp - 2 Bs, 6 As and 6A. Among her large friendship group that was quite average. One girl got 13 A. Three of her closest friends went to Oxford or Cambridge. She absolutely loved her school.

Our local comp (that I've just pulled dd from) is struggling to support lower attainers and higher attainers.
If your average though they seem to be OK.

@Chicchicchicchiclana well said.

I know many comps with a very mixed intake that produce stellar results and succeed in making sure all children reach their potential. Truly these are surely the 'best schools' with highly skilled teachers that can adapt their teaching for all. Children can move between streams or sets which benefits late blossomers who'd be classed as failures at age 11 in a grammar area.

Wouldn't it be great if there were schools like that everywhere?

The problem now is that not even the Labour Party would abolish grammars because people whose children get in obviously think they're great (I'd love to hear a grammar school defender from parents whose children didn't get in). Also with their great results it's seen as abolishing something successful irrespective of the debatable roots of that success.

So I guess we are stuck.

Genuine question, anyone here with more than one child with both passes and fails at 11+? What do you think?

@Tigersteakpie when you say "the grammar schools are significantly better than the comprehensives around here" How are you defining "better"?

Obviously their results will be better as they have creamed off the top students. But is their teaching any better? And what about things like pastoral care? It is truly not always a given that these will be better at a grammar.

Years ago, my friend asked me what colour book band my daughter was on - just asked really casually but then she pushed and pushed her daughter until she was on the same one and it made me realise that it makes some parents really competitive. Or it seems like you are bragging which isn't nice.
So now l don't discuss academic stuff with anyone because comparison is the thief of all joy and kids need to learn that we are all different and that is a good thing.

It is very disappointing to read sone of the things you have said here, OP, as you are coming across as quite unfair in your evaluation of children, and their parents, who attend comprehensive schools. Children at comprehensive schools are NOT there because they either 'failed' or didn't bother! Many, if not most, children don't have the option of a grammar school - either because they do not live in a grammar school area, or because their parents are not able to afford tutors for them. Primary schools do not teach for the 11+ as the curriculum is very different to the NC. It is obvious that if you are in a grammar school area, they will be creaming of the top achievers who should then go on to get good GCSE passes. Naturally in those areas, comprehensives will do less well as they have list a lot of their potentially higher achieving pupils.
I don't actually have an issue with grammar schools generally - I went tone myself. But that was at a time when every child in my, very ordinary, primary school sat the 11+ (50+/-) years ago. My own dcs went to the local comprehensive. Not because they were failures, or couldn't be bothered, but because that is what is available in this area. Nice to know that with their 15 A grades and 13 A grades, you would consider them failures. I'm sure that dc1 Msc was a result of not being bothered. I am equally concerned for the children dc1 now teaches at a comprehensive school, since their places at Oxford and Cambridge, as well as other 'top' universities clearly show their failure.
I am extremely proud if both my dcs achievements and your attitude on here has shown exactly why people don't generally publicise their children's academic achievements.

Sorry - lots of typos there. Fat fingers and phone obviously not a good combination.

Another non failure here. Two DCs who went comp bc there were grammars and we didn't want to pay. Complete sets of A stars at GCSE and A level; 1 Cambridge dwgeee, 1 Durham degree and a Masters from the London School of Hygeine. And much else besides like jobs and relationships.
If comps have w problem it's the existence of grammars abs privates which cream off some of the talent and skew the results.

And what's more more we had high expectations and they didn't need any extra tuition. Plus our area definitely isn't leafy.
Just to lay to rest a few MN cliches!

@Oblomov21

OP: "40 years ago, grammar school was the norm? That everyone took the 11+? I assume nobody was tutored. "

No, no this is not correct. It was very rare. And even with tutoring only the very brightest got in. It was not common at all. Very rare.

When I sat the 11+ in 1970 it was the last year that it was compulsory - so 51 years ago.

No-one got tutured for it as far as I know. I certainly didn't. I think it is awful that so many children were written off academically at 10 and 11.

Same year my (ahem older) husband took it and he def wouldn't have been tutored. Tutoring for selective school is a rotten thing

"Cheating to train them to pass an exam" I wonder where that poster stands on GCSE and A-level revision guides. No-one should take a test of any kind without ascertaining how long it is, what kind of knowledge is required and doing some practice on the skills. Which doesn't have to cost anything at all.

My students are older but every year I'm surprised how many haven't looked for past papers themselves (obviously I give them to them, but no-one did this for me at school...)

World of difference between familiarising yourself with past papers and two whole years of once a week tuition, which is the standard preparation pupils entering fir say Tiffin get. At least that was the duration when we bailed from SW London in 2006. In addition parents were so cagey about who they used and whether they used tuition at all. Which may answer OP's question: they don't want to admit to their ambition because if they do they may be expected to divulge their tutor's details!