To think it is hypocritical for parents who are anti 'Tory elitism' and are Labour voters to send their child to a grammar school?

[Liketochat1]

Aibu to think a parent who is a Labour voter and anti 'Tory elitism' and private schooling, might be hypocritical to accept a place at a grammar school for their child? If you have left wing views, would you accept a grammar school place?
This is not about me by the way or anyone I know. Just a hypotheitcal question I've discussed in the past and found interesting.

Maybe I'm being naive but what is wrong with Grammar schools? I'm from a working class, Socialist background and I went to one. I took my 11+ (because I wanted to) and got in and my parents left it up to me to decide if I wanted to go. I'm glad I did as the local comp was terrible and I got a very good education. Grammar schools aren't about money or class so how it is "Tory elitism". If I'm being dumb and missing the point, please enlighten me.

"Aren't Grammar schools publicly funded? Therefore it's just a better version of a state school."

Yes, they are state funded.

DC take an entrance test. The top 2/3% are offered a place. All the DC I know who have just finished Y5 are spending the next few weeks being intensively tutored. Some families are not taking a holiday this summer because they don't want to interrupt their tutoring. And these are families with access to ofsted outstanding comprehensives/Good Catholic schools.

But when grammar schools produce some of the best exam results in the country, above and beyond fee payng schools......

"Grammar schools aren't about money or class"

They are when most children who are offered a place have been tutored.

LynetteScavo - that's why I asked to be enlightened. I only have my own experience of my Grammar school to go on. I wasn't tutored, and as far as I know most of the girls in my class weren't. Some of them were well off, but most weren't. I don't know much about the system as I don't have school age children, so that's why I asked

DF worked in a factory, Was shop steward, lived in a council house, voted labour.

I got into a grammar school because of the intelligence god gave me.

My DM cannot read at all.

I cannot see the problem with wanting all dc's to reach their potential. That is not elitist.

My DW went to a Grammar in Newcastle before it turned into a Comprehensive when she was in the Sixth form. Many teachers retired or left to go to private schools.

Lots of kids from all sorts of backgrounds - both rich and poor. DW was not from a wealthy background as her Dad was unemployed for a long time. They could not aford priivate school but she did very well out of it and had a dramatic impact on her life.

ScarlettLady, there are really 2 types of grammar school. The ones Lynette mentioned taking top 2-3% or possibly 5-10% (I don't think anyone is quite sure) select from a wide geographical area and tend to be referred to as superselectives. They are tend to be an oddity within a broadly comprehensive system. Families have to opt in and the schools themselves set the exam rather than the LEA.

Other LEAs like Kent, Bucks or Lincolnshire run selective systems possibly more similar to the one you were part of, in that the children sit the exams at their primary school unless they are opted out. The percentage of children selected is more likely to be around 20%.

AFAIK, tutoring is now common in both systems.

MoreBeta, I think Grammar schools were created for people like your DW. Sadly such DC are not being allowed to access Grammar schools because DC who's parents can afford intensive tutoring are going instead.

Although, what I will say for Grammar schools is, having chatted to another mum this week is, you can tutor a bright child all you like, but if they have no inclination to lean or take the test then the will not pass. So, Grammar schools are full of children who's parents can pay for them to be tutored, and are receptive to being taught (hence their fabulous results), as well as being above average...of course there are still a few children who haven't been tutored and are naturally bright. These are the ones who end up on the G&T register in Grammar schools.

I had to go to the Grammar school itself to take the 11+ and I was the only one in my (very small village Primary) school to do it (no-one had entered for a few years) as my parents had to enter me privately. Is that a super-selective? I'm sure they only took the top few percent. It's Colchester County High School if that helps. All I knew was that my parents asked if I wanted to enter and I said I'd give it a shot and see what happened.

"The ones Lynette mentioned taking top 2-3% or possibly 5-10% (I don't think anyone is quite sure)"

I would love to know. I worked it out as 2% (can't remember how know) DS2's teacher says it's 3%. My mum used to tell me 30 years ago it was 20%. (The "secondary moderns" have got bigger but the grammars haven't expanded at the same rate)

I figured if DS was in the top 10% of his year should easily get in. He just, by a couple of points didn't. I refused to have him condemned to failure at 11, and bus him to a school out of the grammar area. (Little did I know most of the most able children in that area go private and he is still far too able, for my liking, in his year)

I just looked on CCHS website and it says "selective grammar school for girls". It also says state funded and it's just been granted academy status. Was weird looking at it again, I left 12 years ago!

There's been some great points made here. Runner- I liked yours right at the beginning- it's one thing to want to see the back of a policy but another to be the victim of it. Quite true I think.
I agree that, in their time, grammar schools were a great aid to social mobility and were thus a good idea. But that is not the case any more. As pps have said, there are only something like 2% of children in them getting free school meals. Parents are tutoring their children to pass tests and those who can afford it have better access to computers and other facilities to help their children. There's a new grammar being built in Sevenoaks, I imagine it's suddenly attracted a whole swathe of middle class parents to the area who are hoping to avoid paying private secondary school fees for their children and seeing the value of their houses in the catchment area shoot up.
Personally, and I attended a grammar school myself, I would like to see the back of grammar schools I think. I think streaming within one school is a fairer approach for all with children set for the core subjects and in mixed ability groups for sports, music and art.
I can't see how people can vote socialist and moan on about elite Tories but send their own children to selective schools, which are becoming more and more the domain of the better off.

I'm so glad I live in a comprehensive area.

Grammar schools have always been elitist, and harking back to their golden age is largely based on anecdote.

The Crowther Report showed, in 1959, that poor children were significantly under represented.

It seems that three quarters of grammars have converted to academy status and thus rely on funding agreements with the secretary of state; there are already calls for Labour to withdraw this funding should they win the next election.

I have no truck with parents using grammars - I like them - but at least be honest about what they are.

The golden age of grammar schools certainly didn't exist in the 70s.

In fact I had no idea grammar schools still existed until I came on MN.

There was an interesting thread on this just a couple of weeks ago - a woman asking if anyone else had compromised their socialist principles through buying educational privilege (tutors, private education, moving house)

The conclusion was that all socialists were selfish hypocrites - something which apparently came as a revelation to a couple of people.

I would move to get away from a grammar school system.

usualsuspect

I would move to get away from a grammar school system.

You presumably moved to select your children's comprehensive school? How is moving to an area with good comprehensive schools any different? You're still selecting, just on the basis of income rather than talent.

I live in a truely comprehensive area, My children went to the nearest comprehensive which would have had most of MN running for the hills.

Scarlett, I think your school would be termed a super-selective (its not an official term BTW) in that case.

I would love to know. I worked it out as 2% (can't remember how know) DS2's teacher says it's 3%. My mum used to tell me 30 years ago it was 20%. (The "secondary moderns" have got bigger but the grammars haven't expanded at the same rate)

The only reason I came up with the 5-10% is because on a TV programme about secondary transfer a few years back, the head of one such school gave that figure. Considering the difference between 5% and 10%, it suggested he didn't really know either. The supersectives came about more or less as a result of the Greenwich ruling. Some areas had kept selection while others had gone comprehensive. While selective schools previously took small numbers of children from neighbouring LEAs the Greenwich ruling enforced that they could not favour children from the home LEA.

I think it is a little hypocritical, yes. But as someone mentioned up thread your principles are yours, sticking to them even if it could negatively affect someone else - your child - isn't very nice either. Using a grammar school whilst opposing the principle of them is perhaps the lesser of two evils. At least where the child in question is concerned.

Personally I have no issue with either private or grammar schools - I went to both, and a state primary, and a 6th form college and a University Jack of all schools, me.

I'd actually like to see a much wider range of schooling available from the state, grammars, secondaries and 'technical' schools. My main issue with the current system is that it makes no allowances for children who are not academic. I dislike the pressure to fit all kids into the same box, and I think a lot of children who are seen as 'trouble' these days would probably be really successful if they were able to learn a 'trade' or similar from secondary age. More hands on skills should be viewed much more highly than they currently are.