To think that grammar schools should either be scrapped altogether or available in every county?

[Perriwinkle]

How can it possibly be fair or reasonable to have them only in certain counties?

I know that many people will say "how can a system that supposedly favours the brightest ten percent of children, ever be fair?" but personally, I've actually got no beef with that provided that the opportunity to attend these schools is available to the brightest children in all counties.

How can it be equitable that the brightest children who live in counties which do not have a grammar school system are routinely failed by the comprehensive system whilst those who live in certain counties are not because they are able to attend high performing State-funded grammar schools?

I think if you're anti grammar schools altogether you should probably hide this thread. This is not meant to be a thread about the pros and cons, relative merits, inequalities or shortcomings of either the grammar school system or the comprehensive system. It is a simply a question of wishing to hear any reasonable justification that may be put forward for the continued existence of the grammar school system in its current guise.

How can it be fair to continue restricting the opportunity to enjoy a priveliged grammar school education (akin to that which many people pay handsomely for in the private sector) only to children who live in certain parts of the country?

"But you haven't answered my question. And I'm genuinely interested. Why aren't you overjoyed with the school your DS attends? Is it because (as I strongly suspect) the government's method of measuring these things is so broad and lacking in nuance as to be useless? This speaks to the issue of what actually makes a 'good school' which another person raised."

OK, I'll risk it. As I have said all along, it is in many ways an excellent school. Discipline is reasonable, behaviour is OK, results are good. Ds will do well. However, it is a cultural desert. (Pauses for howls of ridicule). It does not provide a broad education. The assumption is that "these kids" will only be interested in the pop-iest of pop music. The only non sport after school clubs are a girl's dance club and a Christian Group. Children who pass the exam by 1 mark get a wide cultural experience. They have drama groups, they put on plays. They have choirs and orchestras. They have several rock bands. They have creative writing clubs and book groups. Fail by one mark- and nothing. And the frustrating thing is that it is far more likely that the high school kids will not get that sort of broadening enrichment from anywhere else. Who says that the grammar school kids should get the chance to find out about the good and interesting things in life and the high school kids settle for The XXXX School X Factor. It's the Us and Them thing that makes me so angry.

I don't ever ignore questions. I might miss them- but I don't ignore!

Seeker.

I know where you are coming from and have experienced these things in my dc schools. However, that's not to say that Grammar schools shouldn't exist.
I think you know a little of our background as we have spoken before and whilst you are correct, sometimes you just have to find the cultural things yourself.

Bonsoir
I know of some excellent Comprehensive schools and the parents feel their children are doing well, because they are. There are some that shock horror get better exam results than private or Grammar schools.

Toadinthehole how do you know he isn't naturally clever as well?

I can understand why you would feel annoyed at that Seeker, but the problem there is what the SM is offering, not what the GS is offering.

Is there a reason why the SM can't offer more musical type clubs or drama clubs? These aren't things that rely on academic ability in any way. If the SM is failing to offer an enriching curriculum then that's its own fault. It has nothing o do with the fact that there is a Grammar school down the road.

Couldn't you have exactly the same differences that you have mentioned occurring between two comprehensives?

Who says that the grammar school kids should get the chance to find out about the good and interesting things in life and the high school kids settle for The XXXX School X Factor.

The schools themselves are saying it, not the system. But as it's the schools that are saying it, they have the power to change it, without scrapping grammar schools altogether, don't you think?

I am fed up with the endless recycling of the myth that grammar schools are a panacea for class inequality.

I live in Bucks, and teach at an elite school. The prep schools around here are full to bursting with middle-class children being coached for the 11+, fiercely competing for a chance to attend a 'cheap' secondary education at one of the local grammars. The working-class children in this area don't stand a chance.

This is not a new phenomena. According to Early Leaving, a government study in the mid-50s which tracked the school careers of 9,000 grammar school children, only 23 children from the cohort who went on to get two A level passes were from unskilled working-class families.

Yes folks, that is 23, a two digit number.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/10/grammar-school-return

Doesn't that just prove the point I made earlier in the thread, that social mobility is a red herring because parental influence will have a much much more significant impact on educational outcomes than a school can ever have?

The working-class children in this area don't stand a chance.

Middle class children from modest backgrounds do quite well though, so at least it isn't all selection based on income.

1Charlie1 you did get the point that that study was done back in the Fifties?

Of course, Yellowtip. The 1950s were the Golden Age for grammar schools, operating in all areas of the country. Even in this era they were not helping those from working class backgrounds.

I'm just tired of the myth that those who support grammar schools are somehow class warriors, rather than just self-interested, middle-class parents who see education as a zero-sum game.

Up thread exotic talked about a well off family who bought her house because it was near a good GS and how the DC proceeded to fail the 11+. Elsewhere seeker talked about how her DS failed the 11+.

So why do people keep on going about how the MC have a secret handshake when it comes to getting a GS place?

Of course they don't have a secret handshake-I keep saying that no DC is a 'dead cert' and that parents who make assumptions that their DC will get a place can be disappointed. However I know quite a few DCs who are not suitable but drilled-one had to have catch up lessons in Maths and English once he got there!

I live in Bucks, and teach at an elite school. The prep schools around here are full to bursting with middle-class children being coached for the 11+, fiercely competing for a chance to attend a 'cheap' secondary education at one of the local grammars. The working-class children in this area don't stand a chance

Glad to hear someone actually say it-rather than pretend the bright DC from a disadvantaged family is well represented in the grammar school.

Lazy parents like comprehensive education.
Pushy parents like selective education

That is one of the silliest statements I have read.I am a very pushy parent and like comprehensive education-as do most people I know.

I'm just tired of the myth that those who support grammar schools are somehow class warriors, rather than just self-interested, middle-class parents who see education as a zero-sum game.

The old chestnut that grammar schools are good for helping the working class move upwards irritates me to death-when the parent saying it knows full well they will pay a lot to get the place for their own DC.
(I also hate the fact that only the very bright are supposed to be deserving to move upwards-the rest are supposed to know their place and stay there!)

"Lazy parents like comprehensive education.
Pushy parents like selective education"

Bloody hell- missed that! My dcs would laugh in a very hollow manner if they read that!

This takes us back to what defines middle class and what defines working class.

Why don't working class children stand a chance, or why is it believed that working class children don't stand a chance. Do parents have to be educated to degree level, or earn a certain income?

I don't think they do. The only people that have degrees in my family are third cousins to my dc, yet my dc still managed to get into a GS. Nor can I afford to pay private tutors. We are probably bottom of the middle in terms of income.

I don't think it has anything to do with class, it has to do with parental attitudes.

I don't think it has anything to do with class, it has to do with parental attitudes

True-the most important thing in your DCs education. (generally seen as middle class attitudes)

Your DS goes to a school which doesn't have the range of extra curriculum stuff that Your Poshness would like for Master Seeker and this pisses you off but this has nothing to do with the comp v SM/GS debate.

I mean, the comp at the top of my road is similar to your SM in terms of extra curriculum stuff on offer.

Your 'problem' is that your DS goes to a school that isn't in a MC area. The fact that it is a SM is a red herring.

Bottom line seeker. You are a snob trying to dress up your complaint as something more socially acceptable.

Your DS goes to a school which doesn't have the range of extra curriculum stuff that Your Poshness would like for Master Seeker and this pisses you off but this has nothing to do with the comp v SM/GS debate.

I mean, the comp at the top of my road is similar to your SM in terms of extra curriculum stuff on offer.

Your 'problem' is that your DS goes to a school that isn't in a MC area. The fact that it is a SM is a red herring.

Bottom line seeker. You are a snob trying to dress up your complaint as something more socially acceptable.

I don't think that you can have read seeker's posts!

"I don't think it has anything to do with class, it has to do with parental attitudes."

That's why I tend to say "privilege" rather than class. Many of the things that make a child privileged in terms of education are not necessarily class related.

CloudsAndTrees, while your experience is interesting (and well done to your DC for getting a place without coaching), you simply cannot extrapolate the effectiveness - and fairness - of an educational system using one child as an example.
As I said, I am a teacher living in a grammar school area, and the vast majority of successful candidates will have been schooled at expensive preps, tutored at crammers or privately coached. A child who has been tutored will have a greater chance of success than a child who has not, regardless of parental attitude.

But as I said earlier, having a parent that gives a shit about your education isn't privilege. It's just normal.

I appreciate that some children may be disadvantaged in that they don't have normal parents, but those children will be disadvantaged wherever they go to school. Because the thing that they are lacking doesn't cost money. Even if they do go to a school that offers all the things you would like your SM to offer, if their parents have the wrong attitude they aren't going to benefit from it.

I also think that by referring to normality as privilege, your opinion on this comes across as if you just want to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

You are basically saying that all children should miss out on something they will benefit from because some parents are crap at parenting.

Ok Charlie well my eight DC have got in without coaching as have plenty of their friends. So that's kind of eight out of eight which is a reasonable sample.

Of course there's frenetic tutoring going on but the main thing it does is deter others who can't afford it from applying; it's by no means scientifically proven that it helps secure a place. There's a lot of mythology keeping the tutoring industry afloat. I could quite easily develop a conspiracy theory on this one.

And could you just clarify Charlie: you said you were a teacher at an elite school in Bucks. You do mean you teach at a grammar I suppose?

in the mid-50s...only 23 children from the cohort who went on to get two A level passes were from unskilled working-class families. That article continues According to the 1963 Robbins report, only 1% of the children of semi-skilled or unskilled workers went on to higher education.

My dad went to grammar school in the 1940s & 50s but had to leave school before his A levels because his mum couldn't afford for him to stay on. They lived in a little rented 2 up/2 down straight off the street and were as WC as they come.

I left school at 16 in the late 70s. Of the 360 in my cohort about 60 stayed for A levels. Then about half of them went to polytechnic and just 4 went to university.

Turn it around and it's pretty impressive that even a small number of WC children went on to HE in the 50s and 60s.