to be sick of the inverse snobbery about Grammar Schools?

[MummaEss]

I live in an area which still uses a Grammar School system. I understand that the system is highly controversial to some people and I do not start this thread with the intention of it turning into a heated debate about the pro's and con's of said system.

My issue is that having a daughter who attends the local High School, I am often left feeling almost embarrassed and apologetic about this fact when talking to people who's children attend a Secondary School. So often when I talk to other mothers about schools, the minute they find out that my daughter attends a Grammar, I get a long speil about how Grammar Schools are hothouses and put too much pressure on the kids, the fact they are often single sex will leave the kids socially awkward, the rumours of Grammar kids who 'burn out' or go off the rails etc etc etc. This is then followed by raving reports of how amazing the Secondary is and how fabulously their offspring are doing. These are often (but not always) the same people who eagerly looked round the Grammars before their children took the test.

Now don't get me wrong, we are indeed lucky to have some very good Secondary schools in my area. I myself passed my 12 plus many years ago and opted for the Secondary over the High School as I felt it suited me better. I do not think either type of school is better than the other, just that both suit different children.

If I were to turn the tables and slate the Secondary schools to a mum who's child attends and then rave about how superior the Grammar School that my daughter attends is and how well she is doing, I would be branded a horrendous, arrogant snob and rightly so.

Soooo aibu to expect a bit more tact and less venom from non Grammar Mums?

"
Comprehensives have had decades in which to make this happen. They haven't done it. 40 per cent of comps are still failing the brightest."

There is virtually no funding for a decent gifted and talented programme and what resources there are spread far too thinly. I can see sense in a super selective for the top 0.1% or maybe even less but there is no need to cream of the top 20%. Even then the educational needs of a really talented young violinist are different to a child who sits GCSE at 9 years old.

These threads about grammar schools over the past few days have been an eye-opener for me. I haven't lived in the UK for about 15 years, and I had lost touch with how the system works there now. I was shocked to find how divisive it has become and how stressful it is for parents and children.

I suppose I had naively assumed that if you passed the 11+ you went to grammar school if there was one in your area, just as it was years ago when I was at school. It hadn't occurred to me that there was no guarantee at all of a grammar school place.

We were in Buckinghamshire before we left the UK, and I had always thought I would send my boys to Aylesbury grammar so they could have the kind of education I did. I now see that it wouldn't necessarily have been that simple.

In Ireland, where we are now, the education system is by no means perfect, but the state sector is not socially divisive (at least where I live). There are fee-paying schools, many of which are boarding schools (and incidentally cost a fraction of those in the UK) and state schools, which are attended by the vast majority of pupils. State schools may be mixed or single-sex, they will each have their own admission criteria and they have entrance exams, but the entrance exam is used for streaming purposes within the school, not for admission purposes. It usually means that as long as you fulfil the admission criteria your child can attend the school of your choice. It is less stressful all round.

I suppose my own mindset has completely changed. I've gone from being the parent who'd have wanted her sons to attend a grammar, to being very happy that they didn't have that option and that they attend a streamed, mixed ability state school the same as most of the rest of the country, and that everyone within the system has the same opportunity to do well.

I wasn't meaning to divert the thread, just offering a different perspective.

I grew up in the grammar school era, bloody grim it was.

As a parent of a SEN child, I'm grateful everyday we don't have the grammar system.

I live in a pocket of the country where all the high schools my children can attend are outstanding and inclusive with an abundance of opportunities for each child regarding of ability.

No one cares or compares what the neighbours child is doing.

I thanked the person who abolished the grammar school system from the bottom of my heart.

We live on the edge of a grammar school area, my eldest son is in a grammar school as a last resort. My eldest daughter is not quite as bright as my son but could have gained a place at the grammar. We did not send her because the grammar school has poor facilities, is notoriously dull, bullying is rife and more importantly she did not want to go. Nothing to do with reverse snobbery but just about wanting the best for my children. My second daughter , having witnessed her brother go through the grammar and having seen the amazing experience of my eldest daughter did not even want to sit the exam.

I can't see why people get so upset about grammar schools in selective areas. Those people are lucky they are so accessible.

In areas where there is only one or two grammar schools, the competition for places is ridiculous and that's what causes stress. If there were more grammar schools and both types of schools in a given area were able to fulfil the academic potential of all of their pupils, it wouldn't be a problem. All children would be taught in the best environment for them, every child would have their individual needs met. Everyone's a winner.

The problem doesn't lie with schools that have high levels of good behaviour and achieve good results. The problem is with the schools that don't enable children to reach their potential and who have high levels of negative behaviour. Some of the blame for that lies with parents, not grammar schools.

No everyone would not be a winner, if my children were forced to go to a grammar school because they were bright they would be miserable.

In selective areas, children aren't forced to take the 11+. They may be encouraged to by their primary school if their teachers think they are capable of the standard, but it's parental choice that matters. If you don't want to apply to the grammar school you don't have to.

landofsoapandglory - am sure you can tell the difference! Was just trying to show that their are weird attitudes and prejudices in all kinds of directions. My jaw was on the floor that she said it, actually. It was our nearest school and my son, if we chose it, could have walked there in 15 minutes - lovely. The whole "your sort is not welcome here" thing from her really put me off - especially as they had so ill-judged the "sort" we are.

"I can't see why people get so upset about grammar schools in selective areas. Those people are lucky they are so accessible."

Only if a child passes an exam and is in the top 150 or so of the thousands who sit the exam.

"They may be encouraged to by their primary school if their teachers think they are capable of the standard, but it's parental choice that matters. If you don't want to apply to the grammar school you don't have to."

So lack of parental ambition or even fears about the cost of the uniform can prevent a poor bright child from even trying. Parents have no say about what set a child is put in at comprehensive. Why should parents have a say whether a bright child has a challenging education or not?

Surely in a fully selective area there would be more than 150 places available?

I have a child at a grammar and a child at a comp. The difference in the cost of uniforms is non existent.

If non grammar schools are doing their job properly, all children would be challenged and all would achieve well. If they aren't doing their job properly, then they need to improve. Getting rid of grammar schools would do nothing to help a failing non grammar school do a better job.

Exactly, Clouds. It's not the fault of the grammar school if an unrelated school isn't doing well. And it's certainly not the responsibility of the brightest children to pull the others up a grade or so, while their own potential is held back.

I'm sure many of us will know members of the older generation who went to grammar school, but weren't wealthy. Where's that chance of a fast-track education for the bright but poor teenager now? (And no, the relatively tiny number of private school bursaries/scholarships doesn't cut it). Better to have the opportunity there, even with its faults, than for it not to be there at all.

Some of you lot will believe any rubbish you read, however politically motivated.

Care to explain, Boffin?

Read the IOE blog on the subject.

I'm confused, where I live highschool and secondary are the same thing.

It is the fault of the grammar school if it creates a divisive system that leaves the majority feeling worthless and stupid. It is the fault if the grammar school if it drives children apart and makes them bully one another.

It depends where you are. I'm in a grammar area. The fight to get a place ready for Y7 is an eye opener. Having been brought up within the system, it largely went over my head. As far as I was concerned, you turned up one day, you did a paper, and then you were told what school you were going to by your Primary Head at parents evening. Or that's the way I remember it!

The whole cat fight for places when DS2 was in transition was phenomenal. I was amazed that people had their children tutors from as early as Y1 in preparation for the tests. I didn't do that! I spent 6 months living on the edge of my nerves until the results came out - the postman must have thought I was some loony sex pest as I ripped the front door open with a "have you got it?????", there were a large amount of women accosting him in their nighties that morning. I was even that mad that morning I went and drove past it, twice, to make sure it was really still there. How bonkers is that?

But I was being unwittingly driven by the hype of the other mothers at the school gate.

I cried, when he got in, the feeling of euphoria was immense. The 11+ was the most important exam he has ever taken - it has shaped him for the rest of his life. Someone is going to come along and say that s a complete over reaction but I know my child, had he gone to the comp he'd have coasted along on his arse and come out with a mediocre clutch of B and C grades at GCSE.

FWIW - I did not feel this way about DS1 - not grammar material by any stretch of the imagination, with DS3 I wanted to withdraw him from the selection tests but his Y6 teacher said he deserved a chance. even if he had passed, he does not have the coping mechanism for that level of pressure and I would have still put him in the sec mod he is in now.

Now I'm going to put the whole thing perspective for those in a non grammar area.

In this borough we have 4 grammar schools who have 690 selective places for a borough cohort of approx. 5000 children. Of those 690 places, only 18% go to borough residents - the other 72 places are filled by out-of-borough applicants, mainly Greenwich which has a high number of West African Christians who value educational excellence above all things.

So the question I would ask is: If the comprehensive system is the be-all-end-all why is there this fight for places every year? What is wrong with their own borough schools? There are some excellent comprehensives in Greenwich.

My personal belief is that the grammar system should be reintroduced to give that 20% of children who are academically inclined, who have that work ethic, and are responsive to that driving pressure that opportunity to thrive in an environment that nurtures and stretches them.

But I also believe that there are children who are not academically inclined and I would like to see the reintroduction of technical schools again where the whole soppy bollox of 5*-C is shelved and these children are allowed to develop their artistic and vocational skills within trades.

I don't believe that would be a two tier system - it is developing a child in accordance with their needs, ability and desires.

For those children who cannot attain 5 A*-Cs they know they are written off the moment they enter Y10, their opportunities are narrowed, school becomes a pointless exercise in controlled baby sitting with disaffected, bored young people who would rather be out there learning a trade or vocation.

Raising the participation age? Not a good idea in my mind - I'd go so far as to say there should be a split at 14-15 where those who have no hope of attainment academically are syphoned off to college and are engaged in an entirely different way.

steps off soap box

Aaah. The theory is great - but how many parents believe their child is some gifted wonder who just needs the opportunity to blossom when in fact they are really not exceptional and should be heading for vocational studies.

Getting rid of grammar schools would do nothing to help a failing non grammar school do a better job

Apparently taking the brightest stream out of the school reduces the 'challenge', if that's the right word, and the other schools achieve lower results. Seems quite feasible to me. And of course there's the stigma of being the less academically bright. And of course it's streaming that chooses the grammar school children which will advantage the brightest.

I work in a non selective school. We have some very academically bright pupils, who blossomed late and out strip their grammar counterparts hand over fist.

We have a very open pastoral policy, I have (even if I say it myself) excellent relationships with a lot of those children who are somewhat challenging in the classroom. The Corridor Floaters I call them, the ones who are sent out every lesson and float aimlessly about until picked up.

Common theme of this disaffection is: "whats the point, I'm shit at maths/history/whatever, I'm never going to get a C, I've got my college place, I don't want to be here any more"

I think it's heart breaking to see that disillusionment in their eyes, they know they have failed the government targets. Then they see it in black and white on results day E,E,F,G,E,F, U. But it's enough to get them on a plumbing or hairdressing course - Level 1, when they have been doing Level 2 work for two years.

Big flaws in the education system.

Wasn't there recent report which said that bright children are being failed in schools?

Some will be failed >voice of bitter experience

People say getting rid of grammar schools as if we had many! They seem to miss the point that we have got rid if them- there a mere 162 in England, serving about 3% of the population! The way they are discussed on MN is way out of proportion. If you take out grammar schools, private schools and the home educated - over 90% go to comprehensives.
They won't come back- people also miss the point that it needs a vote of most people to bring back the secondary modern. The majority of children would be going to a secondary modern.