Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder how much parental support their is for grammar schools? schools

270 replies

BarbarianMum · 09/09/2016 12:17

Yet another speech from Teresa May this morning claiming that grammar schools enjoy widespread parental support. As a product of the comprehensive school system and parent of 2 boys going through the same I'm really puzzled by this. Do these schools (and the secondary moderns that go with them) really appeal to the majority? FWIW I don't think either of my boys would have any difficulty getting into one and I still don't think that they are a good idea. So what am I missing?

OP posts:
a7mints · 09/09/2016 13:34

Worth remembering if a GS selects only 20 odd percent, many of the children who fail the 11+ are of average or above average ability.

I don't think streaming aea A GS has a different feel. The pupils and parents are generally proud to have a place at the school and behave well, and those that don't are quickly shown the door.

Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 13:35

Full supporter here for so many reasons. I am thrilled at last we are going to have this shake up of a system that is clearly not working.

Its been a long time coming. We need as much choice and access to good schools as possible.

HainaultViaNewburyPark · 09/09/2016 13:35

As far as I can see, the issue isn't grammar schools. It never was. Those children who got mostly did very well.

The issue is what happens to the other 80% of the children who don't get in. So long as suitable provision is made for these children, I have no issue with grammar schools.

Secondary modern schools clearly aren't the answer. But then I don't think comprehensive school are either.

(I went to grammar school, as did my brother; both my sisters went to comprehensive school. There are currently no grammar schools where I live - both my DC are at private school).

daisypond · 09/09/2016 13:36

I went to a northern comprehensive school in the '80s - there were no grammar schools. A neighbouring local authority had grammar school/secondary moderns. My school was used as comparative example with the grammar school/secondary moderns. The results were that the brightest pupils in the comprehensive - those that would have gone to a grammar if there had been one - achieved the same as the grammar school pupils. But those that would have gone to secondary moderns, if there had been any in my area, did far, far better in the comprehensive.

Original poster
BarbarianMum · 09/09/2016 13:39

But surely the last thing grammar schools offer is choice - except to a very few Confused.

OP posts:
Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 13:44

But this is what the country voted for. A government that wants to enhance the already deep divides in our society and fuck over the poor

It was refreshing to see TM has said she wants to end the ideology strangle hold over education as you can see from statements like this one above

What I struggle to understand is, there are so many areas where there are no grammars and yet the comps are still shite like where I live and they have been crap for a very long time, ie decades.

What has happened in the areas that do have grammars is - its become a bun fight.

If we had more grammars this would ease, we also need primary schools to work on helping their poor students - access the 11+.

Over all I feel people need to look beyond an entrenchment in their faith towards a parlticalr party and say - hang that crap lets get on with the job of getting our children access to the schools they need. It was after all under a long labour tenure that the gap between rich and poor really widened.

neolara · 09/09/2016 13:45

I think lots of parents want their kids to go to their local grammar school because the non grammar schools in those areas tend to not be great. (Obviously this is not true for all schools but on average kids in non grammar schools in areas that have grammars do worse than the national average). The existence of grammar schools perpetuates the lower performance of non grammar schools..

Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 13:46

So Barbarian as I cast my eye over the schools on offer to DD - I see three failing comps that I would never send my DC too, would rather rent out my body first.

What choice do I have please?

paxillin · 09/09/2016 13:47

And why stop there? Why the top 20%, surely the 21-40% will then be too bright to suffer the rest? I think most supporters are banking on their child getting in.

Ego147 · 09/09/2016 13:49

What choice do I have please

What choice does anyone in your area have?

And if your child failed to get into a grammar school - as most pupils will - they will still have the same choice of 3 failing schools.

Why do you think they are failing and do you know what's being done to address the issues?

daisypond · 09/09/2016 13:50

A friend of mine feels damaged by her experience at a grammar school. She passed the 11+ and was placed the bottom set of the grammar school. She wasn't allowed to take certain subjects, and it created growing feelings of inadequacy, feeling "thick", etc. She left school at 16, didn't even take A-levels or go to university. She thinks she would have done far better in a comprehensive.

Original poster
BarbarianMum · 09/09/2016 13:54

Humidseptember in your position I'd apply for the grammar (I assume there was one) or move. But that's not the same as supporting the grammar school system.

What would/will you do if your dd can't get into the grammar?
Would those schools be failing if there wasn't a grammar option?
Do the parents of the children in those schools support grammar schools do you think?

OP posts:
Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 13:55

Well that's fucking depressing. We can put people in space and transplant hearts but we can't do better than give 20% of kids a chance. You can't really believe that

so hard to have this debate when no one cares about all the so called dis advantaged dc in the current system eg bright pupils not achieving their potential in a shite comp. They are disadvantaged too.

Ego147 · 09/09/2016 13:57

so hard to have this debate when no one cares about all the so called dis advantaged dc in the current system eg bright pupils not achieving their potential in a shite comp

I don't think that's true. I think you can care about everyone and not want to fail anybody.

The USA has a system - No child left behind. It's an admirable statement but hard to achieve

Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 13:58

There is no grammar option, they have been failing dc for years I have no idea what we will do yet.

I have personally had one parent mention the teachers walked out or left before the GCSE's she had to hire a tutor to get her dc through them and her DD is begging her to send her to a better school - somewhere - anywhere. This is the same school I have to run the gauntlet of everyday and the behavior of the pupils leaves much to be desired.

Some left leaning parents think these schools are great. I think they live in cloud cuckoo land.

Original poster
BarbarianMum · 09/09/2016 13:58

Yes by why restrict the debate to the bright children? What about the "slightly less bright, educationally average and not so bright" kids not achieving their potential? Is that not as big a problem or possibly a bigger one?

Shit schools are a problem for everyone. What I don't understand is why grammar schools have apparently 'overwhelming parental support' when they are only a solution for the few.

OP posts:
Gowgirl · 09/09/2016 13:58

I moved area to avoid our local school, an academy by name but really a failing comprehensive, despite support from home throughout his education my dc would probably not pass the 11+, this just means I will have to research non grammer option's it doesn't mean I begrudge other children a grammer education.

Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 13:59

Anyway op, please tell me why these comps, are doing so badly? And why over a period of at least 20 years they can barely raise their head to a barely decent level?

Why on earth I or any other parent here should be denied a better school?

Ego147 · 09/09/2016 14:00

Some left leaning parents think these schools are great. I think they live in cloud cuckoo land

I don't think any parent - regardless of political leaning - is under the impression that all schools are great. There are many that aren't - and for a whole range of complex reasons.

I am not sure if selection to a grammar school helps those children and parents who want a decent education but can't get into a grammar school.

Ego147 · 09/09/2016 14:02

Anyway op, please tell me why these comps, are doing so badly? And why over a period of at least 20 years they can barely raise their head to a barely decent level

Loads of reasons - involvement, engagement, parental lack of engagement, not valuing education, social etc

Why on earth I or any other parent here should be denied a better school

And what happens to you and your DC if they can't get in - as most children do not get into a grammar school?

What then?

paxillin · 09/09/2016 14:03

Why on earth I or any other parent here should be denied a better school?

But 80% of children will not only be denied a better school, but get the same comp they'd get now, minus the top 20% of pupils.

hellsbellsmelons · 09/09/2016 14:03

What has happened in the areas that do have grammars is - its become a bun fight
Absolutely. I'm in South Bucks with an abundance of grammar schools and very good high schools.
They all have to step up basically, so it could work!?

Original poster
BarbarianMum · 09/09/2016 14:03

I don't know about your local comps. The ones here, by and large, aren't doing so badly. Hence this debate. Nobody should be denied a better school, but that's not what I'm proposing, it's what you are (I think) by claiming grammars are the answer because they save the brightest. Or do you think the brightest are the problem and if you skim them off the rest will be better off.

OP posts:
Humidseptember · 09/09/2016 14:03

So its OK to lower the level is it Barbarian? Bugger the bright DC who are being failed, they don't count, remembering they come from poor disadvantaged backgrounds too?

And why narrow your debate? as previous poster said - its not grammars that is the issue but the schools everyone else goes too.

I want the right school for the right skills a child has.

Once this is all bought into the open and Grammar is no longer a dirty word - primary schools can start to properly help their students who have the potential to pass.

Now its hit and miss as to whether a primary even mentions the dirty word 11+ let alone tell their pupils about it, let alone show them past papers or give exam technique.

No wonder its invested parents who help their dc - by any means who are getting their dc in, no wonder FSM etc are all way behind and the figures are skewed.

mrsvilliers · 09/09/2016 14:04

Big fan of grammars here as I went to one and was offered many opportunities as a result. Fwiw I wasn't one of the brightest ones, and on occasions I did feel slightly thick, but it did teach me that not everyone is equal, some people are simply brighter than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will do better in life.

I also disagree strongly with pp who said a child is written off aged 11. Sample conversation between teacher and parent at my DS's very mixed primary yesterday 'He don't like school'. The child is 5 and on his second day of Y1. I really can't see what is not to like. But his mother is already writing him off. It happens long before the age of 11.