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

[BarbarianMum]

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?

I'm in Kent and have four children - two of whom are now at GS, two of whom are coming up through.

The problem is that the state schools here are forbidden to prepare the children for the test - whether that's by running 'maths clubs' at lunchtime or any sort of outside the classroom activities which could be construed by KCC as coaching because it may seem 'unfair'. This to me is utterly bonkers - the prep schools ALL market themselves on a "100% 11+ pass rate" and the children are prepared to within an inch of their lives ON TOP of being tutored.

What I think should happen, to improve the chances of less well off children accessing the grammar schools is
a) the 11+ should be opt out rather than opt in
b) all state primaries should be allowed to prepare the children for the test and
c) privately educated children taking the test should have points deducted for sitting in classes that are 50% smaller than the state school average (in the same way as summer born children are given points for being young for the year)

Grammar schools are not right for every child, but seeing my son flying at a superselective grammar, having been totally frustrated at primary school is a joy - he's so much happier and fulfilled. We are lucky in the town where we live that we have excellent comprehensives that also allow children to flourish - two of the comprehensives have a 'grammar stream' for bright children who may have just missed out on the 11+, or whose parents felt that the pressure cooker environment of a grammar wasn't for them.

I live in a grammar school area and if we're still here when dd reaches secondary age then I would absolutely want her to go to grammar school. That doesn't mean I'm in favour of them though, I'm hoping to move and one of my aims would be to live somewhere with proper comprehensives.

I'm not from this country and we don't have grammar schools here so I may be asking a stupid question - but why can't teachers just differentiate? Kids are already put into sets, why the need for grammars? Do they get extra funding or something?

my son's local village secondary school manages to educate the kids - some go to oxbridge, some to other uni's, some to college etc.

Is the thinking behind grammar schools that 'bright' kids are pulled down by being educated alongside thickos?

We are lucky in the town where we live that we have excellent comprehensives that also allow children to flourish

But you clearly still think they're not good enough for your child.

"I've never met a child who hasn't been tutored to get into our local grammar schools. What happens if you're poor?"

All the children I know who got into grammars have either:

Been professionally tutored, often for 3+ years

Been tutored by parents (two of who are teachers)

Had years of working at home after school, doing regular reading, writing and maths

Attended private prep schools

My children have had none of these things. Does their level of academic attainment at 11 reflect their innate ability or the fact that they have had none of the above?

I've never met a child who hasn't been tutored to get into our local grammar schools
Really because I have 4 , and so does my dsis! Only 1 out of 4 of DD4.s friends who have started this time were tutored

Does their level of academic attainment at 11 reflect their innate ability

In our area it is just VR & NVR which purports to test for innate ability rather than attainment

You're clearly not in my area a7.
It's VR, maths, English and a story. My DCs state primary has sent one child to grammar school in the last 3 years. It's a good school, how is that fair?

Is the thinking behind grammar schools that 'bright' kids are pulled down by being educated alongside thickos?

Not that exactly, and I certainly wouldn't use those words, but the pace even at grammar schools can be chafingly slow for some kids.Very bright kids do have the right to have their needs met too.

chipped - I don't know yet what the younger two will need, and it may well be that they will go to the comprehensives, which are excellent schools.

The older two were frustrated by the (lack of) pace in lessons at school and are both very bright - my son is at a superselective grammar and my daughter could have gone to one but chose the 'ordinary' grammar. I feel lucky that we have a wide choice of schools where we are. So it IS possible to have grammars but also to have excellent comprehensive provision for those who either don't succeed in the 11+ or who choose not to take it.

I am in favour of the Goverment ( any ) not having any say in either education or health , ever . I personally think these are two areas where people who actually know what they are talking about and have experience in the field should be in absolute charge , not someone who thinks up mad ideas to try and win votes . The National curriculum is completely nuts and every election , some bright spark adds yet another dimension of nuttiness to it . I despair at some of the madness inflicted on our smallest and most vunerable citizens , simply so some egotistical politician can keep their seat at a table full of other's of a similar ilk

I am really excited by the news that there may be more grammar schools. It means my children may get the chance of a top education and I can't afford private school.

I don't understand the hatred of schools that focus more on trades etc though, plumbers and builders often earn far more than more academic professionals.

Both of mine are at grammars - my son is at a superselective and over 7000 boys sat the exam for 150 places, out of these, about 450 passed but only the top 150 scorers got a place. Did we tutor? Yes! I am also a teacher, and we did lots of prep at home. The way I look at it is this, I would not send any child I teach to sit an exam without adequate preparation so why would I with my child? As it is, the tutoring uncovered lots of gaps in his knowledge, which were not picked up despite the fact he was top of his class for years. Pretty much the same situation with my daughter. Both are thriving, they are at the right school for them, where they are not laughed at for wanting to do well or mocked for answering a question. They have lovely friends, who have been brought up to have the same ethos and attitude to work as them. Why would I risk my child's happiness for some idealistic dream? The places in which I have taught, I would not wish upon my worst enemy.

Grammar schools aren't about parental choice. The parents have no choice. The school gets the choice of all the best kids in the area, selects the ones most likely to get marvellous exam results and make the school look great, and the rest of the kids are dismissed to a set of schools which are now worse than they would be if the grammar school didn't exist.

Parents going 'great, now my kids have a chance of a good education' are assuming their kid gets in. Actually their kids now have a good chance of a worse education.

I have no doubt that grammar schools are great. I have even less doubt that a grammar school system is awful.

I read with despair a repeated argument upthread that since the system is mostly shit we should at least allow 20% a better chance. That feels a bit like noticing that a ship's lifeboats aren't fit for purpose, so building super-safe self-inflating lifeboats with GPS links and a supply of Kendal Mint Cake, and only putting enough of them on the ship for 20% of the passengers. Far fairer and better to mend every single boat on board, even if that means spending more money and not having any special shiny boats.

Grammar schools can make hypocrites of good parents: what you do for your actual child in the imperfect but real system is quite different from what you think should exist in the abstract.

People care more about their kids than their politics.

What is pissing me off as well is what a huge waste of time all this is, and how much time and effort it will take at the DfE to sort, when schools are going through the biggest upheaval to the exam system in decades. It's a huge mess and we really need them to keep their eye on the ball.

I really dislike the Grammar school system as it is today. I grew up in Kent. I went to the local Grammar at 11 years old. Good education but at the expense of others who went to the so called comprehensives that were anything but and did worse for it. My brother was quiet and at 11 did not get into the grammar , he went to comp instead. At 13 he was passed over for 13+ entry to Grammar. My parents were able to afford private education so off he went finishing education. with a reasonable law degree . My other brother never made it to either grammar or private and stayed at the comp. My husband grew up with true comprehensive system in another part of England and also got a degree. In his part of the world , "comp" meant a true (bog standard) comp: whereas , where I grew up comp meant "sink school" because that's what they were / are.

Our children grew up in another part of the country and went to true comprehensives. They have done Ok
I am so against them because of the divisive harm , fuelled by tutoring and politicising they create, hampering the social mobility which a true comp allows. Trouble is where they exist , they get support from , in the main , middle class parents and parents wanting to send offspring who generally speaking are the ones who will respond to consultations etc. So support is skewed in favour of those who benefit.

Give me a local, good, bog standard comprehensive any day.

People care more about their kids than their politics

Which is why a system where we have fee paying public schools that those in power can access is detrimental to raising standards.

Cynical? Maybe.

But those who are in power can afford to educate their kids privately and can access private healthcare. Yet they are the ones who make the decisions about education, the NHS etc.

If we had a level playing field, would we see a difference in funding and standards?

That's why I think it would be interesting to see what other more equal countries do with their schools.

"I've never met a child who hasn't been tutored to get into our local grammar schools. What happens if you're poor?"

^^ I have known of DC who are not tutored who have got in, however Mini has a good list there.

What she misses out is that not many primary schools offer help to access grammar schools. Some do, most do not.

So, is it any wonder, its only dc of invested parents who are getting in?

How is the FSM child with parents who for whatever reason dont help them get in - supposed to do it, when they may have never even heard of a grammar school or the 11+?

Your dis advantage is starting in primary school.

"I've never met a child who hasn't been tutored to get into our local grammar schools. What happens if you're poor?"

^^ I have known of DC who are not tutored who have got in, however Mini has a good list there.

What she misses out is that not many primary schools offer help to access grammar schools. Some do, most do not.

So, is it any wonder, its only dc of invested parents who are getting in?

How is the FSM child with parents who for whatever reason dont help them get in - supposed to do it, when they may have never even heard of a grammar school or the 11+?

Your dis advantage is starting in primary school.

Give me a local, good, bog standard comprehensive any day.

Have ours love. Supposed good bog standards comps been failing for decades.....wouldnt send my dc to them....awful places.

I have read her speech

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/britain-the-great-meritocracy-prime-ministers-speech

Do you know what I didn't see? How she intends to improve education for all children. It was a focus on grammar schools, faith schools and independent schools.

Where was the discussion about how she intends to improve the life chances of everyone and not just the few?

River you view about secondary education will be skewed to where you live. If your children are at Gramnar then you must live and teach in areas where they exist. That you have taught in schools you would not want to send your kids to l assume these must be schoools where the others who don't get into the grammar go. It is the grammar system that creates such schools and responsible for the inequality where the 80% get a worse life chance than the 20% lucky enough to get selected at 11 or whatever.
Elsewhere where non selection is the norm secondary schools churn out many many each year with qualifications for further and higher education .

We don't seem to have such a thing as "a grammar system" in England. We've seem to have a hodge podge of different systems with grammar education being available to anything from 0% to 25% of children depending on where they live.

I can see how grammar schools might be popular in towns/cities where pupils have a choice of several schools within reasonable travelling distance, but in rural areas it might prove more problematic.

Where we live, there is literally a choice of one.

Either that, or spend an hour each way on the bus to the next nearest school. And what if the next nearest isn't a grammar school either?