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 favour. I came from a very working class family and managed to get a place at a local grammar school. As it turned out I hated it there (partly because of the stuffy traditions and outdated dictatorial attitudes) but I do recognise that I had a far better chance of achieving my best at a grammar school. Unfortunately I just didn't go to the grammar school that was the best fit for me.

This is an argument for England. I wonder what posters from other parts of the UK who have different systems (I think) make of this? As well as from abroad?

Ego I am from Northern Ireland where the grammar school system is still in place and, I think, works for the majority. In the large grammar I went to we had pupils from all walks of life and religion. Primary schools were all good because they all had to tutor for the 11+. In fact when they abolished the 11+ a few years back there was a massive outcry from schools and parents alike, in part because of what they perceived to be a lowering of standards in England as a result of comprehensives. There was no demand for a change in the system and because of that the abolition of the 11+ now means that children don't sit two exams a month apart but have to sit five separate tests one weekend after another. So thanks for that Martin McGuiness.

It bothers me how many failing schools are discussed on MN. I cannot make head nor tail of it. What do you mean by "sink school" and "failing schools"? Are you going by results? Pastoral care? Levels of bullying? Local gossip? Your one experience of your one child? I don't doubt that there are lots of schools who fall short of the mark. I just wonder how much people exaggerate on here to make the point that they had no choice but to send little Elizabeth to private school. At least have the courage of your convictions and admit that you wanted your kid to have the best and that you could afford it, so you did. My parents were wealthy when I was born, they could afford the best, so I got the best education that they could afford. They make no bones about that and I respect them. Another child and a divorce later, we both moved to state school.

Interesting to hear how different grammar areas vary vastly. I live in an area where there are six grammars in relative close proximity to each other. A local grammar school was listed in the real schools guide as being the best in the county has empty spaces this year as their seem to have been a drop in 11+ pass rate locally.

Mine and DP's children all went to different grammars from one another and have had very different experiences. DD went to grammar and loved it, got fantastic results and is at Oxbridge. DS is in grammar, loves it and is doing well. DSS went to grammar but hated it, left as soon as possible, got a job and says he would rather boil his head than send his future children to one, DSD went to grammar she also hated it and left at 16, she is now at the local college and loving her time there.

The whole system here breaks my heart . That's all I can say .

Bright children with middle class parents will be ok - either private , grammar or they move

Not so bright kids with middle class parents will be less lucky - and they might not get In

Bright kids from less advantaged backgrounds will have mixed results - some will rise , some won't

Not so bright kids from less advantaged background are basically screwed

My mother took her 11+ in 1960. She failed. But because she was a borderline fail she was interviewed by a panel of adults to see if she was worthy of a grammar school education. A bit like a university viva situation...

She still failed.

How awful to do that to a child of 10/11

I live in a grammar-area town that until 3 years ago only had the 'left behind' comprehensive. Very few local children went there. If they failed the test (taken at age 10, not 11), they went to faith schools or private schools in distant towns.

Then we got a faith school that had a 50% cap on faith places and things started to look up for all the non-religious borderline kids, late starters, dyslexics and the ones who were ill on the day of the test.

When the state allows 100% faith places and grammar selection in your town, you will find that if your child is not selected, they are destined at the age of 10 to be a "follower", while their luckier friends train up to be "leaders".

If you support a selective system, you really should consider what you intend to do when someone you love is not selected to have a decent education. It is absolutely possible - I know so many intelligent children in my town who have fallen into the wrong group. It could have happened to Theresa May if she had been a bit under the weather on 11+ day.

Families who accept the non-academic local school see their kids emerge with A levels in soft subjects like graphics and drama. The school doesn't really do maths and science at A level due to lack of demand, which means no-one even tries to take them.

The only honest solution is to scrap selection (11+ and faith), and manage and fund ALL schools well so nobody wants to look for an escape from their local comp. London seems to be doing well, the faith schools seem to be doing well - both with all-ability intakes - so it can be done.

Open letter toTheresa May: the support that you claim for parents in favour of grammar schools is simply not there. Just look at the response on this website.You ignore the overwhelming reaction of parents on Mumsnet at your peril!

work this website is very left leaning and not indicative of the viewpoints of the public at large. Do not presume to speak for everyone - a mistake many a left voting person has made

I think support for grammar schools is conditional. Supporters I know usually assume that their children will get in. Most of them won't if only 20% gain a place.

If you don't live in a grammar area but (secretly) know your child would pass.BEWARE.
To my vast and very unkind amusement I watched many parents learn the horrid truth. I felt sorry for the kids BTW.
So sure their little prince/princesse would pass, total devastation when they didn't.
If you are reading this secure in the knowledge it wouldn't be your child, grandchild that failed wait until it happens. You might be lucky, but you might not...........

(Que wicked maniacal laughter)

Since a lot of the parents supporting grammars seem very worried about disruptive or academically weak pupils, why not do 11+, but remove the bottom 20% instead of the top. Have extremely well funded schools for them, small class sizes and brilliant teachers to help them catch up. The difference to those kids could be amazing.

but remove the bottom 20% instead of the top

Now that's an interesting idea...

And ensure that they get a LOT of support - academic, social, social services if need be etc etc

Maybe Corbyn should suggest that at PMQs?

And again - have people read her speech?

She DOES NOT address how they are going to address and improve the educational outcomes of most children in this country.

She talks about private schools, grammar schools and faith schools. Irrelevant to most children and parents in this country.

There are far far bigger issues affecting education in this country. There probably won't be the teachers required to teach - and definitely not experienced ones.

Head in the sand approach.

I wonder if the provision of places will be addressed. Back in the day, commitment to an equal number of places for boys and girls meant that boys' results were fiddled so that girls, who tended to do better at 11+, did not outnumber them.

To spell it out, brighter girls had to give way to less bright boys.

I imagine Rhinestone's mum was very likely just such a girl.

this website is very left leaning and not indicative of the viewpoints of the public at large

Really? Not so sure about that.

I also suspect that once the facts are pointed out by experts, then most of the public will be more interested in improving most schools rather than more selection.

Mind you, expert opinion is not often believed.

The idea of taking the bottom 20% at 11+ and giving loads of extra targeted support is that it would be massively expensive. Grammar schools are relatively cheap to fund per pupil.

What will happen when you get all the so called 'experts' and self -righteous lefties coming out to condom grammar schools is the same that happened with the Brexit vote !

People will just let those who 'shout' the loudest i.e the 'anti grammarians' get on with it say nothing other than say the agree, but will vote at the ballot box for Teresa May !

What a lot of the left (and sadly some posters on here don't understand people will in public agree that grammar schools are 'evil' but in the privacy of the home be staunch supporters!

The left think people are 'stupid' they believe grammar school supporters don't understand there is only a 30% chance of passing .

Those ideas smack of the 'patronization' shown by the likes of Emily Thornberry and Polly Toynbee towards the working classes .

brighter girls had to give way to less bright boys
certainly not the case now! However i do wonder whether boys develop later.At my DCs school there are consistently more boys achieving 3A*s or better at A level, despite boys being fewer in number.

We should introduce another stream to the NHS. For the healthiest 20% who need the least support. They can have GPs who don't waste resources on tackling obesity, smoking, high blood sugar, blood pressure control.

They could really lift those top 20%. Laser eye surgery, yoga and pregnancy meditation... it would be much cheaper than treating the sickest with all their diabetes, mental health issues, cancer...

The left think people are 'stupid' they believe grammar school supporters don't understand there is only a 30% chance of passing

Not even 30%.

Unless they change the pass mark - but will they just say everyone has to take the exam and we will take the top 30% in that year?

What if you pass but there's not enough spaces?

It's all so simple on paper.

The idea of taking the bottom 20% at 11+ and giving loads of extra targeted support is that it would be massively expensive

I wonder if money invested here would mean less money spent in the future on those children who struggle with education and can end up having a lot of public money spent on them.

Education is vital. It can help prevent a lot of problems and issues down the line.

But that's probably leftish thinking when you look out for those people who struggle with education and want to invest money to prevent socio-economic issues later

they believe grammar school supporters don't understand there is only a 30% chance of passing

I'm pretty sure everyone who wants a grammar in their area is convinced that their child will get in.

Except they possibly won't. Even if their child is bright (and while some cases may be clear cut, most kids will be more of a gamble), the tests only have a predictive accuracy of about 0.7. And then they're risking their child not buckling under the pressure (you read threads on here where DC report poor children crying in the exam hall) or being poorly on the day or simply not performing as well as private prep kids and those who have been tutored from Y3.

They could get what they wanted and find it means their kid ends up not going to the grammar, but the school they are going to is now worse than it was when they originally wanted to avoid it.