To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

In a non grammar area, which is most, an awful lot of parents want their children to go to a 'good' comprehensive, which there are a lot of, but you wouldn't believe it by reading MN. Also, in 11+ counties like Bucks, a lot of parents on the border of Oxfordshire are quite happy to let their children try for the Grammars, with the assurance that good comprehensives are available in the next county as a fall back.

I live in an area of schools that cannot even be described as average. I used to live in an area where 3 outstanding and 1 good school were within a 3 mile radius. Eldest dc still goes to one of these. Youngest dc would have joined them had the sibling rule not changed. We live 30 miles from there now.
Youngest dc, when I realised how bad the local schools were, sat for the grammar that is 12 miles away. Thankfully thry passed and will start in September.

Having lived in an area with great schools, I was naive in thinking there would be great schools everywhere.

I think MN is very anti grammar and haven't met the same vitriolic response to grammars as you see on here.

Actually no that is not what I said at all. I did not say 'exam machines'
or 'robots'.
I was thinking about a conversation I had with a friend of mine who works in admissions for a very good university.
She said that their experience is that a lot of kids who have come from schools where they have only been taught and tutored how to achieve brilliant marks in exams can sometimes struggle in the second and third years at university when the course becomes more research based and the students are required to think for themselves.
I am just trying to express an opinion. Please don't put words into my mouth.

a 'good' comprehensive, which there are a lot of, but you wouldn't believe it by reading MN.

On the contrary, reading MN threads, especially in the Education and Secondary Education sections, the impression given is that anyone who claims their local comprehensive isn't good is treated as lying or exaggerating, or trying to make themselves feel better about a decision to go private.

Maybe there are some people posting here who don't believe there are a lot of good comprehensives, but I think those people are relatively few. Speaking for myself, I would like to see improvements in poor comprehensives, to bring them up to the standard of the best, and I don't think that can be achieved by closing our eyes to the problems that do exist.

Oh, ffs. Nobody "sneers" at violence. Don't be silly

Have you ever felt or anyone else felt personally threatened by violence or been at the end of someone being violent?

I was one of the brightest kids (traditional academic type) in my comprehensive.

I'm against grammars.

I think there should be properly funded, properly staffed, properly supported education for all.

Instead of thinking about being 'proof grammsr', I always wonder whether the people who are so in favour of it would be happy with their child going to a secondary modern? Usually they wouldn't be.

And that's the problem. Underfunded schools now are 'fine for somebody else's childfen' and secondary moderns are 'fine for somebody else's children'.

Ultimately the people in favour of grammars are often the people with the ability to pay tutors and buy a house in catchment already. The entire system is skewed in favour of those with the money to play the system within the rules.

*not proof grammar, pro grammars

I went to a grammar- halfway through it became 'comprehensive' due to local labour government being elected I believe.
It went from being a school where bright students from humble backgrounds, got to experience learning around other students who mostly wanted to learn- to a school where you risked getting your head smashed in the wall if you answered questions during a lesson. The school fell apart slowly- teachers from the grammar started having break downs as they were ill equipped to manage the students who at that point in their lives, had less of an appetite for learning. I remember having an argument with my right on history teacher who suggested it was our job as grammar students to 'bring them up.' That did n't happen and you can imagine my response.

I ended up teaching in a grammar and then a comprehensive. This is what I observed.
1 At the grammar bright students will be supported to learn at the highest level and lessons move fast as teachers do not have to deal with managing relentless behavior issues.
2 Less bright students who only just got in may feel like the odd ones out and may not enjoy the school because the pace and level will be too much,

1 At the comprehensive your child may run up against the issue of classes moving slowly due to the many disruptions that students who find learning hard, cause.
2 At the comprehensive your child will see a greater diversity of people and you may value this over them being in a learning environment where you can really learn at the rate you can go at.
3 At the comprehensive some teachers will be very competent and will be able to manage the broader range of students and the behaviors they present- your child will have an excellent learning experience in those classes. BUT there will be either a few to many teachers ( new ones, less competent, less caring about academics) who will not manage these mixed classes, and your more academic child will have a less good experience in those classes.

I now teach in a mixed genuine comprehensive school-the brightest students get the raw deal as I move through so much less material than I did in a grammar- the difference is shocking. Your child will be competing with the students from the grammars and the private schools at university and then in life. If your child is academically able at 10/11 and you can access a grammar, I strongly advise you try to get them in,UNLESS you value them being exposed to a more diverse range of academic abilities more than them being in a learning environment where they get to learn at a pace suited to them among students who also value learning.
What I find awful is people thinking they have the right to decide that grammars should not exist due to their own political views and so people who would benefit from them, are deprived of them. If you don't agree with grammars, don't choose them but leave out the judgement of people who choose them as the right fit for their child. If you have a bright child you have a duty to make sure they get their needs met. There is more chance that will happen in a grammar school than a weak to average comprehensive. Having been in many schools I know there are plenty of weak to average ones out there, so tread carefully on your child's dreams as you guide them to the right school for them.

I always wonder whether the people who are so in favour of it would be happy with their child going to a secondary modern? Usually they wouldn't be.

This is undoubtedly true of many. On the other hand, some posters have the experience of local comprehensives that are considerably worse than good-quality secondary moderns, and I have seen them express the opinion that a grammar school would at least improve their children's chance of getting a good education. Those posters have always been ignored or dismissed by the rest of the people on the thread.

I always wonder whether the people who are so in favour of it would be happy with their child going to a secondary modern? Usually they wouldn't be.

Quite - that's why I mentioned Bucks. The fall back of the next county's Comprehensives. I doubt very much whether Oxon parents on the Bucks border put a Bucks Sec Mod as a first choice.

I support selective education. I do not believe splitting children into two groups base on a pseudo-IQ test at age 10 is a good idea, however, I object to the comprehensive system and selection by mortgage even more.

It is ridiculous to think that one size fits all and if it doesn't then that's a failure. We wouldn't expect adults to all want to work in the same environment. Why do we aspire to treat children as a homogenous lump?

I'd let schools select by pretty much anything they want, and end up with real choice based on what would fit the child. Especially if we had good free transport to school and did away with catchments.

kesstrel
The thing is the state system had been chronically underfunded for years.

It's very much run it down and then offer our ideological solution and people will jump at it because it's better than what we currently have.

The issue is grammars aren't the solution. They are only the solution for people who already pay to get into catchment/tutor for existing grammars or pay private.

Nobody is interested in ensuring kids from the most deprived areas get a decent education because if they were then they wouldn't be provided grammar. It's all well and good saying that bright kids from any background can get in, but the literacy gap is huge by the time kids start primary.

I work in an amazing comprehensive ajd have worked in comprehensives (good and bad) all my career. They need proper funding, we need a serious review of teachers to get enough qualified specialists and we need to stop carving the system up into private chains. Fund state comprehensives well and all kids will do well.

Fund state comprehensives well and all kids will do well.

But funding isn't enough. I believe the education budget doubled during the time Labour was in power? As long as teachers are forced or taught to use less effective 'constructivist' methods, as long as mixed ability teaching continues to be promoted, as long as nebulous 'skills' are valued over knowledge, as long as behaviour problems and low level disruption are ignored because of ideological beliefs, all the funding in the world won't make a difference.

"Why do we aspire to treat children as a homogenous lump? "

Why do you think this is what comprehensive education does?

unicorn completely agree.

I'm not a teacher but I'm in a senior leadership role and it is a minority that have made it up the ranks who have not had a private/grammar or wealthy background. I can tell you that my work peers are pushing for very academic and selective schools for their children. Yes I'm in a 6 figure salaried job but I want my daughter to aim for the very highest and break glass ceilings. It meanswer excellent grades and strong work ethic. I want a school very strong on the latter although I don't agree wholly on segreations or poor support for non academic children.

For us to compete on a level footing with international graduates coming to the UK for jobs. Today and I'm being very serious . We need to have the brightest children be able to learn at the rate their ability allows them to.

I always wonder whether the people who are so in favour of it would be happy with their child going to a secondary modern? Usually they wouldn't be.

I live in Bucks. My children go to a mix. The secondary moderns known as "community colleges" are damn good schools. I have no concerns at all about the standard of the community colleges. I am more than happy for my child to go there.

The community colleges have fewer children going on to Oxbridge and have a lower average on GCSEs than the grammars, but that's not a sign that they are worse schools than the grammars. The averages don't tell you about the outcome for the individual child. The grammar schools don't surgically implant the IQ into the children after they get there. The 11+ is an aptitude test.

Why do some of you assume that secondary moderns can't be excellent schools?

By the way, I'm NOT in favour of grammars. I want to see comprehensives improved.

the literacy gap is huge by the time kids start primary.

The method that was demonstrated to be most effective in closing that gap was short bursts of carefully scripted Direct Instruction, as shown by the results of Project Follow-Through in the 1960s and 70s in the U.S. It was a huge study, and it showed that the methods currently promoted by early years 'experts' didn't help disadvantaged children, and could even have a negative effect.

Why were those results ignored? Because they didn't fit with the ideology of the education 'experts' at the time. The same thing happened to all the studies showing that systematic phonics instruction was superior to 'whole word' and 'whole language' methods. Trashed, called right-wing, ignored. Huge amounts of money were invested in the wrong types of schemes, on the advice of education 'experts'. The government eventually had to force schools to adopt phonics, and plenty of schools them are still not teaching them well.

There are a lot of parallels between those issues and others currently happening in our schools. So again, I don't believe it's just a question of underfunding.

Funding IS an issue. I don't see how we can deny it.

In my area schools that aren't needed are being given wads of cash whilst the rest of us are struggling to get the heating repaired and are having to make redundancies and direct staff to teach out of specialism.

There are other issues as well, but funding is the big one. At my friends school they're cutting school trips because the can't afford to cover staff. At another, their pastoral systems are being cut. At another there's geography teachers having to teach ks3 science.

Why do some of you assume that secondary moderns can't be excellent schools? They absolutely can be. Just like comprehensives can be. I see kids get into oxbridge and RG universities every year.

But I also believe that what is needed is well supported, well funded schools so that schools can employ enough staff to have kids taught by subject specialists, have access to an enrichment curriculum and have pastoral support more readily available for all kids.

I don't believe grammars are the solution

bertrand Yes, I think that comprehensives are geared around the idea that one size should fit all. I know there is lots of streaming and tailoring within the school to different children's needs. Nevertheless you are still putting all the children into one common environment with one ethos, one style of leadership, one physical location, which is not something we would ever expect to be suitable for adults. I think it is setting schools up to fail to expect them to please everyone.

I don't think a two tier education system is the answer but nor do I think it's a disaster.

There are two aspects of the grammar system here that really piss me off.

The first is that the state schools are banned from doing 11+ preparation, it seems this was imposed for idealogical reasons. Most families get tutors, even if only for a handful of sessions to get familiarity with the test, how to manage time, fill in the answer sheets etc. The children with poor or feckless parents get none of that, which puts them at a disadvantage. The government could remove that barrier so those children get to show their true abilities as much as their classmates.

The second is that the 11+ happens at the start of year 6 and the SATS are at the end. The teachers are working towards the SATS but the children are working towards the 11+ and it is all out of sync.

I don't think it particularly matters whether there are grammars and secondary moderns or comprehensives. The things that make schools successful or not have very little to do with that structure in my opinion.

I think it is a diversion from the real issues.

Funding IS an issue. I don't see how we can deny it.

I haven't seen anyone denying it. What you originally said was:

Fund state comprehensives well and all kids will do well.

What I personally have said in response to that is that just increasing funding won't solve the problems we have been discussing.

I do think it odd that those counties which still have a full Grammar/Sec Mod divide don't allow children to be prepared for the test in school. It's almost as if they don't quite believe in the system themselves.

"She said that their experience is that a lot of kids who have come from schools where they have only been taught and tutored how to achieve brilliant marks in exams..."

Right, so does the Admissions Tutor award university places to students with only mediocre exam results because they get an inkling from the UCAS form/interview that the mediocre student is a creative, free thinker who will outstrip their more aca-bots peers in their final year.

Yeah, right...

"The first is that the state schools are banned from doing 11+ preparation, it seems this was imposed for idealogical reasons"

No. it is banned because the rhetoric, particularly from grammar supporters, is that the 11+ is a test of potential and is tutor proof. We all know this is bullshit. But if kids were prepared at school the ones who were also being prepared at home would still beat them. The big issue is not the preparation in year 5- it's what happens before they even start school that's important. I have said before that I can spend a day in a reception class and pick out with about 90% accuracy which ones will pass the 11+ and which won't.

I don't understand your SATs/11+. I also don't understand your point about different types of school.

The latest piece from Education Datalab examining 11+ passes for kids who sat entrance exams for two different grammars is interesting:

educationdatalab.org.uk/2017/05/what-does-North-Yorkshire-tell-us-about-how-reliable-the-11-plus-is/

Basically, there is a large proportion of kids who passed one 11+ who didn't pass the other. Are these kids bright enough to go to grammar school and be prepped for Oxbridge? Are they 'not academic' and should be prepped to be beauticians and motor mechanics?

The 11+ is a bunch of arse and anyone who supports an entire school system based on the premise that it is meaningful in any real way needs to think again.