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?

Can you say more about why it was the comprehensiveness specifically that meant your dd was failed by the school, rather than the size (too small ins never good, regardless of sector, in my opinion) or the incompetent Head, for example?

Why can't we have setting for all subjects in comps? And allow movement between the sets? I'm not against comps but I'm not in favour of mixed ability teaching.

Cookie Why can't we have setting for all subjects in comps? And allow movement between the sets? I'm not against comps but I'm not in favour of mixed ability teaching.

You can.
My DD2 is in y7 and is set for Maths & English. When she is in y8 she will be set for Maths, English, Science, French & Humanities and perhaps PE too.

My DD1 started in set 7/10 for maths in y7 and by the time she left the school she was in set 3/10 for maths, even moving between y10 and y11.

Why can't we have setting for all subjects in comps? And allow movement between the sets?
(Should start with the idea that I personally like sets but find a reasonably amount of whining parents seem to lack understanding of it)

Because in a school like mine sets 1 and 2 all have the same target grades and are roughly the same ability. Why? Because we have more "top set kids" than can fit in top set. So we have a few top end groups and people get hung up on the number rather than just working hard.

There's very little.difference between the middle few sets either.

A child can get full marks in set 2 and they'll still have a busybody parent whining that they aren't in top set. They can't seem to get their head that for their kid to go up, another child should go down. If there's no child who needs moving down and all the kids are where they should be then set number is just a vanity project.

Endless moving around every 6 weeks isn't good for consistency as certainly in my subject staff teach books slightly different ways.

And for what it's worth. I have a bottom end of middle ability set this year at GCSE and despite being way down in the numbers they've managed to turn work out that is equal to or better than a couple of the higher sets.

Also teach a very bottom set and instead of giving them.easy stuff (because people sometimes seem to do this with lower groups), I've just helped them do complex material their behaviour has massively improved and their work is in line with many middle ability students. Their set number hasn't affected the teaching they are getting.

If a child is willing to work and the teacher is challenging them then often the number on their timetable irrelevant in my opinion.

Because when you organise as school and take the entire academic ability intake sometimes there aren't enough pupils to set properly. A school with the same roll number yet less variability in academic ability would fare better in that respect.

I felt that the comprehensive nature if the school also led teachers to expect the middle ground, after all, it's what they were encountering mainly. And that led to expectations and aspirations more towards the middle I believe.

that led to expectations and aspirations more towards the middle I believe.

It can do. But it doesn't have to.

Solution is better staff development, not rewriting the whole system.

I know I teach bottom bottom groups and I don't expect any less of them than my top groups.

I'm glad you agree it can do. I know it doesn't have to be like that but unfortunately Sometimes it is.

Absolutely. And as someone who doesn't believe in this teach to the middle crap it's often challenging picking up children who've been taught that way.

I still feel the way forward is to explore groupings, better staff development rather than divide kids at 11 and fragment the system.any more than it already is. E.g. UTCs, studio schools, free schools, grammars, community colleges, comprehensives etc.

CookieDoughKid
Why can't we have setting for all subjects in comps?

Sometimes at KS4 there is only one class.

Yes I do.

Because in a school like mine sets 1 and 2 all have the same target grades and are roughly the same ability.

Wow, so both your top sets are working to A* or 8/9 grades are they??

I didn't go to grammar school but absolutly support them. I have a real issue with the idea of never letting brighter / hsrder working people have greater opportunities.

People make the arguement that the "deprived kids" don't get the chance but a) they could go to grammer schools anyway and b) the statistocs are skewed about the attainment of these children as half the time it's not that they went to a "bad" school that meant they didn't do well but rather the other social factors around them i.e. they weren't supported at home academically because it's never been high priority for their own parents (hence them being in the poorer bracket) nutrition, general behaviour etc. may be poorer in poorer populations so therefore learning levels are lowered.

It's simplistic to blame the elitism of grammar schools for creating a class divide. You can do very well at an ordinary comprehensive school if you putcthe work in. Its about attitude to learning above all else. Fwiw my dh & i didnt go to grammars but now have a masters degree & phd between us. One of us came from a council estate & the other from a nice area but with parents with low qualification levels.

maisy I agree and wish there were more teachers of your persuasion.
It's hard when your child compares itself to others in the class and thinks their work is good enough as it's just as good as the girl sat next to her who might be aiming for a much lower grade. They don't see that other children in other schools might be also competing with them! We know there is a big world out there, they don't.

Willowtree7 - so is it ok that deprived but bright kids who by 11 years old have already been disadvantaged by a chaotic home life and lack of parental help will be much less likely to get into a grammar school than less bright kids with affluent, pushy parents who can afford tutoring?

You can do very well at an ordinary comprehensive school if you putcthe work in

So why do we need grammar schools then?

Your post makes little sense, I'm afraid. You say you support grammar schools, but give no sensible reason for that (and ignore all the very obvious disadvantages mentioned repeatedly upthread), and then go on to demonstrate out why they are not necessary.

Badbadbunny
Essentially yes. Top is target 8s (nobody gives 9s out in our area because what gets a 9 will change each year) with some 7s. Set 2 is all 7s with some who could get 8s (because of how the groups are matched with other subjects) and set 3 has most students with 7 targets and about 1/3 6 targets.
There's overlap between all the groups. My set 4 has a mixture of 5-6targets. I gave a grade 8 out to a student in my set 4 class for some work. They'd really clicked with a couple of the texts.
I'm not about only teach the middle level work because 'they're set 4'. I teach all my classwork as high as possible. As a result, I have students in set 4 who wouldn't want to move.

Not all sets are as defined as people think.

The people who love talking about setting are the parenrs/kids who want to sound amazing about being in set 1.

It takes a great deal of effort to work bottom sets because often they feel rubbish. It's why strong teachers should be at the bottom too because it's a mix of behaviour, ability and wider pastoral issues. Those kids hate talking about sets because it's a label that makes them feel rubbish.

This idea that a child moving up a group so they have a 'better' number on their timetable is just silly.

Headofthehive55
Totally agree.
I've taught mixed ability as well as sets. There are some benefits. But there's a different skill in making mixed ability work well.

My personal preference (though it would never happen) would be to have 3 'top' groups which would be the top 1/3 mixed up. 3 middle groups (middle 1/3 mixed up) and 3 lower groups (bottom 1/3 mixed up).
Sort of a half way house between sets and mixed ability.

My point was that i believe firmly that there should be opportunities for children to be stretched. I believe a lot of bright kids dont do as well as thry could in comprehensives due to the poor behaviour and lack of learning engagement by other children.

However the reason i discussed that you can be successful in them is that i hate thr arguement that children from poor backgtounds can't do well as thry didnt get a tutor to get into a grammar. Why shouldn't parents who worked hard to give their children a good life be able to do things to enhance their childrens future?

We should have grammar schools & we should also have a lot more support for children of parents who haven't given them opportunities in lifr.

This was a very telling comment from BertrandRussell to those assuming she meant she could identify a small child who was grammar school matetial by their ability.

But anyway, I don't have to see their work. All I have to see is the label in their coats, the name on the register or the contents of their lunch boxes. Or their mother's shoes.

I don't think people appreciate just how true this is. Actual intelligence is just a small part of what makes a child grammar school material by age 11. What they have learnt (or learnt to value or develop) by 11 will be what propels them forward. And that will be more down to parental input and aspirations than the work they've done at primary school. Kids without those advantages should not be thrown on the academic scrapheap at 11 because there is still time for them to be inspired, to shine, to find something that sparks their interest. Telling them age 11 that they have failed, that they are not good enough, is unacceptable.

Telling them age 11 that they have failed, that they are not good enough, is unacceptable.

Who is telling them that???

The grammar school system tells them that. At age 11 they are separated from their more fortunate abler peers because they didn't make the grade.

My point was that i believe firmly that there should be opportunities for children to be stretched. I believe a lot of bright kids dont do as well as thry could in comprehensives due to the poor behaviour and lack of learning engagement by other children

So improve comprehensives.
Setting up grammars isn't going to change those schools that are struggling.
All it does it allow MN type parents to whisk their little ones off to grammar with the help of a tutor and the school left behind is good enough for somebody else's children.

i hate thr arguement that children from poor backgtounds can't do well as thry didnt get a tutor to get into a grammar. Why shouldn't parents who worked hard to give their children a good life be able to do things to enhance their childrens future?
It's not about preventing hardworking people from giving their children opportunities. That's a red herring. Kids with hard working, middle class parents are inherently advantaged already in the system.
This is my point on the grammar issue. The people who want them are the people who can't wait to get their kids into (essentially) a socially selective school and we'll just leave the rest

There are amazing comprehensives out there. I've worked in some of them. But the narrative on here seems to be

1. my academic child should be able to go to grammar
2. Reasons being poor behaviour, not being stretched, poor lessons etc
3. Challenge - oh so you're saying all that is good enough for somebody else's children
4. "But secondary moderns CAN BE good"

Aka. I want a 2 tier education system where the top tier benefits me and the 2nd, well it's good enough for someone else's children.

The people saying that poor kids don't get into grammars because they aren't as clever as the kids of better off parents will presumably be able to explain why even poor kids with the same KS2 SATs results as better off kids who pass the 11+ are still less likely to get into a grammar.

Yes, l wholeheartedly support grammar schools, and l went to my local comprehensive.

My view has been shaped by my experiences and those of my children.

It is extremely hard for teachers to effectively teach all abilities in a class of 30, and to simultaneaously stretch the top ability kids, encourage the big middle group and support the SEN/slower starters.

They either need much, much more help or to reduce this ability range.

If the top 10% go to Grammars for example, the range is immediately smaller therefore teaching should be more effective.

This happens naturally in Private education, some schools are known to be very selective and fast paced for the academically brightest, and only those children will pass the entry exam. the curriculum focusses on academic study leading to top universities and academic careers.

Many others offer a more rounded, slower pace of academic study for the majority and are easier to enter.The opportunities going forward are much broader, university/apprenticeships /work based training.

Some have fantastic support for the child who needs support and learns at an entirely different pace and individual help in a gentle environment.

Parents can choose what is best for their particular child.

Of course Grammars do not fix the many issues in education, but they offer bright kids an opportunity to flourish in a fast paced academic environment with like minded kids heading for an academic career.

I like the governments option to sit for grammars at 11,14 and 16 too.

Plenty of chances for the late starters to develop at their own pace yet still apply to a Grammar.

For the rest of the children, their schools can focus on the smaller range of abilities and hopefully make it a little easier for teachers to teach each child well. ( Personally l can think of few harder jobs than being a teacher)

Much has to be done to ensure the brightest, but most disadvantaged kids get to have a chance of a Grammar school place....another thread

And everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that kids who pass the 11+ one day might not pass it the next.

'Oh my kid would have been better stretched at a grammar' doesn't seem to accept the real possibility that said child wouldn't get in. What then? Are you happy to accept a system where a child who would have been challenged at a grammar is plonked in a school where they are deemed less academic and given different choices? Are you only happy to accept it because you assume it wouldn't be your child?

At age 11 they are separated from their more fortunate abler peers because they didn't make the grade.

Is that any different to separating them because some aren't "religious" enough for church schools? How about those who've applied for specialist arts/drama/music schools but don't make the grade?

Anyway, we're not in the 50's/60's anymore. The alternative isn't a crap sec-mod these days. The alternative is a comp, and given how so many people claim comps are just as good, how can it mean "failure". Things have moved on in the last 50 years!

It's not about privilege either. Grammar kids don't get an easy ride. They still have to work damned hard to get the grades. Working for and passing the 11+ is an indicator that they have the self motivation and determination, not just about academic ability. However much you tutor someone, if they're not capable academically or not willing to put the work it, they won't pass the 11+. However, in most areas outside the stupid super-selective abhorations, it's still possible for bright and committed kids to pass the 11+ without tutoring.

Final point. Grammars do subjects that comps don't in some areas. Eg., there are two subjects in our county that only the grammars teach, so if those subjects are important to the kid, they have to go to the grammar to be taught them. Also, A level subject range. Our nearest comp don't do any languages at A level and only offer 1 language to GCSE out of a choice of 2. The grammar offers 4 languages at A level and up to 3 out of a choice of 5 to GCSE. The nearest comp also mandates that kids take an "art" subject to GCSE whether they want to or not!

No one is proposing going back to the archaic grammar versus sec mod system. The proposal is more choice. Personally, I think that academic kids (especially the shy, introverted ones) get a poor deal at comps - that's from my personal experiences and observations. I don't see a problem with choice. Having a couple of grammars in our county hasn't meant the comps suffer - in fact the nearest comp to one of the grammars is also a high achieving exceptional school - but it's different - it offers a different school experience, a different range of subjects, etc. What's wrong with that????