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?

I didn't go but one of my children did. I was very pro grammars as i had a terr bile schooling after age 11 in a school full of non academic bullies.My other child was bright enough to do the 11+ but did not like single sex schooling and went on to do brilliantly at the comp (is now highly academic doing a science Phd), However I am for grammar schools until they bring in single sex schools as well as mixed and more schools such as pupil referral units and special schools to remove those who for various reasons disrupt the education of others.

Dh and I support grammar schools. Both went to comps. Dh stuck out like a sore thumb because he worked crazily hard, got all As etc. I went under the radar, didn't need to bother trying to get OKish grades which were far less than I was capable of.
When I was at primary school, my parents were told that I would get a scholarship to one of the top private schools but they didn't bother entering me for it because they couldn't afford the travel.
So yes, I support grammar schools.

i went to a grammar school and hated most of my time there not because i wasnt bright, but ours took in children from the local prep school so parents with money , i came from the local council estate and got bullied all the way through school by one of the boys whos parents had mega money, left with 4 gces that i took a year early and ran out of the place and non of my children have gone to grammar and have all done well

DH. He went to a comp in the 1980s, one that was considered very good. But he wanted DC to go to Grammars like I did so that they'd be in a place where doing well is something to be proud of.

He also wanted them to go single sex so that DD could do science without feeling that it's a boy's subject.

Neither DH nor I went to grammar, no grammars where we grew up. We were both top in every subject in our very poor comprehensives, except games! Passed GCSEs and a levels with no work or revision (3% on my geography coursework but still got a B overall), got into red brick university, both doing traditional academic subjects. Both have masters, good careers etc, have paid for fee-paying schools for our children.
But we passionately believe in selective education, for those with ability. If we'd been to the grammars where we live now, we'd both have been Oxbridge material, DH possibly MIT or Stanford, certainly for postgrad.
DD is going to a SSGS in September. We didn't tutor her (although probably 80%+ of entrants are) so we know she has the ability. We want her to have the opportunities we didn't, to be pushed to extend her learning, and have peers that have even half a scooby about what she's talking about.
Neither of us were ever bullied, but we had no close friends because people didn't know how to relate to us.

I went to a bog standard comp and am pretty successful, so an argument for the "a bright kid will do well whereever they go" line.

One of the smartest, most successful people I know failed her 11+ and so went to a pretty awful secondary modern - another "bright kid will do well anyway" argument.

But I would have loved the opportunity to be in a school where it was OK to be academically bright, where they had a track record in sending lots of kids to great universities, where aspiration beyond being a petrol station attendant (which was the "job" in question for the mock interview practice that the school arranged for everyone in Year 11) was supported and nurtured.

I understand that there are many downsides to the grammar school system, but at the moment many of the upsides aren't being replicated in state comps either

I was a bright kid at a good comprehensive school. I wasn't bullied. I don't support selective education at such a young age. I've seen my DC achieve well at different points in their education, and to write off a child at the age of 11 is nothing but piss poor. I've been lucky to have had a good comprehensive on the doorstep for the DC.

Sixth form in this area is selective. They got into the top one. Staff there are somewhat complacent and resting on the laurels achieved by the comprehensives and the local private schools (why pay for sixth form privately if you can get an excellent education free . . . and deny the state educated locals of a place).

My DDs are/have been through a state comp (leafy). No issue there with kids being bright / aspirational. They also happily set (not stream).

Grammars are not the answer to a poor comp.
Improving the comp is an answer to a poor comp.
You can have poor grammars too (coasting schools) but when parents just look at the headline rates they ignore the fact the school is selective so is bound to get better pass rates.

Assuming that all comps are like the poor one you went to 30 years ago is a poor basis on which to make a judgement about today's comps.

Also lets frame this as being in favour of secondary moderns because that's what you have left if you stream away the grammar kids. So you want kids who just miss the cut not being offered triple science or 2 languages or latin because there aren't enough in the SM to do them. Even though comps can offer them to all students so a FSM kid, or a late developer or an ESL kid still gets the chance.

" I went to a crap comprehensive hence supporting grammar schools so much"
Why doesn't that mean you support good comprehensives? So a good education for all, rather than the top 25%?

I didn't go to grammar. Went to the local comp full of drug dealers and murderers.

I intend on sending my DD to grammar or private if she's able, but I'll be training her up for it when the time comes. She's 17 months old. I want her to have the best education, away from bad influences and children who don't want to learn.

I'm wondering if there is anyone who still supports the grammar system after their DC failed to get in and ended up at a secondary modern?

Your last point is very important, @TeenAndTween - however we structure education, it has to make sure that every child gets the best education for them, and if a child is a late bloomer, academically, the school system needs to be flexible enough to cope with that.

However, I think we need to look at the secondary moderns, and take the good bits from them too. They provided education in practical subjects - the school I went to, which had just changed from Secondary Modern to comprehensive, was a rural school, so offered Rural Studies, to give specialist training and education to children who were going to end up working on family farms or in agriculture.

The secondary moderns offered education and training in things like vehicle mechanics, child care, construction skills - we need to recognise that some children's talents do not lie in the academic arena, and these children need education that enables them to develop their talents into marketable skills. When we try to force all children into one academic model, we let down the ones who don't fit there.

I believe that the current system leaves some children disenfranchised, and feeling at they are failures, because they are not academic. Surely it would be better if, alongside a good academic education, they were encouraged to find and develop their skills, and if we were showing them that practical skills are every bit as valuable and important as academic ones?

I don't think the Grammar/Secondary Modern system is the right way to do it, because it channels children one way or the other, with little or no flexibility. But I'm not sure we are getting it 100% right now either.

"Today 19:08 hippyhippyshake

I'm wondering if there is anyone who still supports the grammar system after their DC failed to get in and ended up at a secondary modern?"

On Mumsnet? You are joking, aren't you?

Why do grammar schools mean 75% aren't getting a good education?

Apologies Bert, completely forgot where I was 🤣

Perhaps a better way of framing this question might be:

'Is there anyone who supports grammar schools having had experience of a good comprehensive?'

I can understand that if someone has had the experience of a poor school, of whatever flavour, they might support a different type of school, especially one which is seen as 'high status' or 'better' in the eyes of some people [always worth looking at the progress results, though, not the raw ones - they tend to tell a very different story].

There are all sorts of things seen as 'synonymous with comprehensives' - e.g. teasing / bullying of able children; low aspirations; consistent disruption in lessons - which are in fact just characteristics of poor schools (I can point to examples in schools of all types, including grammar and private).

If you have experienced (recently) a GOOD school of a specific type, you are likely to support that type of school, even if its quality is nothing to do with its staus. On the other hand, if you have experience, hoswever historic, of a POOR school of a particular type, you are likely to support a different type of school.

This is, of course, illogical - what you really want is a good school, regardless of its type - but perhaps understandable.

"Why do grammar schools mean 75% aren't getting a good education?"
Well, it must, mustn't it? Otherwise grammar school parents wouldn't be busting a gut to avoid them!

I didn't and I'd love my children to go to grammar school, reason being that they're the best schools in my area.

I went to a comp and support grammars.

My comp wasn't too bad and I did well in my exams. It wasn't until I went to university that I realised I was about two years behind all my fellow peers that had gone to grammars or private schools.

In my year at school, looking back, a good third of each class (we had ten class of 30 pupils in total) had the intelligence and ability to do well. Yet only about twenty of us went on to do degrees or further education. It was a phenomenonal waste of talent, but no one really gave a shit because we were mostly from working class northern families. The teaching was bog standard, moved at a stupidly slow pace, and the culture of the school environment was appalling.

We were all totally failed by the comprehensive system, and I am still angry and very sad about that. No doctors, lawyers, professional engineers or scientists came out of my year at school nor the one above or below. Yet this was a school with an enormous catchment area, and some extremely clever kids.

It's such a shame. Noticeably, nothing has much changed. It's now a sports academy, and most of my former school friends are moving heaven and earth to get their kids into the very oversubscribed grammar five miles away or are scrimping to pay for private.

What barks me about the current grammar vs. comprehensive debate is that the references seem very set within an urban context, usually a London/South East paradigm. Elsewhere in the country, the situation is quite different. Where I am, we have a choice between the bog standard comprehensives, a private school and two grammars across two parliamentary constituencies of a total of 160,000 people.

"It wasn't until I went to university that I realised I was about two years behind all my fellow peers that had gone to grammars or private schools."

Can I ask what you mean by that? Presumably you had GCSEs and A levels just like them?

Me! We have some excellent ones locally and applying to grammar is part of the plan when DS is older.

Both of my parents went to grammar school and benefitted, everyone on DH's side is privately educated.

I went to state school but one in a nice area with ample opportunities and small class sizes. I'm the oik of the family.

I didn't go to grammar school but think it is a good idea.

Is there anyone who failed their 11+ and went to secondary modern and still support the grammar system?

I went to a grammar school and it was fucking shit. Took all the bright kids and therefore didn't need to teach us all that well. I did well eventually but despite it, not because of it, only prople it favoured were sciencey types. Family members who teach in good comps yet went to grammar schools say they are miles better. Sadly I live in a grammar school area so have the difficult choice of let my kids do the 11+ (but not all that coaching that goes on from age 7) or opt them out completely and send them to the not as good comp. If there was no grammar we'd have two decent comps and everyone would get a fair go. The inequality ingrained in this country through systems like this is disgusting.