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?

tween
That's the issue with a small comp no Latin for example, limited triple science, no music (not enough to run) etc.
It's classified as a good comp, but comps do have limits. You understandably end up with a smaller number of brighter pupils and that shows up much more in a small school.
The bar is set lower as teachers get used to what the majority achieve and don't aspire for their pupils to achieve any better.

I had the conversation that they don't recommend anyone to do a level maths and three sciences as it's just too hard...then push soft subjects.
The pupils themselves don't understand they aren't progressing as well as they might. They see that they are top in class and that good, yes?
I think comps are a good idea, but unless it's a large school, I think they do have downsides. We need to recognise their limitations too.

There are Outstanding comps but often they are in the most expensive areas. Many grammars have no catchment so are available to all who can pass the test. For us this was a reason to go for it alongside an ethos we liked which we didn't see in the comps we visited.

If there was an Outstanding comp with the same ethos in our area and catchment we'd have considered it.

Greenginger certainly where I grew up grammars with no catchments were super-selectives. The majority who got in were coached to within an inch of their lives, or more commonly, sent to private primaries that prepped them for the 11+ - hardly an example of improving educational equity.

Well nationally only 14% of children actually come from private schools so that isn't correct.

There is inequality in the comp system with parents buying places in the better catchments via property. Aren't the Tories also suggesting an ability banding system in an attempt to resolve some of these issues?

Parents who like grammars probably do for the same reason as private schooling. It's that sense of privilege and being "better" than others and not wanting their children to mix with "rough kids". That's my sense.

Generalising much believeitornot?

I went to a grammar that was turned into a comprehensive. DH went to secondary modern, back in the days when that wrote you off. Our 4 DC went to (1) private, because she passed 11+ and was prevented from getting a place by the primary HT, (2) "High" school, ie secondary modern, (3) and (4) grammar.

We wanted them to be taught at their level. And they were. The secondary modern admitted on distance but the grammar and private schools selected on ability. So it didn't matter that we lived in the not so nice area of town.

Another way of asking the question would be, would you be so keen on the comprehensive system if your postcode meant your kids were stuck at the badly-performing one, rather than the 80% GCSE A-C leafy one?

The vast majority if pupils at my grammar school had been educated privately at primary school. And there was an additional benefit for thise with money, as pupils who had failed their 11+ could still go to the school as fee-paying boarders, so we had several wealthy but not at all academic pupils. We also had by far the best scientist in my year who failed her 11+ and boarded. She was lucky that her parents had the money to send her as a boarder rather than ending up at a secondary modern with no option of taking triple science at GCSE.

I went to a middle of the road comp and then to Cambridge. 1 of 3 in my year of 200.
I support grammars but I also support a greater value being put on what used to be called 'tertiary' education. We are all skilled in different ways and can excel in different ways. One size does not fit all.

I didnt' grow up in an area but live in one now and I support them. I don't really see why not.

DM went to a grammar, taught at a secondary modern, had me and DB then went back to teach at a comp then an independent selective (which she said was much like her grammar).

She's the biggest supporter of the secondary modern ever. It seems if done right it really worked for those kids. It was the big campus model with all three schools next door to each other, so there was a fair bit of fluidity, which seemed to be a good balance, listening to her.

I went to an average comp, in an area where there were no grammar schools, loved school but hated many of the kids around me who thought lessons were an extension of playtime and twatted about annoying anyone who actually wanted to learn. When we moved into an area where there were Grammars I didn't care where the kids went as long as they were able to learn, in the end DC1 comp, DC2 and 3 Grammar and DC4 taking 11+ next year. I was pleased for the kids who went to Grammar thinking that they might be amongst other students who wanted to learn but found that there were just as many idiots at either school. In the end the only thing which limits the child is their attitude to learning.

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

Yes, I know loads of people, I mentioned it upthread. There are no comprehensive schools in my area, so everyone fell on one side of the 'divide' or the other, but I don't know anyone who objects to academic selection, or who feels they were failed (or were themselves a failure) by attending a non grammar. Although I do know a few people who regret going to grammar school as they found it a struggle.

I support it but when I was given the chance to go I refused to take the 11+. This was not based on the fact that, if I passed, I would be going to a grammar school but I would be going to an all girls' school.

I strongly believe in inclusion but I also believe selective education is not a bad thing.

The grandparents of my DC who didn't pass the 11+ pay for the bus that gets my DC to their grammar schools.

I went to private school so not much experience with state education here, but I do believe in academic selection. Bright children with fantastic prospects should be afforded the opportunity to be in a more academically intensive environment with students who are like them in ability. There will be exceptions of course, but mix environments will more often than naught only hinder such children.

Who believes that a child on e.g. the 89th centile doesn't deserve a 'different' education, whereas one on the 91st does?(Or the 74th vs 76th, in other areas?)

It can be easy to support a model of selective education if you look at the 'extremes' and imagine that children divide into two neat groups - the 'able' and the 'not able'. Yes, someone heading for a Harvard professorship may need a different education from someone heading for a career as a carpenter...but the world does not divide into those 2 groups.

In fact, there is a continuous spectrum of ability (and 'ability' will be different if measured using different tools or using different types of question). There may be no discernable difference between someone on the 74th and 76th centiles - in fact in another test on a different day, their positions are likely to be reversed - but the grammar / secondary modern divide condemns them to wholly different educational institutions.

I went to a bog standard comp that was SO keen on mixed ability that they refused to set for any subjects. As a result I'm strongly against mixed ability teaching and strongly in favour of setting. I was bright but coasted through secondary school.

I support the original idea of grammar schools providing the best education to bright pupils regardless of background. I do feel that intensive tutoring has made the increasingly the preserve of the middle class who can afford 11+ tuition which is against the original ethos imo.

I would've liked to go to grammar school, I don't blame all my life's failings on school, but I think being academically pushed more would've been good for me. My parents were the opposite of pushy regarding my education (weird really as they're both qualified teachers) so I got away with not putting maximum effort in, I quickly learned that it made no difference whether I worked hard or not both at home and at school. I don't think a grammar (or a better comp) would've let me get away with that.

Harder, i don't know of any comps nowadays that don't set.

I do know some that use very limited setting in Y7, to allow children to show their ability in the secondary setting, and also those that don't set, for obvious practical reasons, for minority GCSE subjects where there is a single class - but i think the 'ideological' non-setting thing has largely disappeared..

I support grammars having attended a very average comp that had been a grammar. The key to the system working is how good and respected the alternatives are. In South Wales where I grew up, I know many people who did very well after a Secondary Modern education.

Grammar schools are great if you get in, if you don't you'll be set up to fail at 11.my comprehensive were streamed so all classes were of roughly the same ability but you could change streams if required, by far a better system

What I find fascinating g is people saying that they support grammars because they went to a bad comprehensive. Shouldn't that mean you support good comprehensives, rather than supporting a system that airlifts out the top 25/15/10%?

But a universal Outstanding comprehensive system never happens. They've been in existence for years.The inequality issues are also never ironed out. I don't really believe in comprehensive for all anyway. I think we need a variety of schools,one size doesn't fit all.

Isn't this a thread asking for the views of those who support them but didn't go to them and why?

Not yet another grammar bashing thread with the same old anti grammar comments that have posted over and again.

GreenGinger,

You use the Ofsted term 'Oustanding' as if that is the only possible measure of the quality of education provided for all in a school system. Historically, the Outstanding label is far more an indicator of a privileged intake than good progress for pupils (sorting all schools in England by % Pupil premium and ofsted label makes this distressingly clear) - this is changing, but of courser many 'Ofsted Outstanding' schools are rarely inspected so their deficiencies go unrecorded.

What do you mean by a 'good' comprehensive? I would mean one that enables and ensures good progress for pupils f all abilities, across the whole spectrum. What do you mean?

I went to a really rubbish comp where we were not pushed at all and anyone that actually wanted to do some work was labelled a swot.
Nothing was set either, so mediocrity ruled.

I was bored and although I did pretty well at school in my GCSEs, I could have done much better in my science A levels as the gap between my poorly taught double science was huge compared to A level Chem/Physics.

Anyway, my children now go to a good prep school and DS1 easily passed his entrance exam to our local grammar. If they didn't, I would never send them to a non-selective comp.

Me