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?

For those who say 'but that's not possible, if we take PP children with lower scores, they won't keep up' - those children were of similar raw ability to their richer peers before they started school. So they have the same POTENTIAL, just not the same results. A genuinely good school for children of 'high raw ability' should surely be able to cope with accelerating those children so that they keep up?

I support grammars and didn't go to one.

I went to selective independent schools.

"What is being done about FSM numbers in the best comps and FSM numbers in the top sets within all comps?"
Someone always does this. Thread about Unfair Thing A. "Ah, but wht about Unfair Things B and C? How can you even think about Unfair Thing A before you've solved Unfair Things B and C?" Well, I have frequently offers my plan to sort out UTs B and C in this case-admissions policies based on fair banding and lottery. But that terrifies the selective school people because it takes away their "choice".......

I wrestle with the FSM thing for 'leafy' comps.

Thinking of the one nearest to me:

• Yes, it has FSM that are low compared to the national picture, but exactly represent the FSM in the primary schools in its catchment.
• Families who have always lived in the area always get in, whatever their income, and whatever their house is now worth.
• Families do try to buy their way into catchment, which is expensive as a result. The school has a very active 'anti admissions fraud' stance and practice.

If we compare this to a grammar school with the same or fewer children with FSM:

• Its level of FSM will not be representative of the primary schools in the area it serves. It will always be lower.
• Families who live next to the school will not necessarily get in. Their chance of getting in is significantly lower if they are on FSM than if they are on higher incomes.
• Families are more able to apply, and take up their place if their children pass, if they can afford to pay transport costs and in many cases for coaching. The school has no effective mechanism in place to combat this.

As i say, I would support proposals that ensure that every school in an area, whether comprehensive or selective, takes exactly the same % of children in receipt of Pupil Premium. However I don't think that the selective system is inherently 'fairer' than the existence of leafy comps, rather the reverse.

(Sorry, additional one: leafy comp admits children wherever they have been to primary school, and whatever the quality of that primary school. Selective school admits children who are already advantaged by having been to 'better' primary schools, and in particular those who have been to private primaries.

Again, this used to be easier to calculate using old DfE tables. However, from the number of children not included in the Attainment 8 / Progress 8 scores because they have no KS2 scores, the leafiest of leafy comps has under 10% who either came from countries without KS2 SATs or were at private primaries. The nearest selective school has over a quarter of children in that position. As the selective has almost 0 movement in or out, whereas the comp does have families moving into the area from abroad quite regularly, I would suspect that at least 5x more children attending the grammar have been privately educated at primary than for the leafiest comprehensive)

From upthread: Kids who want to learn deserve better.

Yes, but who says that it's only the most able who want to learn? There are plenty of less able students who want to do the best they can. Who says we need a system which states that it's only important to get an able student an A* rather than an A instead of one geared towards getting a less able student a C instead of a D? In any case, both of those students can be catered for in the same school if it's done right. There is no need for separate schools. It is divisive, unfair and unnecessary and there is no proof that it would lead to better results across the board. And improvement across the board is all we should be interested in.

All the grammars I have checked for our localish area have 20% or more children with no KS2 scores, so are most likely to have been at private primaries.

Comprehensives are all much less than 10%, and as I say may well be much less because the percentage is contributed to by families moving from overseas during secondary school. None of the grammars have any significant admission after year 7, so families arriving from abroad will disproportionately attend the comprehensives.

And improvement across the board is all we should be interested in.

Absolutely!

Draylon,

I know. Would I rather my children get very marginally higher results, or lived in a society where the whole workforce has made good progress in their education?

I think it's the wrong question OP. I think it should be "Does anyone who doesn't directly benefit from Grammar schools support them?" I'm not hearing very many of the 80% of families whose children get sent to Secondary Modern saying "Yeah, they're great!"

"There was no class/wealth devide to grammars in the 60s."

There most certainly was. Most pupils were middle class. Of those who could be said to be working class, most left before taking A levels.

I would dread to see a girls grammar like mine come back - the best that could be said was that it was good in parts. Some teachers were dedicated and good - others were just time serving, rehashing the same notes year after year.

I used to think they were a good thing. But then I became a teacher. There are lots and lots of things wrong with our education system. I could make a very long list. And bringing back grammar schools wouldn't be the right solution for a single thing on that list.

I don't think it's a money issue as much as an attitude issue.

I very much got the feeling that teachers didn't care about the children who were higher achievers. In fact the teachers sneered at my child as much as the kids.

It was very much "we need to support those who come from poorer households, socially disadvantaged. Etc"
In fact my DD was left with concussion after one such boy hit her over the head (intentionally) with a bat. Apparently the school felt that it was just one of those things - he was from a disadvantaged family you know...mine had to have time off school, he had no real action against him.
They didn't even teach the syllabus to enable the children to reach the top grades.
But it was the attitude really - oh you'll do ok you are bright...we really need to support those who aren't as lucky as you...that doesn't help if you want to go onto A levels.

I don't think a school should belittle, marginalise or frustrate any child even if they do happen to be academic.

"In fact my DD was left with concussion after one such boy hit her over the head (intentionally) with a bat"

Presumably the police tool the assault seriously?

Eolian the problem is it's not done well in lots of comps.
If it as a large comp it might be better but small ones struggle.

And presumably the Head took seriously the teacher who sneered at your child for being clever?

It sounds like a seriously crap school. But why does that make you support grammar schools? Why don't you support better comprehensive schools?

Having experience around several comps I think they have disadvantages. In particular small ones. As does selective education too.
They have disadvantages for particularly unacademic kids too. My DD2 is such a child and yes we recognise she would have been better at a secondary modern. Her biggest gripe about school was the feeling of academic inferiority. She's now at college in a more selective environment and is happier.

I guess it's like sport. I don't mind going to a gym session with other (fat) mums but I'm not going to one full of lean beauty queens!

Better to me would be bigger schools, that would enable more setting and more children to run music clubs etc.

here was no class/wealth devide to grammars in the 60s.

No there wasn't in my grammar school as everyone was middle class. There was one boy with a working class accent in the entire school, how weird is that.

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.

So, what about the poor child who suddenly becomes switched on and settles down to academic work, fully prepared to meet their full potential when they're 14 and have missed out on the opportunity to go to the selective school? A fully comprehensive school will allow for this and there will be fluidity in the setting of classes. Comprehensive schools don't do mixed ability classes all the way through school.

I think one of the problems with grammar schools is that people have this idealized historic view of them being full of gardener's boys and miner's daughters working away by candle light every evening and going off to Oxford....

The reality was very different. The very top of the tree went to public school, grammar school educated the managerial and professional classes, technical schools the foremen and secondary moderns the factory fodder. And if you read children's books based in the 40s and 50s there is often a clever servant's child desperate for books who is spotted by the local vicar who then goes round to persuade her parents to let her try for the entrance exams to the grammar school, and, if he is successful, offers to prepare (aka coach) her...............

Some mixed ability throughout school hilarious

Some mixed ability, but it's minimal.

And people have an idealised version of comps which doesn't match reality.

Schools seem to decide the disadvantaged by virtue of income. There is more types of disadvantage than that. I don't think that's always recognised.