'You don't like grammar schools because your DC weren't clever enough to get into one'

[Tannertenner]

How would you react if this was said to you in a 'discussion' about the rights and wrongs of grammar schools?

Are you in Kent OP? I actively avoided moving there as I knew DS wouldn't get into a grammar school.

He's bright enough, and working beyond expectation in English comprehension (he's on the borderline of working at and working beyond in SPaG) and working at expected level in all other areas.

But he has ASD and falls apart in test situations. I didn't even bother putting him forward for the 11+ as I knew he'd freak out and fail. After many practices he's now happy to take his SATs next week, in seclusion, with extra time and movement breaks, but we wouldn't have got that for the 11+ as the school had to provide evidence that it has been used before. Of course it hadn't, as he's never had a bloody test like that before!

As I'm active in our local ASD/ADHD community support groups, I see a lot of kids like this - really bright, but the grammar schools are only accessible to the few who can handle the exams. At that age many of them can't, so it weeds them out early on.

Luckily there's a fantastic academy round the corner from us that DS is going to. But the concept of grammar schools makes me feel uncomfortable. My parents didn't put me in for the 11+ even though they knew I'd pass it purely because they both failed and were stuck in secondary modems. They both ended up as senior managers, with the vocational equivalents of masters degrees, but they both said that they spent their teens known as one of the thickos from the comps. And that attitude even prevailed amongst the teachers at the time (1960s) - that the kids they were teaching weren't really worth it.

I was a poor kid who grew up on benefits on a council estate. No tutoring. Grammar school made all the difference for me.

From what you've said, I agree with you. The system is unfair and this person is missing your point and thinks you're against the system because your children didn't get in. That is only part of the story, your real feelings are not for the reasons they think. I doubt they're going to listen. My reaction would be "You don't understand where I'm coming from, I wish you could but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree" and that would be the last time I mentioned grammar schools with them again.

My grammar school didn't have a bigger budget than nearby comprehensive school, but the work was more challenging and a real focus on learning rather than crowd control.

There ie no longer way DS would have passed an 11+ even with tutoring. Now in year 8 his science teacher has said he is incredibly talented in this subject . He is also doing incredibly well academically in languages, history and English. He started to stand out academically towards the end of year 7. He would definitely have been failed by a grammer system. Luckily we have good comprehensive schools here.

I'm Scottish, and not really familiar with the grammar system. Could anyone clarify for me - in areas where there are grammar schools, is the alternative not a 'secondary modern' rather than a 'comprehensive'? Are people using the terms interchangeably? I had always thought that if, say, 20% of the pupils who passed the entrance test all got creamed off into the grammar school, then the remaining 80% would go to a secondary modern. Only non-grammar areas could technically have comprehensives, as that means all (state funded) pupils being educated together.
I fully accept I may have misunderstood, so would appreciate clarification.

There are 2 systems:

Super selective - no catchment areas, only a couple of grammars in the county, entry is for only the highest scorers on the 11+ not compulsory to sit these exams and totally free choice who does and who doesn't. Means all other schools are comprehensives

Selective system - all children sit the 11+ across the county and a certain percentage are creamed off to attend the grammar schools. All children who don't pass go to secondary moderns.

My dc are as thick as mince in some areas of the curriculum and brilliant in others.

They’re also lazy and disorganised.

I really don’t know what grammar supporters would suggest for kids like mine.

They have a very simplistic view of intelligence.

In my view a child can achieve highly in tests and appear to be ‘academic’ when they’re actually of average intelligence and are simply very hard working and well taught.

Other children are lazy and unfocused and perform disastrously in tests but have flashes of brilliance, great imaginations and need inspired teaching to make the best of themselves.

That’s how it works Jock - I’m in Trafford and strictly speaking our non-grammars are secondary moderns. Most people round here just call them high schools, and actually lots of parents choose not to go down the grammar/tutoring/entrance exam route, plus the grammars take lots of tutored students from outside the area, so the intake of our secondary moderns is probably more like a comprehensive. They are really good schools and mostly get fantastic results.

'because life isn't fair'

So that means a person can have no compassion for others? I think that's where that right wing argument leads to. I'd be royally pissed off with them if that was said to me, OP. You argued on principles & they tried to make it personal. That kind of thing shows deep lack of respect.

I don't even know if there are any grammar schools near me. I wouldn't even consider sending DS to one and he's only 4 so I have no idea how his academic performance is going to be. If he turns out to be very bright then he'll do fine in a state secondary, loads of kids do.

BitchQueen, just check that the school you are among for us offering triple science. Even the brightest can’t do well if they are not taught some basic stuff at school.

Among for us=is
Stupid phone.

BertrandRussell I can assure you I have. You know something? I don't think you have any real world experience of the grammar / selective school system.

It's not a level playing field.

I honestly don't know any kids who went to grammar in our area who were not tutored and/ or privately educated. We have 3 private prep schools in our town, none of which offer any assisted places or bursaries (ie there are no disadvantaged kids going there) ; about 95% of their pupils end up in grammar (the rest go to private secondary). So where is the room for the disadvantaged children? There is a primary not far from me on a large social housing estate. Nice enough school, consistently ranked good by Ofsted. But in a relatively poor area. No tutors for those children. Not one child in the last 10 years has got a grammar place. There will be many other primaries in a similar boat.

So how is grammar school serving those children? Are you really telling me that not one of those 900 kids (3 form year primary) was able enough for grammar? Or is it just that they were squeezed out by people effectively buying places?

And how is it fair the alternative is schools where you can only study 1 language? Can't do all science subjects? Only take 8 Gcses? (The standard at my DCs school; the grammar offers 13).

Poor kids have no chance of a grammar school place in areas like mine. And the non grammar alternatives in our area just keep getting worse. A friends DC (non selective area) go to their local comp. Just an average school they say. Yet it has amazing IT and sports facilities. Kids can learn Chinese as well as standard European languages. There's a wide range of subjects taught. And children generally do well at all levels, not just the very top.

We are in a grammar area . My eldest was middle ability in primary , he didn't take the eleven plus. We probably could have tutored him to get in , but he would have been the bottom of the top.

We appealed to get him in a good high school. He is in the top sets there , his confidence has sored and , as he is now in their grammar stream, he is doing the same options as his friends in grammar.

I don't like the grammar system but he has actually done well being the 'top of the bottom'

Children grow and mature at different rates. You cannot possibly assess how intelligent a child is at 11. This is not just me saying this, it is backed by many research papers and decades of evidence. To pigeon hole a child at that age is wrong.
Plus there are many different types of intelligence (don’t make a fish climb a tree!) so the entire concept of grammars goes against a whole range of educational theories and research. It just simply perpetuates the two tier society.