BBC2 documentary Grammar schools who will get in? Why wouldn't you try?

[Whatatadoo]

Watching the documentary last night and thought the grammar school came across really well, the secondary modern not so good. Just wondering why, if you have the opportunity you wouldn't try for the grammar? I know all schools should be equal but in reality they're not. Why wouldn't you want to give your dc the best possible education if you had the chance?

@Whatatadoo I was tutored for the 11+ and struggled at grammar school. I remember my year 7 English teacher asking me infront of the whole class what my year 6 sats results were because my spelling was so poor.

But Urubu, that's not what a proper comprehensive is like. Our local comprehensives support both academic and non academic children. My friends' children have gone on to study to be lawyers and doctors and nursery nurses and personal trainers and to be in an up and coming band, to Oxford and SOAS and Imperial and Leeds and the local college and a sports scholarship in the US. Being educated together hasn't held any of them back. It's allowed them all to do well on their chosen paths.

But Lockheart isn't it the grammars themselves that perpetuate that situation? In an area like Bexley there is a very much 2 tier education system. The schools that are not grammars are poor in all senses. Academically, discipline, aspiration. The goal is to get kids to a C. Not to their potential just to a "pass'. It's not good enough. But it's allowed to go on because "the clever kids' pass the 11plus. And fuck all the rest.

In a truly comprehensive area, where there are no grammars, there's not such a massive gap between schools. Some may be slightly better than others, offer better facilities, but the difference is much less marked. And it's that we should be aiming for.

The only people who support grammars are those whose kids go to them, or think they will get in. I suspect some of them will get a shock though. Where I live there are 3 private prep schools. Those schools offer pretty much a guarantee of getting your child a place in a selective school. Their whole purpose is to ensure this. All those schools have expanded in the last 10 years - because increasingly just having a tutor isn't enough. I think in the next few years you will see fewer and fewer grammar pupils coming from state primaries. What then?

I also think there's a massive difference between areas with Super selective grammars and the regular comps, and grammar areas.

Here there is a 20:80 split, whereas as selective is taking off the top 3% maybe. That's much more a deliberate choice.

But if your child is in the top 10% for example it's very difficult to then make a conscious decision to put him with the 80% cohort.

I completely agree that the people who support grammars are the ones who pass but there's an awful lot of parents that don't agree with it but have made that decision.

The idea that all grammar pupils are precocious sorts with pushy ambitious parents who think 'fuck the rest' is not true.

It's anecdotal of course, but my dd was at primary with a girl who was tutored for 2 years for the 11+.
She passed.

At our first (year 7) parents this girl was sobbing her way round the room as every teacher told her parents the same story.
She couldn't cope with the work and was behind in almost every class.
I know her parents and they themselves admitted they wanted her at the grammar at any cost but that she'd only been taught to pass the entrance exam.

She left a couple of weeks after that parents evening.

It's such a ridiculous age to make that decision. It would actually make more sense at 13 if it had to be made at all.

We really deliberated because DS is not academic. He was not intensively tutored for two years but did have a tutor.

He is still lazy, hates doing homework and would rather be in the park with his mates. Some of his classmates do hours of work every night and I have no idea what they are doing.

I do have a friend who's child was intensively tutored for 2 years, summer schools, mock exams etc as missed by a point or 2. He is very diligent. I know she secretly feels DS is wasting a place that should be her child's.

I do think as a system it's very divisive in that way.

I was tutored to get into grammar school (It was very selective, around 4000 applicants for 150 places) and I found that it was actually easier academically once I started school and that I coped fine. I don't really get the argument of tutored children not coping in secondary because there's this thing called teaching where kids aren't expected to know everything already, stuff is explained to them, at least in my experience. So if you're bright, when someone explains something to you you'll get it.

Something I also noticed when I was at a grammar was that it was so much more diverse than the surrounding schools. I don't really know why that is but I would prefer my child to go to a school with a variety of ethnicities and cultures. We used to share facilities with one of the other comprehensives and some of them were really racist and none of their (also white) friends said anything. Racism was never tolerated at our school because most of us weren't white haha and so they were kind of the minority.

I also don't agree with the stereotype that all the kids are rich and snobby. Only about 20% of us went to a private primary and there were plenty of stories of parents working overtime to afford bond papers and so on.

Taco, there was a recent article about the success of London comps and how it could be replicated around the country.

A lot of their success was down to having a high proportion of ethnic minority children, and children of immigrant parents who put a huge value on education and working hard.

That's hard for schools to replicate. I think the same could be said of grammar schools.

However the obvious difference with London comps is that all children benefit as a result, rather than the 20%

I live in Bexley and did the 11+ as Standard when I was in Primary School. I failed and my teacher was FURIOUS with me, literally speechless. I have never forgotten it or her reaction.

I ended up at Erith School and - at the time - they had streaming which meant you could move into a grammar stream if your work was of that level. I moved up which suited me, did it in my own time with very little pressure.

However I agree with other posters that in Bexley education is now very 2 tier. The comprehensives are very much the poor relation with big issues regarding SEN provision and behaviour. The grammar schools are seen as the holy grail and it's a very contentious issue. A friend of mine was told she was a bad Parent after agreeing to send her DC to a comp despite an 11+ pass - she felt her DC wouldn't cope at grammar - but the backlash was horrible.

I am very against grammar schools as they actively disadvantage poor regarding educational attainment and do not help social mobility at a population level.

I do accept that for the odd 'poor but bright' child of 'poor but bright and educationally motivating' parents, it will be a benefit.

However if I lived in a grammar school area I would for sure be tutoring my children for the 11+ and hoping they got in.

I also think there's a massive difference between areas with Super selective grammars and the regular comps, and grammar areas.

Here there is a 20:80 split, whereas as selective is taking off the top 3% maybe. That's much more a deliberate choice.

That is a good point. Unless my child was super clever and super motivated, I wouldn't put them in for super selective.

But in a 'normal' grammar area of 80%/20% I sure as hell would want them in the grammar school, which is a shame really.

Luckily I live in a 100% comp area so don't have this issue!

The key is parental pressure as well.

We were very clear with DS that this was not a pass or fail situation, and that the test was designed to work out which style of teaching would suit you best. There was no expectation.

His friend who didn't get in had been told since infants that it was the best school in town and that he would be going there.

Similarly at DS1s parents evening we were told that he was doing Ok but could be making more effort. Each teacher impressed on us that he shouldn't be in trouble for it. It had never occurred to us and we were just happy that he had settled in and made some friends.

Then we noticed the other parents with note books and realised a lot of them would have been in trouble for that.

Becasue we have decided to privately school our children.

I live in a grammar area, its awful.
You drive round the area and theres yellow aa tutoring signs and exam centres everywhere. So even if you can't afford tutoring thats what your up against.

It is such a split between the schools that if your child is even slightly academic they struggle to 'fit' at the local comp. We have a choice of grammar but not comp!

Friendship groups are split the kids don't know who they will get to stay with, thats sad and stressful for them.

My eldest will suit the grammar better, i know that. So now I'm stuck not wanting to tutor as it adds to this bullshit stress, but knowing not tutoring will disadvantage them.

limbo you can tutor without it being too high pressure. I don't think the groups are helpful for that and I don't know anyone who did Explore Learning and passed.

We had someone for 45 minutes a week who went through some past papers and gave some strategies for working out the non-verbal reasoning etc. It cost £20 a week.

Keep away from the 11+ forums. Those places are MENTAL

My ds1 goes to a grammar. Ds2 goes to the local comp. (We live on the border between a comp and selective area). The academic standard appears similar, if anything the systems in the comp are more innovative and the grammar more traditional. The grammar my eldest attends is seen as the least "desirable" in the area, as a consequence it has fewer upper middle class kids and is much more multicultural and I like that. Ds1 is autistic and has had brilliant support at the grammar, I don't think he'd have got it at the comp as there would always have been children with higher profile problems. He has also managed with very little bullying, whereas DS2 - who isn't autistic- has developed an "invisible persona" so he slides under the radar of what he calls the "scary kids" at his comp. I think ds1 would have had a very very difficult time at the comp, apart from academically...

I worked in a grammar school. One of the local schools had only 1 kid try for the 11+ out of a possible 6 or so kids recommended to try from that school. Apparently most kids wanted to stay with their mates and go the local comp.

This child came and was horribly isolated. I always felt for him as he was apparently so happy at his primary school.

Also the local comp had no sixth form, so some of the students used to come to us for a-levels. They were far harder workers and better independent learners than the kids who had been in the grammar since year 7.

I have a theory that teachers at private and grammar schools to a lesser extent end up spoon feeding the kids. It can end up as much about appeasing the parents and management as teaching the kids.

Not rtft but because I don’t like two tier competitive education. All kids deserve a top notch education aimed at maximising their potential. And I have very bright kids.

Cream the top 20% into grammars and you end up with sink schools for those ‘less’ academic (judged on a single day with pushy parents sat behind). It’s immoral.

I also think there's a massive difference between areas with Super selective grammars and the regular comps, and grammar areas

This.

We were in the enviable position of catchment for the top two state schools in the city. We were also in catchment for a selective girl's school (just!)

We took DD to look around them all and she chose which she liked best.

We did no tutoring, no practice papers.

I don't think that one/two selective schools does necessarily cream the top - the results of the other state schools in the catchment doesn't show this in our area.

Jacques - of course it creams off the top. That is its raison d’etre. By all means disagree, and buy into the system if you wish, but don’t be disingenuous.

@shitholiday2018

Did you actually read what I put. In my area the results state otherwise.

All very similar academic results.

You see the use of the word "necessarily" - key to understanding the point.

Actually - it is a specalist grammar sp it probably does cream off girls who are interested in a less "traditional" subject area

In a truly comprehensive area, where there are no grammars, there's not such a massive gap between schools.

Yes, there can be massive gaps. There are outstanding comps literally within sight of "requiring improvement" comps. One I'm thinking of was closed a few years ago due to falling rolls after years/decades of being a failing school, whereas one literally across a small park is oversubscribed and "outstanding". Both comps.

Jacques it’s an illogical premise. It is selective so does cream off the top and therefore it necessarily will affect the rest of the system. Unless you give me the schools and access to the stats, I simply don’t believe it.