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?

I think the tutoring is a big red herring.Tutors prey on parents' insecurities.The exams in the area featured and my local area are cognitive tests of verbal and non-verbal reasoning.They test a candidates ability to recognise and apply patterns.Familiarity with the style of question helps ,but tutoring is of very little benefit.I think the programme illustrated nicely that a silk purse cannot be made from a sow's ear.Juanita was very heavily tutored as were other children who still failed.On the other hand untutored daughter of a nurse, Summer, got in.More affluent kids often have parents who are in good jobs because they are clever themselves, and have passed academic genes on to their offspring. Do not confuse correlation with causality.
Parents of children who were unsuccessful at 11+ often wheel out the old 'heavy tutoring' chestnut, forgetting that a great many tutored kids fail!

It is a stressful and unfair system. I live in the borough featured in the documentary and both of my children are at a grammar school. I had to really swallow my principles: I had both children tutored - both very able (especially the older one) but were not at all stretched to anything near their potential at their primary school (leading to quite bad self-esteem issues for the older one), and i wanted to make sure they had at least covered the work necessary to have a good chance at the exam. Their English / verbal reasoning was fine, but their maths had been poorly taught. After a few sessions with a tutor, they were up to speed. Then it was a case of exam practice and timing etc (there is great time pressure in those exams - you really have to be able to think quickly). I think tutoring gave them the best possible chance, and I felt that by being ultra-prepared, they could afford to have a slightly off day and still pass. In the end, they both passed by a large margin. I think I probably could have done less with / for them, and they would have been ok, but - to be honest - I wasn't going to take that risk. It is an arms race: if nobody else had tutoring, we could all relax somewhat, but knowing that a lot of kids are being heavily tutored, means you feel you don't want your child to miss out to someone less able but more tutored. I was pretty sure they were both grammar school material and pretty sure they would flourish, particularly after the constraints of their primary. And so far so good: both very settled, very happy, good all-round school life: good teachers, great curriculum, good pastoral care (one of them has SEN), great extra-curricula activities, good friends. Politically makes me hugely uncomfortable. But, what to do?

I thought the 4 families chosen in the documentary represented the cross-section of the borough very well. I know families like all of those. Sadly, I have come across a lot of Joanitas. There are a lot of families who invest huge of amounts of money which they can ill-afford in tutoring(In addition there are companies which set mock exams at £70 a pop throughout the summer holidays - they are always over-subscribed...) I wonder about what kind of tutor took £300 a month from Joanita's mother when it was probably fairly obvious the poor child wasn't going to pass. I seem to remember that her pass mark wasn't even a near miss - it was considerably below the cut-off point.

Also, the reality of the situation, in this borough at least, is way more complicated than just pass v fail / grammar v secondary modern. They showed only one non-grammar, whereas there are many. All have strengths and weaknesses, but all fall short - IMO - in comparison to the grammars (of which there are four: 1 boys; 1 girls; 2 mixed). For me, when looking around them, it wasn't so much the results as the opportunities. Of course their GCSE results would be lower as the top few percent has been creamed off to the grammar schools, but there are still students at all of the non-grammar that ace their GCSEs, and many that get excellent A levels and go on to good universities. What made me sad is the narrower curriculum and the chance only to do 9 GCSEs instead of 11 or 12. That means narrowing a child's opportunities at a very young age. It seemed you couldn't study more than one MFL at any of the non-selectives which straightaway limits a whole field of study. Similar restrictions on double v triple science, and combining those with arts and humanities. It is clear that kids at these schools are getting a lesser education and it's not right.

Neither did the documentary mention the 'top 180' system. If you score in the top 180 of the cohort, you automatically get your first choice of school regardless of where you live. The Bexley test is taken by many kids out of borough and some, who score in the top 180, travel a lengthy distance to school. I have nothing against out of borough kids (especially as you can live out of borough but closer to a certain school than some in-borough kids) but I do find it strange that kids quite some distance away are taking a test which, not only do they have to pass, but they also have to get an extremely high mark in.

Likewise, kids in Bexley can take the tests in neighbouring Kent (for Dartford) and Bromley (for the super-selectives - a whole other ball game - you may have read about St Olave's in the papers recently ….). Super-selective is as it sounds. Horrendous. Didn't bother with that!

It's all complicated, stressful and unfair. And that's from someone whose family is actually benefitting from it.

The non selective schools in Bexley fall a LONG way short of the grammars. I know because my children attended them. If you think a top set in Maths where only 5 kids got a B or above is good...

In DS1s year, no one went to a Russell Group uni. A few went to ex Polys. However they were all doing media studies, digital marketing and the like. Not what I would term vocational degrees.

I also think it's patronising to effectively say that clever/ professional/ well educated parents will ensure their DC get into grammars. I'm a qualified solicitor with an Oxbridge degree. My sons both failed. Every child they knew who passed was tutored from y3 or went to private prep school. Some parents had professional roles, some not. Most had money to spend £100 a week on a tutor...

And that's the problem with the tutoring culture. I agree it's exploitative and an arms race, but very difficult not to be sucked in.

So DS1 had a tutor for year 5. I felt it necessary because a) there is blood on the walls if I try to go through anything with him and b) he struggled to focus so one on one time where he had to do it was useful and also gave him confidence that he could do things if he put his mind to them.

There's no way you can master NVR questions without some previous practice.

I do believe that you can't tutor a child to pass who won't pass. Jonita is a good example. She was never going to pass and I think most tutors would have a good idea of that quite quickly.

DS2 is very different. He's also bright (more so that DS1 I think) but also much more conscientious and committed. I would say he's a natural to pass with a bit of practice on past papers. However he will also have a tutor for the same amount of time because I can't do something different for both DCs

However lots of his friends have had tutors this year (year 4) and some as early as year 3 (one in year 2).

So if there are more 'children who should pass' than there are places, then obviously the ones who've had tutoring will score more highly - particularly when out of area kids are also factored in.

I still don't think 2 years of tutoring can give you that much of an edge though.

Last year's exam was all about speed. So there were no long maths questions, algebra or any of the year 6 maths we had been told they needed to learn. It was all about how quickly you could work. There were a ridiculous amount of questions that had to be answered in short time blocks (so 30 questions in 8 minutes). No one completed a section.

I also think some children can do well where ever. So DS2 is self-motivated, positive and hard working. I think he'll be fine. I'm pleased DS1 got into the grammar as he's not like that and needs the extra attention and push. I worried that if he went to the secondary modern he would take the line of least resistance. I realise this is exactly the opposite of what grammars intend!

That's ultimately why parents ultimately shouldn't get to decide on how the education system is structured. We will always put our children first, rather than the good of every one else's.

The problem with supposedly tutor-proof tests is that they may not be a particularly reliable measure of intelligence. I know a couple of current Oxbridge students who didn't get grammar school places, and we always suspected that it was because their particular strengths were in writing and the 11+ didn't really allow them to demonstrate that.

I think it's a myth that some children are over tutored and struggle at grammar school. It's an argument that crops up all the time to back up how evil grammars are but I don't actually think anyone has evidence of this.

I spent my second PGCE placement working in a Grammar school. Two thirds of the students in each year group were extremely bright and probably would have passed the 11+ easily. The rest struggled with the work expected and would have been placed in mid-sets in a Comprehensive. I was told by more than one teacher that they had been tutored to pass the exam.

While I do agree with Grammar schools I do thing the 11+ isn't the best way to select students.

Statistically grammar schools are clearly bad. High ability students don't perform better in a grammar than in a good comprehensive. Students in secondary moderns perform worse than they would in a comprehensive. Those are the facts. (Please don't reply with anecdotes!). They are particularly bad for social mobility and the results in grammar school areas fall below the national average. Middle class parents like them because they feel that tutoring is cheaper than paying for private education while still ensuring their children mix largely with other middle class kids.

There is a lot of evidence that middle class students perform better on the 11+ than a working class child of equal ability.

I always thought grammar schools were a great idea until I had a child that is obviously not grammar school material and I’m now faced with the prospect of sending her to one of the god awful non selective schools in the area.

Grammar area here with a comp that has an 86% A-C GCSE pass rate vs the normal grammar which has a 90% pass rate.
There are plenty of children heavily tutored who would have be far better suited to the comp (that has much better facilities too!) but for a lot parents it's just the snob factor pushing their children to grammar.

My youngest dc will almost certainly take 11+ but aiming for super-selective & if he doesn't get high enough mark will join siblings at the company rather than go to the other grammar and I've seen a few raised eye-brows at this decision from other parents.

Smellysocks. Is that the same outcome at GCSE too regardless of school?

Gamerwidow. The fact that the high schools near you are godawful isn't the Grammar's fault though. Where I am we have several Grammars and excellent high schools too. It is possible.

But if you are in a grammar school area the other schools are secondary moderns, not comprehensive.

Super selective grammars are different as their impact on surrounding schools is much less (probably similar to private)

The difference between school types being discussed is purely the presence or absence of the academically top layer.But why is it incumbent , much less ethical for the 'top' layer to sacrifice a grade or 2 to 'help' the lower layers by being in the same school?

Statistically grammar schools are clearly bad. High ability students don't perform better in a grammar than in a good comprehensive.

I think the evidence for that is far from conclusive!

I grew up in Bexley and sat the 11+ mid nineties. Townley was my first choice out of the Bexley schools, but I didn't like it that much: only two modern languages and had a cold unwelcoming atmosphere. I passed the test for a school in the neighbouring borough. At the time it offered a choice of two classical languages and four modern languages. It felt much more welcoming and creative.

My DF was a tradesman and DM SAHM. I had no tutoring and passed both tests. I have relatives who went to Erith School and have achieved more academically than I have done. I didn't go to university but they did: I worked and got a professional qualification instead.

My DC is only a toddler but I wouldnt send them to a tutor to pass an 11+. I don't think sending a non-academically inclidend child to a GS would do them any favours. However I do want to send my DC to a language school in their free time when old enough, so that they will be fluent in their DF native language, as he doesn't have the inclination to teach it to them.

I don't agree that getting rid of the GS system will improve the comprehensive schools, it would be a race to the bottom instead. The neighbouring boys grammar was one of the top state schools (nationally) at the time (not sure if it is now) and was noted for its discipline and strict enforcement of the school uniform. With all these stories in the press and parents complaining about children being sent home for incorrect uniform etc, I don't think everyone is suited to these types of schools, as the parents won't be prepared to back the school when it comes to discipline. Also if children aren't academically bright, why push them to sit lots of subjects, which may be too much for them. Having said that, there could be a better choice of subjects in comps and some children probably need to be challange more than they are currently.

After GCSEs I thought I'd try the local comp for a levels. I couldn't believe the level the level being covered, and after one day I went straight back to the GS.

Some of you seem to have good alternatives to Grammar schools in your area. We don't, there are Grammar Schools and Secondary Moderns, no comprehensive schools at all.
This is dreadful and we moved here when the children were toddlers and had no idea of the system, didn't know it was a Grammar School area at at all.
Good comprehensives cater for all children, Grammar Schools just cause division within society and families.

what I really want to comment on is the failure these kids felt. The big problem we seem to have is that only academic ability seems to be valued and parents and schools aren’t celebrating their children’s talents.
Why would you want your child to go to a school where it’s all about academic ability if your child isn’t academic? The real issue is that many of the secondary modern schools are terrible. In my opinion there’s absolutely nothing wrong with streaming kids into different types of schools so long as both sets of pupils are given opportunities to excel in what they are good at and unfortunately I don’t think this is happening The academies idea was supposed to improve this (specialising in STEM, or music or arts or languages etc) but they are often worse than the old system.
And before anyone asks my DD failed 11+, but I was lucky enough to be able to send her to a private school. As it turns out she has thrived, she’s dyslexic and the school has a great SEN provision so she’s in for some great results.

Grammars are a great idea for academic kids just don’t write off the kids who aren’t. Parents shouldn’t have to scrimp and save to pay for Private education - a good quality education tailored for the needs of every child should be a right of all kids in this country not just for those who can afford it.

Rant over

Oh...and I don’t believe in tutoring for the 11+ either. The whole point is to establish whether they have the makings of an academic or not

cblue it’s awful the pressure these kids are put under. I benefited from going to grammar schools and expected DD to be academic too but she just isn’t and that’s ok because she has her own strengths. Parents need to listen to who their children are rather than who they want then to be.

if these were your options would you not let your own dc sit the 11+ because you disagree with the system or would you go against your beliefs?

I won't let DD sit because I want to see a scools system that is best for all children not just my child.
But mentioning it seems to be tantamount to admitting to child abuse! But I cannot buy into this system which makes inequalities worse, and entrenches privilege.

*schools! Gah - did not proofread! I can spell, honest?

Gamerwidow- snap. I benefited from grammar hugely. Working class background but now in a position to send DD to private school even as a single parent that doesn’t get child support. She is likely to get the same kind of grades as if she went to grammar despite her dyslexia.....But she’s exceptionally lucky. To me it’s about schools giving kids confidence, support and opportunities to do things they are good at. Unfortunately too many kids are being let down by the system.
I wish I knew what the answer is, but I honestly don’t think removing the opportunity from the academic kids in grammar schools is the answer.

But chronically are you moving to a comprehensive area or will she go straight to a secondary modern?

Chronically - if you had a DC who was a naturally brilliant runner are you saying that you wouldn’t let them train because it would be unfair?

Wouldn’t you give everything you have in order to give them a chance to shine in what they are good at whether it’s music, sport, art, science, metal work, teamwork or anything else?

No 2 people are the same and there shouldn’t be a once size fits all approach to schooling. The fear is that we will end up with mediocrity and our DC will never be able to succeed in the thing they are good at because they will spend all their time trying to get a grade 4 in Eng/Maths.

I will be happy if DD wants to be a plumber, a shop worker, a Dr or even a dominatrix! It genuinely doesn’t matter so long as she’s happy.

I will never hold her back and will always do everything I can to encourage her.