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?

CBlue taking the running example - does that disadvantage other children? Does it make those who can't less able to improve their lot in life? Do I spend my spare time campaigning for all, I don't know, children to have opportunities in running and the running club is proven to reduce that? They would be my answers.

Because whilst those of us with privilege hang on to it we actively prevent others from improving their life chances. And above all I would want DD to grow up understanding that.

So catweasel she'll go to a secondary modern.

"privilege" "snob factor" "middle class"

I think this is a big issue, that people are still equating Grammar to a class system and therefore unfair.

I'm not middle class - I'm working class. I went to a Grammar. My Kids go to a Grammar. Not everyone that goes to a Grammar is from a privileged, middle class background but I do admit that there are less kids on FSM at a Grammar.

There is a push to get kids from less "privileged" backgrounds into Grammars. Be interested if PPs on here support that?

Lots and lots of children receive top grade gcses from comprehensive schools, at the same rate as similarly clever children at grammars.

I don't know what other reason there would be for grammar schools but a 'snob factor'.

*.

My kids go to an ordinary grammar school which takes around 25% of all Y7s.
Each Y11 cohort group produces fairly consistently 15% getting 10As or better.
So we would then expect to see all comps 3.75% (ie 25%15) of all GCSE students getting 10 As or better.But national statistics say there are only about 1500 candidates NATIONWIDE including all your grammars and indies achieving this.So clearly grammars are doing something with highest-achievers that the comps aren't.

How anyone can have watched that programme and still agree with grammar schools is beyond me! And I have 3 children who most likely would gave got in. Totally predictable which of the four would make it.

chronically I admire you I really do. We always thought that would be our position but then buckled at the last minute.

It's left me feeling uncomfortable but I think I would have done whatever.

Who knows if we'll ever find out if it was the right decision.

passed 11+ in the 1950s. No tutoring, no prep out of school
Yes, i have similar story, and I think in those days most kids did get in on ability alone. But it would be naive nowadays to think that a child who has no help preparing has as good a chance as one who's is prepared for months before :-(.

So clearly grammars are doing something with highest-achievers that the comps aren't.
Even years ago, the grammar school I attended simply offered the chance to do 9-10 O' levels, while the alternative allowed up to 8 max, so no way for the kids there to get the same as the top results at the grammar.

Reading this makes me very glad I don't live in a GS area. Personally I think they should be done away with anyway.

Carycach100

Where are you getting your figures from? According to this, 1 in 30 children, who sat the exams received at least 10 A grades. 3.3%, 20,000 children over 5 years.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3031273/Number-pupils-straight-GCSE-20-000-children-ten-grades.html

Even years ago, the grammar school I attended simply offered the chance to do 9-10 O' levels, while the alternative allowed up to 8 max, so no way for the kids there to get the same as the top results at the grammar.

It was the opposite at my grammar school. Everyone did 8 GCSEs and some were allowed to do an extra 1, if the school thought they could cope with it. I thought I had done well to get 9 GCSEs and then discovered that lots of pupils at the local comp had got 10. They also did double science, while I had only been able to take a single science.

Baroque-The independent
Dragonglass- what sort of grammar school offers only single science

"In 2012, 4,571 students gained at least 10 A*s, up from 1,446 a decade ago."

From the independent.

Either because parents know their child won’t pass, because there’s a better or equally good local comp or because they don’t believe a system set to favour overly academic children is fair or just. It isn’t just that but poorer families are at a massive disadvantage because the wealthy will pay for private tuition to ensure little Timmy definitely gets a place.

It’s all twisted, I wouldn’t enter any of my DC for the latter reason.

what sort of grammar school offers only single science

When I was at school, the school offered double award then what was called single science but in actual fact meant you took all 3 separately.

what sort of grammar school offers only single science

The one I went to. I took my GCSEs back in 1991, so it was a while ago. I did Biology and got a B if you are interested.

Place marking

Dragonglass- that isn't what is meant by sincle science- you did one separate science and i guess that is what you chose as part of your options rather than being told you couldn't do physics and chemistry?

Yes but we could only choose 1 science as they were in the same block. the same way that we could only choose history or geography.

I wish my parents had let me sit for our grammar school. I’m sure I would have got in and I would have thrived in an environment filled with other bright kids. My average state school was appalling in many subjects. As an example, I got A in my language GCSEs easily but remember being sat next to someone who got a G. I found gcse level languages ridiculously easy but spent most of my time being a serrogate teacher to someone who didn’t care or get languages. If I had been in a class of similar ability the pace would have been quicker and the learning deeper. Because I was already predicted top grades there was no stretch or push there to get me to go beyond the subject and really prepare well for A-level and beyond. There was never a chance to practice with native speakers which seemingly is standard at private schools. I got a string of As so there is an argument my comp was fine but actually that wasn’t really good enough.

Bright kids need to be stretched. It is not enough to let them coast because they’ll do well anyway which is something I hear on here. I agree that grammars are divisive but unless comps can effectively meet the needs of the brightest cohorts, many parents will fight tooth and nail to get their kids into schools that they think will give better opportunities.

The system needs to be able to give that challenge to clever teenagers so they can later thrive at the best universities and compete for the most competitive grad schemes/jobs. The lack of aspiration in some schools is a disgrace. I vividly remember one of my teachers publicly humiliating me and explaining to the rest of the class why I would never be good enough for Oxbridge. I was an underconfident teenager with a difficult home life that was crying out for mentoring and support. Instead of providing that support (or even remaining neutral) she was an utter bitch. It is actions like that that make it harder to level the playing field.

Just watching A Very English Scandal.

Norman Scott went to a secondary modern in Bexley Heath

Does it make sense to waste money on making schools all things to all people. It would cost a lot less to use finances in one school for skills and appropriate services concentrated in one place. Not all teachers are brilliant at both top and bottom end teaching.

Ideally all schools should be equal in terms of teaching quality and grammar schools would have a highly academic focus. Parents wouldn't tutor because as the education given would be equal, outcomes would be down the child, and parents wouldn't want to artificially shoehorn their kids into an environment that based on their natural ability wouldn't be right for them. Ahem. The reality is that grammar schools are now a giant (generally middle class,) redirection away from the sorry state of secondary education. Parents are so busy elbowing each other out of the way to secure their child 'the best future', busy arranging tutors and exams to actually ask why so many secondary schools are not providing a great education and why in social mobility is degenerating. Of course the current government wants to expand them, easy results as a result of parents that cough up to tutor, be glad their amazing offspring has been 'selected' and then ultimately believe that it's down to their own 'hard work' that little Johnny has been so successful. Meanwhile children such as Juanita are left labelling herself a failure at 11. This wasn't the original intent of grammar schools! My dad went, 50s, poor background. Did well, very clever. I took it, not tutored, failed. Thank god I hadn't realised I was supposed to be a failure after this! Went to a Russell group uni and now in a decent career. We're not in a selective area and I'm so blummin glad to not have to make that choice. Scrap them all and get parents working together to pressure the government to work harder so that everyone has a decent school choice.

Even years ago, the grammar school I attended simply offered the chance to do 9-10 O' levels, while the alternative allowed up to 8 max, so no way for the kids there to get the same as the top results at the grammar.

All schools are different so some comps will do more/less, some grammars will do more/less. "Some" comps offer more subjects but in less academically rigorous subjects.

But one common factor I found when looking around secondary schools was the choice of subjects offered. Not a single comp in my area offered further maths to GCSE. Only one comp allowed more than one MFL to GCSE. Most of the comps insisted on an arts subject to GCSE. None offered any classics. All comps insisted on at least one humanity to GCSE. Only one comp offered separate sciences. Only one comp offered computer science (or whatever it was called then). So, basically, whilst some comps offered more GCSEs, they were in arguable less academically rigid subjects. Some comps were also dishonest in that they included "GCSE equivalents" in their statistics on their websites but didn't say that on the website itself!

The grammar had a very open GCSE subject range - no blocks, no compulsory arts, techs, humanities, etc. If a pupil wanted to take all 3 humanities, they could, if they didn't want to take any, they could. If they wanted to take 2 MFL they could. If they wanted to take Latin and Greek, they could. The only compulsions were Maths, Eng Lit, Eng Lang and 2 separate sciences - all other subjects could be chosen or not chosen without restriction. They were also very open in their statistics - not only saying the usual "x% gained 5 or more GCSEs grade C or above" but actually including a table showing the numbers of pupils achieving each grade in each subject.

Scrap them all and get parents working together to pressure the government to work harder so that everyone has a decent school choice.

I hope you include all selection, including faith schools, arts, sports etc? I believe we should either allow a full range of selection or allow no selection at all. I wonder how many of those opposed to grammars are happy due to being able to meet a good faith school criteria? Double standards I think!

Unfortunately, until the educational establishment can agree between itself how to improve, politicians are just as impotent as the general public. All we ever hear is that "more money" will solve it. Bullshit. More money will just be wasted doing the same things and lining the pockets of the people involved. We've had so many different "incentives" since the original idea to scrap grammars. We've had subject specialist schools, we've had massive spending on new facilities, we've had parental choice, we've had academies, the syllabii have been changed many times, exams have been changed, coursework and modules introduced and then scrapped, subjects introduced, subjects scrapped again. The truth is that no one knows how to improve the UK education system. Even with political pressure (and more money!), there are no guarantees that whatever new initiatives are introduced will actually work. Every time a new initiative is rolled out, the poor pupils are mere guinea pigs and many suffer as a result when the new initiative doesn't work out as planned!

Like everything to do with the school system, it seems very individual to the school as to what works and what doesn't - that will depend on the type of pupils they have, the staff they have, the head and management team, - lots of variables. What works in school A may not work in school B. Sometimes a strict head imposing discipline seems to work, but in another school it may fail - that's because of the different types of pupil, different social backgrounds, different parental support, etc.

We've had over 50 years of "progression" since most grammar schools were scrapped. If comps were as good as some people think, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the remaining grammars would have been closed down. 50 years later and still the educational experts are no closer to agreeing how to solve the problem and make all comps good! So, let's all blame the grammars instead to divert the blame. If anything thinks that scrapping the grammars would automatically improve the comps, they're deluded!