To think we need more grammars

[ThatsNotMyCherry]

I went to a grammar school that was and still is massively oversubscribed. I feel like given how popular it is there should be more like it because I’m sure many bright children are turned down. I believe the school has great results not necessarily because of great teaching but because pretty much everyone who attends has a strong work ethic (less disruption, parental support, competitive spirit amongst peers). For part of my education I also attended a non selective school and I found it tough because it was very uncool to work hard. If you didn’t want to be a loser who got bullied you had to be disruptive, skiving, smoking weed in lunch breaks rather than attending clubs.
I struggle to understand why there’s so much anti grammar school feeling and reluctance to develop more of these schools. Surely it gives children from working/middle class backgrounds who want to work hard the opportunity to be in an environment where they can do so without being bullied for it? Would be interested to hear thoughts on this

You only seem to care about the children who are exactly like you, OP. Never mind the vast majority who have to live with being branded as failures at 11. And who don't get to share their classroom with other hardworking bright friends who would help create the ethos and stimulus that would benefit them, too.

I passed the 11 plus. I will never, ever, (and it's 50 years on now) forget the day we got our results. And my friends' faces when they discovered they'd 'failed'.
From that moment on, at that young age, I knew that this was very, very wrong.

This thread makes me think I should do more to campaign against selective education.

I disagree. The problem we have in my area is we have fantastic grammars (one of which I attended) full of bright middle class DC with involved parents and then the comprehensives have a greater number of poorer students etc. This contributes to the atmosphere you describe. None of the comprehensives have a good reputation here so if you're not able to get into a grammar you're screwed.

I went to a grammar school, it was in the time when all children sat the 11+, not just those whose parents could afford a tutor (which appears to be the norm where I am now).
I, and some of my peers have benefited greatly from attending,we are all from poorer families. My sister went to the local secondary modern, where in addition to the usual academic subjects, there were more vocational qualifications available.

Don't most secondary schools set for most subjects anyway?
I was always fine at secondary school because I was in the top sets with no disruption and everyone wanted to learn.

But what about all the kids in the middle/bottom sets? I feel sorry for the ones that want to learn but have their lessons constantly disrupted.

I think the problem making schools smaller though would be there'd maybe be less money to buy special equipment and less gcse options.

I think we need to spend a lot more money in education - especially for under 5/early intervention type stuff.

Rather than attack the grammar schools who are churning out the brightest pupils - why not demand schooling for those forgotten kids who haven’t had the best start? Maybe boarding schools with strict rules, kids fed three times a day, extra curriculum activities.
More hands on experience in trades etc

It isn’t the grammars who pinch those best suited to academics it schools who have a one box fits all approach that’s failing these kids.

Strawberryshortcake
Look at Hampshire as an example no Grammar schools at all Winchester has 3 high performing secondary schools ( non selective) and a 6th form with extremely high Oxbridge numbers each year

I grew up in Winchester and went to one of the 3 schools you mention and the 6th form (Symonds). Winchester isn’t a great example as it’s already demographically selective essentially. Even the so-called areas of deprivation are very relative!! They are separate sixth forms, so you’ve already weeded out those pupils who are less academic.

In an ideal world I'd like to see grammar schools across the board with fair assessment, which would allow underprivileged children access to high standard education that can be exclusive to private schools in certain areas. And plenty of funding still pumped into secondaries to ensure everybody gets the education that is suited to them.

However, that is purely idealistic and would never happen. We live in a grammar school area. One of the only ones for miles around. House prices are extortionate due to demand and most parents hire private tutors to coach their children to pass the entrance exams from year 4 (as I will be doing, as if you don't, they will have no chance of getting a place as the competition is fierce). The grammars in this area are excellent, we have some of the best schools in the country here. But the high schools are generally poor. Therefore, unless you have the money to be able to afford a house in this area, and the money to afford 2 years of private tutoring per child, there is no chance of getting into a grammar. So really, it doesn't help underprivileged children at all.

It's a tough one. I think if grammars were introduced in all areas it would allow brighter kids from all backgrounds access to a higher standard of education but you're still faced with the tutoring issue. Those who can afford a private tutor will always do better when it comes to entrance exams.

I really disagree with grammar schools and I’m glad we live in a non-grammar area.

I think all grammar schools should be disbanded and all schools should be open to all. (I also disagree with schools that exclude children based on their parents religion)

All schools should be funded so that they are able to cater for all their students.

It seems so obvious to me 🤷🏻‍♀️

We need more better schools all round, with more options for all kids.

My daughters went to a comprehensive school. They were bright, hard working kids who did very well, and had no issues at all around being educated in the same building as the less academic.

You seem to be equating work ethic with attainment, OP. Are you planning a different form of selection for grammars or are you just going to leave the children that work hard but don’t get great results to fend for themselves.

What might be a better idea is dealing with the minority of kids who are causing the disruption.

I think that there should be properly funded schools for children of all abilities
I think the DFE should stop over testing primary children & let them enjoy learning
Again
I think teachers should be allowed to actually teach and encourage creativity & a thirst for knowledge
Not cram for passing tests
I think early intervention should be properly funded and not left TIL kids start primary
I also think private schools should not hide behind charitable status & those elite schools allowed to benefit at the expense of state schools

I think educators are crippled at the moment by rules cuts and that too many children are falling through the cracks because their needs cannot be met. I’ve met many parents who are struggling to work and are for vulnerable children

Yes I think things need to change but more grammar schools isn’t the way

I think it’s wrong that there isn’t more pressure put on private schools to take in more bright economically challenged YP.

We don't live near any grammars (despite dh and I going to grammars where we grew up). Imo the grammars are great but those who don't get in are massively disadvantaged. Dd1 started at the local secondary (we considered independent but with 3 dds is would have meant no holidays and a life scrimping). Anyway, the school streams them from day 1 and dc can change streams mid year so it's essentially the same opportunities as a grammar but more flex. Dd is top sets and flying. There's so many bright kids that they don't get bullied.

I was apprehensive but actually impressed.

For someone who received such a super education, you seem remarkably unable to look up the reams of research that have been done on this topic and show - with evidence - that grammars do nothing to improve educational outcomes across the school age population in the area they serve.

It would be great if we could find a way to motivate all children but I don’t know I can’t help feeling that it’s a bit naive and idealistic.

I do understand the reasons being given for being against selective schools. Especially the point about tutoring and how that disadvantages students from poorer backgrounds.

In the end though I think if my kids are capable and hard working I will still want to try to put them in a selective school if I can because of my experience. I would want to avoid sending them to our local comprehensive which has a poor reputation and results. I know a few parents locally who are concerned about this. There is obviously demand for grammar schools. The grammars near me (Tiffins) are highly oversubscribed. It’s really because of that issue that I was thinking that it would be good if there were another similar school nearby.

Grammar schools should be closed down. The system is horrendous.

The comprehensives near you aren't great because the grammars have creamed off the clever kids. So they are really comprehensive are they. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Wow.

I’ve posted this before, but maybe it’s worth repeating.

I visited a school in Holland, where the school, called a gymnasium, was massive. There were three areas. The most able students were taught for half the week in English, meaning they were immersed in the language in all subjects. There was a group who were taught in their native language and were able, but perhaps not as high flyers as the first group. The third group were very practical students and they followed a practical curriculum as well as core subjects. They had fantastically resourced areas, with facilities to teach plumbing, building, electrics, carpentry etc.

The students mixed well, there was no us and them, it was a question of playing to the strengths of different groups. Perhaps that’s what the technical schools did years ago.

I know that there are some children, who, for various reasons and experiences, regard school as an inconvenience and irrelevant at best, and torture at worst. Which might be why they disrupt and misbehave. They’re good at it and people tend to do things they’re good at. If you are able to tap Into things they can do, they might have more investment in learning. I’ve taught students who have good practical skills, but are simply not interested in reading, writing etc. If it’s relatable to building a wall, or fixing a car engine, it might be of more interest.

It’s not a universal answer, but a system that recognises and welcomes different types of achievement, surely must be a good thing. If it’s properly resourced. And there’s the rub.

Apparently, every child now must be meeting expectations in primary school and most must be exceeding. To take that to it’s logical conclusion, exceeding will become expected and expected won’t be good enough. But people aren’t like that and some learn academically more easily than others. We don’t criticise people for not being good at sports, although we celebrate those who are. Why should we not acknowledge someone who can take a car engine apart, but has little interest in reading and writing.

If you have your child tutored in order to meet the requirements of a selective school and they then find themselves a very small fish in a very big pond, what next. Is it fair to have an averagely academic child struggling in a school that’s full of academically high fliers. What happens if they fail, or think they’re failing? Or is that character building?

I have two DS, one at a selective grammar, one at local comp.
DS1 didn't sit 11 plus as he's a solid B/C with a specific learning issue and I knew he wouldn't pass.
DS2 is very academic and has flourished at the grammar. He is praised and encouraged to work hard, teachers are motivated and stretch the pupils.
He was NOT tutored but lots of boys at school were and now, Y8, it shows.
It is a great opportunity for DS2 and I am very happy he is there.
The two main differences between the schools are discipline and speed of work.
The grammar is much tougher on uniform, behaviour and minor indiscretions (forgotten pens/books, etc) and my view is that if the comp followed this line, it would improve standards.
I cannot believe what DS1 tells me his teachers put up with on a daily basis.
I do feel sorry for the boys at grammar who struggle. It cannot be much fun and, like DS1, feel they'd be better off at top end of comp than always bottom of class in grammar.
Would also say that ultra competitive nature of some boys/parents has been an eye opener.
OP, if your DC are very capable, go for it. If borderline, think long and hard.

Anavrin that is interesting, I have 2 grandsons at local schools, one at the selective school one at the local secondary. The local secondary is the stricter school on uniform and behaviour. The parents have an online link and can see at a glance what has gone on that day, good and bad. Some of the behaviour at the grammar stuns me and drug taking is much more of a problem but the academic results are great at the grammar but as they have taken the top whatever % that is to be expected.

The grammar is much tougher on uniform, behaviour and minor indiscretions (forgotten pens/books, etc) and my view is that if the comp followed this line, it would improve standards.

I would be interested to know what secondary teachers in non-grammars thought about this!

Grammars don't get better outcomes for pupils than non-selective schools.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/23/grammar-school-pupils-no-likely-go-top-university-comprehensive/

I live in a non-grammar area and our local secondary does very well at getting the best out of people. We aren't in an affluent town - in fact areas of our town are among the 10% most deprived in the UK. Nevertheless the school pushes all its student - in Yr11 it runs revision sessions aimed at pushing everyone to the top of their capabilities. There are groups aimed at getting people over the line for a 4-5 even though they struggle academically, there are groups for students who will comfortably pass but can get 6/7 instead with the support, there are groups for those students going for 8/9. Groups are fluid, recognising that people can blossom at any age. The hard working and academic kids tend to hang out together - bullying a group is pretty difficult. And yes, there is a small hard core of kids who aren't interested because that happens, but the school is incredibly hot on bullying.

That's the kind of school we need more of. Not grammars.

OP don't you think that what parents really want are good schools for all children?

One of my kids is a teacher, they taught for a year at a grammar and couldn't wait to get out. They teach at a comp in a deprived area now and love it. They have seen kids from the comp go to Oxford and Cambridge so definitely opportunities for bright kids.