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

ThatsNotMyCherry
Interesting. For those who are against would be interested to know what you think about the situation I described where a pupil who wants to work hard ends up in an environment where working hard leads to being bullied and excluded socially.

This will still happen, it happened when we had more grammar schools.

There will always be children that want to work hard but don't quite make the cut, what do you suggest happens to them?

I suspect dd and I would have found a small grammar easier than the big comprehensives that we actually went to. However the girls who picked on me weren't necessarily the girls who wouldn't have been at a grammar so maybe it would have been just the same.
Either way I think deeming children a failure at 11 based on a test that money can buy tutoring for and the idea that academic success is more worthy than anything else is wrong. I think a comprehensive system is better for the majority of children. I do think schools should be able to teach vocational subjects alongside business skills for the children who want that. And a rigorous academic programme for the children who want that.

For those who are against would be interested to know what you think about the situation I described where a pupil who wants to work hard ends up in an environment where working hard leads to being bullied and excluded socially. That describes exactly my experience of being at a grammar school. I'd have survived much better had I been able to go to the same school as my primary school friendship group.

They need to improve state school firstly. Give as many DC the opportunities to thrive.
We will look back at the state of the education system in Ireland and UK in horror in years to come.
Especially in the UK where the school are expected to supply all the stationary yet they can't afford to every pupil losing out.
It needs a complete overhaul.
The ministers of education are useless.

Personally I am all for grammar schools/high schools. I live in the south east where when I was 11 we either took the 11+ and passed and got a place a grander, took it failed went to high school or just didn't take it.

Both me and my sister went to the same primary school. My sister top of the class, me at the bottom of mine. I hated being at the bottom and hated school.

My sister took and passed the 11+ went to grammar school. No private tutors etc she was just a bright kid who deserved what she got for working hard at academic. I can't comment on her experiences there.

I went to a normal high school, wasn't academic but I thrived there because I wasn't surrounded by top of the class kids, I was with others at the same level and I started to enjoy school. I now have a really good career and a degree under my belt thanks to the system.

If school continued like my primary school where I was at he bottom and ignored for being a naughty child I would never have got as far as I have.

Any money and effort should be put in the direction of all those children without a school or in part time and otherwise inadequate education. I think you should think about what it is like to be parent or child in that situation.

I would prefer schools which stream pupils in every subject.

That way, pupils learn alongside others of their ability, but it’s possible to change set each year - children aren’t consigned to the secondary modern dustbin at the age of 11.

I disagree with grammar schools. Where I live it's all comprehensives, and I attended one myself.

Such a mixture of backgrounds and ability. From the middle class/ living below the poverty line and both included a range from hardworking to skiving off.

Yes I was streamed and set, there was never any bullying for academic success. I attended 6th form there, uni, and I now have a senior management job.

I'd like to scrap grammar schools and increase comprehensive provision, in the schools local to where children live

I went to a grammar school. Some of the girls there were seriously intelligent. I always wondered what would happen to them if they were put with even less intelligent girls than me and have met girls who were bullied in non grammars for being intelligent.

I did have above average IQ but within a normal range for society, some of the girls at my selective were way above this. They barely seemed to cope with anyone with an IQ less than them and many went on to have jobs that didn't mix with real world plebs either (scientists/pharmaceutical head of companies etc)

I was not one of those people but I did find it extremely hard to mingle with ordinary intelligence people. I went to a top uni as well so didn't really experience 'mingling' until I got a job. I then had to manage people and I found it incredibly difficult when Pam from accounts spent all day shopping and then returning shit that didn't fit her. I'd sit there and think fucking hell why aren't these people sitting exams and bettering themselves etc. I still struggle with the fact people are different so the grammar bubble wasn't a good one for me and I have a big lack of empathy as a result which I've had to work in ever since as you can't manage all different types of people without it!

I think there should be much better streaming at secondary moderns for the most intelligent dc. I think there should be genuine university scholarships based on those at secondary moderns with the highest abilities measured not only by exams but also with references from those that taught them.

I cannot be anti grammar until secondary moderns are sorted out but at the same time I completely agree they are back door private schools/elitist and a lot of people deny this because they enjoy the privileges that come with their existence.

My sister took and passed the 11+ went to grammar school. No private tutors etc she was just a bright kid who deserved what she got for working hard at academic
That’s not how it is my grammar area, you just need to drive round to see all the adverts for tutors and mocks.
The clever able kids who want to work hard are being pushed out for the tutored kids.
It’s a hard lesson for the kids who tried really hard who deserve it just as much as the tutored kids.

It is so so so different to even 15 years ago.

The difference in funding as backed by data from the London challenge.

Is this applicable to all parts of the UK? I’m not aware of any data relating to NI (where the grammar system is popular and works well) but would be interested to see any.

I live in an area with 1 grammar school. My DD goes. Less catchment children pass than places (100 out of 150 places). It’s not super selective. Meet the pass rate and live in catchment you are in. So a ‘top table’ primary school child will probably get a place nothing like the super selectives down south. The rest of places (about 50) go on score order. These children bus in from nearby none grammar areas. Some upto an hour away. As a result the school is much more ethnically mixed than the town and the comprehensives in town. The other secondary schools are good or outstanding with great results. People move into area for secondary schools so all school do well as a result.

No. We need better schools for all children. The top set at in schools should be adequate for those with high ability, we should not diverting money away to segregate children.

I’m not against grammar schools but I am against throwing more money at them while letting children who are at regular schools go without

State grammars get the same funding formula a state comps. In fact, they get less because of fewer pupil premiums and few grants (as grammars often can't tick the boxes to qualify for grants).

I went to a comp in a comp area - no grammars nor privates within normal travelling distances.

It was a hell hole. I started as a straight A* pupil from primary and ended up leaving with no qualifications. That was simply down to it being a crap comp. I was bullied daily, not just name calling, but property theft, physical assaults, etc.

You can't blame a nearby grammar for that! At the end of the day, if a comp has a lot of disruption and bad behaviour due to low aspirations, then the bright kids don't stand a chance.

I was in the "top" set for Maths - average grade was D! That tells you what kind of school it was. I got a U.

You answers your own argument. Why should anybody have to suffer the second type of school you mentioned? There shouldn't be a tier system. All children deserved an excellent education.

Very few Comprehensives are actually that, mainly because Distance tends to be the qualifying factor in admissions. Unless the school/LEA has been very careful to draw up a catchment area that includes a range of housing, what tends to happen is that the best school in every area is the one in the best area of the town, where only people living in houses worth ££££ can go.

My DD goes to a truly comprehensive school. Until last year there was a test to be considered for admission. Scores were banded and an equal selection of pupils randomly picked from each of 5 ability bands. Also, they take 75% of their intake from inner-city local postcodes and 25% from a wider postcode range. The ethnic diversity is huge, as well as the ability range.

The school was private many years ago, and still runs on the same lines. The uniform is horribly expensive (but people on lower incomes get help, plus there is a thriving secondhand market used by all).

With such a range of abilities their results should be average, but they are the best performing school locally. The difference is that you have to make an effort to get your child into the school and they demand a lot from the pupils. There are sanctions for misbehaviour.

Then you look at the newspapers, and threads on MN complaining that their child has been sent home for refusing to wear the right uniform, or having an unsuitable haircut, with the parents whining "what does it matter if he doesn't wear a tie/she wears makeup?". Parental attitude is the biggest issue in school behaviour, particularly in Y7 and Y8.

Answered

Two tier!

We live in a grammar area with a tiny % getting in due to a massive catchment for grammars. You can predict from foundation year which kids will get in to the grammars purely based on the occupation of their parents. There are several private primary schools purely to prep for the 11 plus. No one tells parents the route in to the grammars so only the switched on parents even register. DD2’s friend is the brightest kid in the year and his parents have been waiting for the school to tell them how to enter the 11 plus. The family isn’t academic and don’t know the process. The school will not be telling them because primary schools don’t get involved.

I hate the system here. My eldest has autism and requires a level of support not available in grammars. She is very bright but doesn’t fit the grammar profile. A secondary modern system would write her off. Luckily she is at the best non grammar in the city and thriving.

DD2 wants to sit the 11 plus. She is hard working and well behaved. Definitely towards the top end academically but maybe not enough to make the cut. I don’t want her to feel like a second best failure at the age of 10.

I can only talk about the Kent Test, but it would help if this was much more aligned with the National Curriculum. The maths paper, for example, includes year 6 work, but is sat at the beginning of the year. Why? It would make more sense to have trickier questions based on Y5 work. And as for the NVR. This, so I read, is untutorable. All I can say is, dd scored in the 90s at her end of Y5 CATs, and scored140 in the Kent Test...thanks to tutoring. And yes, she should have gone to a grammar school (all A’s and A* in GCSEs and A-levels).

And, to make the situation even less fair, State schools in Kent are prohibited from teaching to the Kent Test (a prohibition that doesn’t apply to the independent sector).

How is this system helping poor, but able, children?

Very, very happy that both my dc grew up in a non-grammar county.

Dd suffered from chronic disability and refusal of school to provide reasonable adjustment during her junior school years and was very ill during the SATS period: if we had been in a grammar school area she would have been stuck at the comprehensive with lower expectations and without the company of other talented and motivated children. Instead she went to the same secondary as everybody else and eventually to a very good Sixth Form college.

Ds was a very late developer, struggled to learn to read and write and then had his life overturned by a diagnosis of a potentially crippling disorder while in junior: this was not the right time to make a decision about his life. Instead he went to a secondary where he was moved up sets when his learning improved.

For those who are against would be interested to know what you think about the situation I described where a pupil who wants to work hard ends up in an environment where working hard leads to being bullied and excluded socially.

But absolutely fine if a child who wants to work hard but is marginally less able or suffers from chronic illness or SN gets bullied and excluded socially for working hard. Because we don't care about those children, do we?

RetreatingWeasels

That is the divide and conquer method.

Take the worse behaving kids and spread them round classes.

It’s for the teachers benefit. Not the kids.

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?

Where there are grammar schools, the other schools shouldn't be called comprehensives. Because they're not. Then the 'comprehensive' gets unfairly judged as not being as succesful as it 'should be' despite starting off at a huge disadvantage.

In my area, comprehensives are truly comprehensive. There are no grammar schools, and no one school is seen as better than a neighbouring school, so people stick with their catchment area (so no social engineering by driving your kid to a 'better' school)
Some subjects are taught in mixed groups and subject setting by ability where necessary or desirable, works flexibly, so a late developer (or someone who doesn't put the effort in) can be moved. My local school sends people to Oxbridge every year, but also runs vocational courses. Everyone is valued and catered for.

retreating are you in Bristol?

That should have said they aren't really comprehensives BTW.

We don't have any state grammar schools in my county either, so the schools are properly comprehensive. Although demographics do mean that the schools in the nicer areas tend to have better results. This doesn't necessarily mean that the value added is better though.