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

Defcon my ds got his autism diagnosis last year. He's year 11 at grammar school and yes, it's not been supportive enough for him. Unfortunately this has caused significant mental health difficulties.

converseandjeans I immediately thought of a school in Bristol.

we need properly funded state education.

^ This.

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)

So why are there "crap" or failing comps in areas without a grammar then? It sounds like you live in a naice area without deprivation etc. There were no grammars in the town where I went to a crap comp, simply due to the sheer number of pupils/parents who didn't give a toss. That's completely unfair to bright kids who simply don't stand a chance to reach their potential when every day they are surrounded by disruption.

Any type of school can be rubbish if it has poor management or is underfunded.
No one wants a rubbish school with poor behaviour, whatever the type of school.
But kids deserve equality of opportunity within the state system. Not biased by sharp elbowed middle class parents paying for tutoring for 2 years aged 9 or 10.
Furthermore hard working but less academic children are no less deserving of undisrupted classes than brighter children.

It sounds like you live in a naice area without deprivation etc.

Nope. To be fair, I'm not in a city - more semi-rural. But very mixed and definitely not 'naice'.

That's completely unfair to bright kids who simply don't stand a chance to reach their potential when every day they are surrounded by disruption.

But the kids who already struggle to learn can be bunged together with the ones who don't want to learn in special schools for the disruptive because who fucking cares about them!

I'm in a city in a part with fairly high levels of deprivation btw. And have seen many kids who didn't display particular signs of talent at an early age (because so many early signs are simply signs of middle-class upbringing) but who went on because of their school's faith in them to go to university, sometimes to very prestigious ones.

But also seen some shocking examples of teachers writing pupils off before they've even started the school simply because of the post-code. Grammar schools reinforce this view: there is no point in you trying because of who you are and where you are.

But kids deserve equality of opportunity within the state system.

Which they don't get if they're bright, but surrounded by disruption and pupils who don't give a toss.

But all too often bright but poor kids don’t get the option of grammar schools - just look at the percentages of pupil premium children in them. So are worse off in a selective system.

But all too often bright but poor kids don’t get the option of grammar schools

They'd have a better chance if there were more grammar schools.

Bright doesn't equal hard working.
Less academically able doesn't equal disruptive.

Which they don't get if they're bright, but surrounded by disruption and pupils who don't give a toss.

user I'm going to correct that for you:

Which they don't get if they're bright, but surrounded by disruption and pupils who don't give a toss.

Why should clever children (who can probably pick up the info quite quickly and easily if pointed in the right direction) get special treatment over and above less bright (so who really need to focus in lessons and have good teaching) but equally hard working?

Bright doesn't equal hard working.

Yes, until A level my son happily coasted along doing the minimum, because he could, but he would have easily got into a grammar at 11 if we had them here.

My experience of going to Grammar school wasn't exactly positive when it comes to work ethic.
I was used to being top of the class at primary school. I worked hard and enjoyed school.
Within a couple of days of being at Grammar school, I became only too aware that many people were cleverer than me. And from that point, I just couldn't be bothered. I lost any motivation. My reports from that point on were always variations on 'could do better' or 'has great potential but is unwilling to put the work in to achieve it'.

They'd have a better chance if there were more grammar schools

They would have a better chance if there were better comprehensive schools

Bright doesn't equal hard working. Less academically able doesn't equal disruptive

This ^^

The problem is that the grammar school fans don't know any good comprehensive schools because all they know is a divisive two tier system of grammar and secondary modern schools, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Ds is often surrounded by disruption and pupils who don't give a toss - at grammar school.

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.

This would be very unusual though, surely you can see that. Obviously we don't know why the children did so badly - was it bad teaching/management, or a very unusual intake with no children of even average, never mind above average ability.

Most top sets in maths in a comprehensive would be expecting A/A*s. In my son's school most of the second sets would be hoping for As too.

I repeat - look at the percentage of pupil premium children in Kent grammar schools. I’ll give a clue as to what you’ll find. High schools (AKA secondary moderns) have a rather higher percentage of disadvantaged pupils. And we have more grammar schools, as Kent has a fully selective system. Hardly a ringing endorsement of social mobility.

I think the OP is being unreasonable to judge all grammar schools and comps based on only her experience.
What she has posted is a stereotype and one that is not necessarily helpful.
Personally I think that the level of teaching and pupil support was much better at my dds comp than at my old grammar school. But I suspect that this isn't due to the type of school but how both were managed and the different types of area where the schools were situated.
It is possible for bullying to occur in any type of school that is poorly run including grammar schools but the reasons for the bullying are likely to be different to the work-ethic stated.
However I do have doubts as to whether a state school with an entry test can indeed be fully comprehensive as I would imagine that it would mostly be middle class parents choosing this option even if all other diversity boxes apply.

The problem is that the grammar school fans don't know any good comprehensive schools because all they know is a divisive two tier system of grammar and secondary modern schools, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Did you not bother reading my post? I went to a comp in a non grammar area, so I have plenty of experience of crap comps. They're certainly not all crap because of nearby grammars/private.

so I have plenty of experience of crap comps

But have you any experience of good comprehensive schools?

I really don’t. All my dc attend grammars. One is good(as are plenty of comps)the other hasn't been that great at all.We’ve experienced complacent arrogant management, bullying, poor behaviour in some lessons, lazy teaching from some, very little info for parents on quite important matters, really poor pastoral care, happiness not high on the agenda, a low level of creativity across the curriculum and we too have had a child massively let down.Brains don’t really count for much in grammars I’ve come to realise.Grammars are great if your kid fits their mold, is naturally driven and hard working at all times and there are no problems or support needed in any area what so ever( academically or mentally). But who can predict the future? It’s a gamble. Schools with a more comprehensive intake I’ve noticed are the exact opposite of all the above. They have to work hard to get their results and support their pupils as results are not handed to them on a plate,they have a more diverse intake and it shows.

Somebody on another thread described grammars as Emporer’s new clothes and I’ve come to agree.