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

Whilst grammar schools may be wonderful for the bright children, the secondary schools for those who fail their 11+ are awful.

I went to a grammar (though quite a while ago!) and teach in an inner city comp.

The school I teach in is far better (though appreciate there are many good grammars and poor comps).

Our intake is massive and mixed - we have 1/3 pupil premium, a big ethnic mix and every socio economic and ability group - from kids who went to a private primary school, kids who are in care, kids with moderate learning difficulties, kids who go to Oxbridge. I love it!

We have to work really hard for our good results. We have to provide good pastoral care. We have a mix of set groups and mixed ability depending on the age, subject and mix of kids. Kids who excel at art might struggle in maths but they are all able to shine in the areas where they have strengths.

At my grammar, teaching was complacent. Pastoral care was non existent (though I'm sure it is better now). The school was not interested in the 'less able' who wouldn't go to the shiny universities.

They’re not wonderful for all bright children.

As the mother of a child who is at best average and would never pass a grammar school test I have to disagree. What you're basically saying is the well behaved bright kids should be creamed off and leave proportionally more badly behaved kids in the local secondary modern. How is that fair on the likes of my daughter who works hard and despite not being 'bright' enough for grammar also doesnt want to spend her days in classes with unruly kids?

I've had exactly this scenario in her secondary school. Theres a top set and then a 'mixed' set. I am regularly told how the top set dont have behavioural issues (I know one of the mums and she loves to tell me this ) , meanwhile my daughter is in the 'mixed' set. One of her teachers actually told me at parents evening last week that he felt sorry for my daughter and others like her due to the terrible behaviour in her class. Great. But hey, it doesnt matter because she's not 'bright '

I personally think all schools should be comps , all lessons except English and maths should be mixed so the 'bad' kids get shared fairly. Behaviour should be better controlled (it's like a zoo according to my daughter and the teachers are ineffective with little punishment) and SEN should have a far greater priority. My daughter has a learning difficulty and in some ways it should be seen as disability discrimination that she's repeatedly dumped in the set where behaviour is so bad. Its shit.

I work in SEN, lots of children I teach are not academic, its very expensive for schools to cater for kids with complex needs, we just about manage, no thanks to other local secondaries recommending us to parents of children with needs in their catchment. If you cream off the most academic, lots of evidence to suggest also richer children in one area the other school has all the children with additional needs, but not much more per capita funding. You're also preventing the grammar kids from mixing with a broad range of peers. It's just not a fair system. Very few working class kids actually benefit and huge numbers are disadvantaged. We need well funded inclusive education. If kids are getting bullied, for what ever reason that needs to be dealt with, it's not reasonable to set up a whole different school instead of actually addressing social cohesion.
Imagine what happens to the bright kids who just miss out on grammar and end up in secondary modern!

A teacher said to me that school entry should be selected for IQ100 and above, and IQ90 and below.

That she is an intelligent thoughtful, qualified educationalist who is also Head of a special needs school,

I am very moved to believe her in this.

As other people have pointed out, the cost of housing in catchment areas of sought after schools? Means that parents are paying private school fees.

IQ95 and below, sorry

A lot of previous posters obviously do not know the difference between a comprehensive and a secondary (modern) school. I once taught at an excellent comprehensive school where I met some of the most able pupils that I have ever taught.

A teacher said to me that school entry should be selected for IQ100 and above, and IQ90 and below.

What if your IQ is say 93?

Or 98?

I would love to see all the money and extra resources which are given to the grammar schools used for the least academic and less motivated pupils but I know that it is never going to happen.

Your teacher friend isn't very bright, many studies show IQ tests don't measure intelligence.

I really don't think we do.

www.tes.com/news/grammar-schools-unequivocally-damage-social-mobility

Brilliant to have school for over 100 and under 95, has she considered the 96 97 98 and 99? Or don't they deserve a school?

To be honest I wouldn't be taking any notice of her.

100 seems an odd point to set it at as well. It’s the median IQ of the general population, but wouldn’t you be sending half the children that fall into a ‘normal/average’ IQ bracket to one school and half to another?

I've not read the thread.

Yes I think we need more than grammars.

I also think then we need more specialist help for dc who struggle with maths or English or any subject.
Easier access to Ed psych, echp, proper specialist support.

I also think we need more variety of other types of schools like brit school... Theatre schools, sports schools etc.

I think many schools in this country have a problem with discipline. Would it be better for people to start work and apprenticeships at 16? Perhaps in the work place Ill- disciplined people can learn that bad behaviour has real consequences. Alongside these, it’d be good To be able to do functional skills, gcses and a levels when people are ready - not pushed through the system at 16.

Soffy all it takes is one bad apple as it were to ruin an entire class.

If schools can't deal with it it drags everyone down.

If your dd is struggling, why add more dc in to struggle?

It's pointless.

The dc who are usually the most trouble are the ones who are damaged. They need counselling, specialist support, masses of extra help etc.

Until this is recognised and dealt with, I don't think chucking grammar school ability kids in will help anyone.

Most grammar schools work and are good at what they say they do.
They get academic, all rounders educated.

Unfortunately state comps have not got the best record of doing that... Hence why we have progress 8. Because dc were leaving primary schools with excellent grades but leaving secondary with rubbish grades.

So don't remove what's left of grammers without making every comp shit hot.

The Sutton Trust has long outlined why there is no social or little social mobility when it comes to grammar schools.

This is because getting into one is solely reliant on the the parents.

The school does zero, neither grammar or primary.

In the olden days, potential pupils would be selected by primary teachers, told weaknesses, put forward... Helped.

So how on earth can there be social mobility when the whole system is reliant on parents??

Sutton Trust has acknowledged this gap.

Absolutely not. It sounds not about those who get accepted. It’s about rejecting swathes of children at eleven years of age.
It’s about unfair resourcing and pandering to the Tory voters. It’s about outcomes being worse overall where there are grammar schools.
Every school should be fairly funded and all children should be offered a comprehensive education in a good school.

I think more than the results or ability of the children I feel that motivation levels matter. Even if the school/class were mixed ability if everyone was keen to learn and there was a culture of working hard rather than it being seen as something ‘uncool’ it would work well. Obviously motivation levels are difficult to test for though!

Admittedly I don’t have a broad enough experience of non selective schools as I’m not in the education sector but if my own experience and that of some of my friends is anything to go by this culture of not wanting to work and pupils being disruptive is not that uncommon.

Round here with superselective grammars it isn't selection by ability it is selection by parental income. Preps are 11+ factories, the states are prohibited from preparing the children for the 11+. So if you can afford a couple of hundred per month you have your bright state school kid tutored. Except most can't afford that and go to schools with low aspirations and scarily low GCSE results. Socially and economically regressive. Shameful. We're moving to save our children the stress and potential damage to their confidence and self esteem. I came out of a v mixed comp with straight As, learnt v quickly not to mention my pony, family sailing trips etc and keep my head down. I learnt how to get along with all sorts of people. Like real life.

I think it’s not right that parents and students don’t get the choice because there aren’t enough places. In general, the problem with state education seems be to be a lack of choice.