Why do Grammar schools have better facilities?

[UndertheCedartree]

We've been looking at secondary schools for my DD.

The Grammar school stands out as having better facilities, nicer and more outside space, very good head teacher and pastoral support. I'm just wondering how come Grammar's are so much better? Do they get more funding or do the middle class parents donate to the school?

I hate the Grammar system as it just seems to mean the other schools aren't very good.

You see this in that houses in the area of good schools are very expensive and sought after. This ‘social mobility’ thing is a joke as it only works one way!

You see this in that houses in the area of good schools are very expensive and sought after. This ‘social mobility’ thing is a joke as it only works one way! It always sickens me when someone you know who is (in theory) a red hot socialist, member of the Labour Party, etc, when it comes to their kids, PAY for them to go to a private school to be properly educated. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen as it does. There are several Labour MPs who have done it. Of course, nothing illegal about it, but they are sending out the message tha5 comprehensives are great for other peopke’s kids!

Not sure that is true everywhere. My DDs girls’ school cohort (last DD left this year for Uni) have just, this academic year, moved in to their brand new built school. Until it was rebuilt under whatever funding scheme replaced BSF, (funding was awarded in 2016) it was the second worst state secondary school building/s in the country, with 400 points of concern regarding the structure. As an architecturally important building dating from the 1950’s there was an effort to retain it but it was just impossible given how bad the structure was. Everything in it was also falling apart. Now it’s finally been brought up to date they do indeed have good facilities but that’s against a history of having the worst facilities for many years - I think the boys’ school probably now has some of the worst school buildings in the area. Conversely, three local comprehensives had been rebuilt and well maintained long before the grammar, and have fantastic facilities one being the local sports hub. And although I can’t fault their school at all, and they certainly have excellent teachers, I’m not sure I’d say they have better teachers. Again, the local comprehensive schools have amazing teachers, some are fairly well known
and are often in the local press - three head teachers in particular come to mind as being absolute stand out advocates for their students.

The reality is actually many of the applicants can't cope working in a normal school so are actually weaker teachers.

You see this in that houses in the area of good schools are very expensive and sought after. This ‘social mobility’ thing is a joke as it only works one way!

Yes, Selection by pay packet is very real here. The most academically successful comprehensive school here (whose Head is vehemently opposed to academic selection) totally ignores the fact that most of the ‘catchment’ is house stock of at least GBP350K plus. Those not lucky enough to be able to afford to live near enough get bussed out of town to the worst performing school in the area.

Grammars get less money because they have fewer pupils needing additional help. Historically they tend to be on better sites in better areas. Plus they tend to attract highly motivated parents who are good at raising money to supplement schools' basic funding.

I'm in two minds about grammar schools. I went to a grammar school and loved it. From a fsm background, it gave me an escape from my home environment. 10 O'levels, 3 A'levels gave me access to university and a decent career. That option isn't available to a lot of people now, which is so sad.

I realise that splitting dcs at 11 can be unfair, but equally so many kids would have hated it and not wanted to go anyway, the high expectations, endless homework, rigid uniform rules, the latin and classics, the prepping for exams.

Grammars have parents who can afford to donate more. Grammar schools are full of pupils who have been tutored for the 11+ and it needs a reasonable income to be able to afford tutoring.

Grammar have the advantage of opening up participation. The best school near us just selects by house price instead.

At DS's school parents donate monthly. It's in a deprived area so they have quite a few FSM /PP pupils.

@Grumpybutfunny that's not what the research suggests....
www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=34136

epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/grammar-schools-social-mobility/

And an article that summarises other research
www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-social-mobility-case-against-grammar-schools

Yep, exactly.

I'm sure school fund raisers do pretty well at most grammars, seeing as a lot of the kids went to private primaries where they're prepped for the 11+.

Lots of parents gleeful to not be paying fees anymore so happy to sign the odd charity cheque!!

There aren't many areas left now with grammar schools. If you're in Kent then you couldn't be more wrong.

"I'm sure school fund raisers do pretty well at most grammars, seeing as a lot of the kids went to private primaries where they're prepped for the 11+.
Lots of parents gleeful to not be paying fees anymore so happy to sign the odd charity cheque!!"

That's bollocks too. I worked in many Kent schools just a few years back. The school with the highest fundraising I knew was a primary school in quite a deprived area. The PTA were very imaginative about how they raised money and worked very hard. The majority of children who went to grammar schools did not come from private schools. A lot had extra tuition for the 11+, which is a different issue, but some parents with very average incomes chose to pay for that.

Actually, the reality is teachers are treated dreadfully in many schools for reasons other than their teaching ability or subject knowledge, whereas in grammars the onus is very much on those things.

I've seen incredible, outstanding teachers bullied out of schools due to the senior leadership team being simply evil, bullying bastards and every other teacher I know will be able to pinpoint the similar.

There are vocationally committed teachers who would work in a poor area if they only had the teaching to do. They get so ground down by the lack of support from employers and the Social Work that is expected of them. Can it not be organised differently?

Because they often have development offices. Meaning they have a person employed to tap up alumni and parents for donations for facilities. Comp schools have these too sometimes but it’s mainly the independent and grammar schools that have an officer, or sometimes a whole office of six people, working specifically on fundraising. And with their target audience it’s easier to do so than a comp school

I think that must be your local one? The one I went to was falling apart when I went in the 2000's whereas the non grammars had a lot more funding and therefore very nice shiny facilities, one comp in my area had a wonderful new science lab and ours had worktops so damaged you couldn't write on the mum without your pen shooting through the paper in the holes 😄
Even now the comps are better funded but no school is well funded anymore is it. The grammars in my areas got better grades regardless of facilities though.

Write on them* not write on the mum!

Where do I start.

Without the grammar school to creme off the, well, most academic students, average results would be higher at the non-grammar schools. Parent pressure and motivation to provide extra support would be more evenly spread.

I absolutely understand that no one wants their children to miss out.

OK, I'll start there.

@FinallyHere I doubt parents would put so much pressure on. Round my way all the parents who care about education either go private or hire tutors, even those with dc already in grammar schools. No campaigning for better education for anyone else. Just ensuring their own get good grades.

But Germany has the Gymnasium system (like grammar schools) and everyone on Mumsnet things Germany is a role model country, especially for social mobility.

I can only speak about the grammars in Kent but 100% echo at @Patchworkpatty said. I have 3 Dc with 2 Dc grammar. Of course not everyone is wealthy but majority of their friends are well off and we are the poor relations (we are not poor by any means just average - 3 bed semi, kids at local primary, both work ft and earn average wage) . In my youngest child's close friendship group of 7, 5 pals went to prep school and if homes, cars & holidays are an indicator then they are most definitely wealthy. The FSM figures vs local state secondary support this disparity and it's really bloody sad.

Many many kids in grammar were heavily tutored and/or attended prep school and some continue tutoring right through secondary school. My eldest Dc is at a superselective grammar and I know the expectation is parents pay into the school fund by monthly DD (I nearly fell off my chair when one told me they pay £250pm but no one else in the room seemed to bat an eyelid!) The quality of teaching & curriculum might be the same as state secondary but the opportunities, the pastoral care, the expectation on children, the facilities and the career guidance at grammar (particularly super-selective) are much more akin to private than state. I also have a child at non-selective state secondary and he's doing just fine but you absolutely can't compare the educational experience he gets vs his siblings. Facilities there are good but it's a church school so funding comes from additional sources.

Said so much better than me.. I am only a spectator as I opted out (despite DD1 getting a place - but ending up at the same Uni as her GS friends) ..

Not my experience. Take it you’re a teacher?

What reality suggests though by the house prices!