Contempt for Grammar Schools

[PencilMom]

Yesterday’s thread regarding the exclusion of private schooled children from state grammar schools has really highlighted that many people dislike grammar schools (and even more so private schools and the parents who can afford it).

AIBU for completely not understanding where the contempt stems from? There is dislike of the parents who explore this as an option for their children (many are characterised as elitist), the parents who can afford tutoring (which in many cases focuses on becoming accustomed to the test format), the children who go to grammars, I have even seen teachers accused of choosing the easy route.
There is not nearly as much dislike of sporting schools, creative arts or technical schools. If there is a school which caters to a child’s particular strengths or interests, why is that considered bad. Where possible all counties/cities should have a varied range of focused schools.

Please explain why you are opposed to or support grammar schools?
(I totally understand that the 11+ / selective tests has a negative undertone for those who “fail” — but is that not on the parents/primary schools to positively frame the experience regardless of their child’s score).

You know there are only something like 166 Grammar schools in the whole of England right ?and 60+ in Northern Ireland and none in Scotland or wales for most of us Grammar schools haven't been around since the 1970,s yet some posters talk about them as though it's a very real option ,it isn't.

x2boys it's a very real option where I live. Many people move into the area so they can send their DC's there. My Labour MP went to one of them, I cannot see him suggesting that they are abolished.

@x2boys I understand this, and that MN has a large number in London and the Home Counties where grammars still remain. That still does not explain the dislike…

I think you probably think Grammar Schools are brilliant if your child is able to get into one…

… but it’s not so good for those who don’t get into them, and are left in schools without the very bright, motivated kids.

I am conflicted on this however, as I do believe streamed education (by ability) helps students in some ways.

Normal secondary schools could accommodate this through streaming their classes.

Worth noting - my children aren’t old enough for school yet, but I was privately educated myself (no grammars locally) specifically for the reason that in a mixed ability class the attention was on children who could barely read or sit still at age 12 - not developing the skills of the brighter kids.

My honest opinion (I went to Grammar school)
They are great for the pupils at them, especially the ones at the top of that cohort. But there is very little difference between the abilities of the top of the remainder and the bottom of the grammar school groups, and the disparity of opportunities can be stark. Plus since pupils develop at different rates, the ones most suited at 14 could be quite different to the ones picked out at 10yo.

My DD are the first in our families to attend a Comprehensive school. We are quite happy with the fact, in a truly comprehensive area, that she an be in a support class for English and the top sets for Maths and Science. Her school is strong at both Vocational and Academic subjects.

Grammar School would suit DD2... but she'll also get the opportunities in the top sets like her sister.

But ìts not for most of the UK i think its 5% of kids that attend a Grammar school ,so when your asking a question on mumsnet that has posters from all over the UK and indeed the world ,most don't care as its not an option for the vast majority of us .

People don’t like them as they / their kids didn’t get in?

But in a world where kids are getting tutored every weekend for months beforehand I do think it’s ridiculous. What about those kids that don’t have the tutoring? What about the kids whose lives are taken over by tutoring when they should be out having a fun time? Losers all around.

Same for where I am, all though all are technically OOC we have 2/3 a fair but doable distance away and 3 with a fairly easy commute (there is also another school which could be an option using a private bus company).

I think there is evidence that grammar school areas do worse overall. Also I do think they can create an "arms race" of tutoring which seems damaging overall. That's certainly the case near me.

It's the tutoring thing. You are a bit dismissive of this in your OP ("oh it's just about getting used to the format of the test") but at the end of the day it's massively unfair that people who can afford to pay for tutoring can then access a better standard of state school education for their kids than those who can't.

I'm not in a grammar school area btw so I have no skin in the game.

Because they set up at age 11 a system where some people are deemed successful and some are deemed failures. It’s not just a matter of “positive framing” (which is a load of wank but the way), it makes absolutely no sense educationally, medically or socially.

We are all taught the mantra from day 1, kids develop at different paces and they don’t follow a straight line. What about the child who has a sudden developmental spurt one day after the exam? Or the super bright child whose parents died 3 months beforehand? Or the child who just has a really crap day? It it really sensible to effectively determine the next 7 years of their education based on that?

Add to the fact that IME the vast majority of the kids that get into the grammars have been prepped for the tests to within an inch of their lives- either by private prep schools or tutors- the idea that it’s natural selection/ merit based is ludicrous. Plus the schools in the grammar areas offer no prep whatsoever for the kids who can’t pay for it- how in any way does this make sense?

Plus there is a perfectly acceptable alternative- a true comprehensive system with streaming in the upper years which doesn’t carry the same stigma and where kids can easily move sets without having to entirely change schools.

Grammar schools were introduced to encourage social mobility. Even in the early years of their existence it's not clear whether they had any impact, but it's definitely not true these days. Now they are the preserve of the sharp elbowed middle classes who know how to "play the game" (and put huge stress on their children) to maximise the chances of their DC getting a place. Meanwhile the "other" schools (whether you call them secondary moderns, upper schools or high schools) in these areas have an intake that's skewed to the bottom of the ability end as the top % is creamed off, and tend to do badly. 80% (varies by area) of children go to these schools. So, for the sake of children who were likely to do well anyway by virtue of privilige, less privilged children get to do even less well.

There was an interesting poster a few years ago whose DS was outstandingly bright - top of the class by some way bright. She was in a grammar school area but refused to tutor him as she disagreed with it on principle. He failed the 11+ and went a non-grammar. I lost track after the poster not long after that but all her posts were despairing ones. Is this a system we really aspire to?

Nobody ever says they are in favour of the secondary modern system and yet that's the system you have if you are in favour of grammar schools.

In a good comprehensive area, schools manage to cater for all abilities pretty well, without the divisiveness of grammars, or the coaching to get kids in to the right school. In an ideal world, everyone would be able to go to their local school, which would cut transport costs/pollution right down. The idea of different schools with different specialisms might sound nice, but what do you do if you are both sporty and academic? What happens if you change your interests, or improve massively? And of course, in rural areas, choice isn't very practical - it's the school in the next village with a bus, or forty minutes drive away.

I guess it's removing the top 10% academically in the area and therefore other local schools not benefiting from having these children in the classrooms.

My mum taught at a grammar school for over 25 years and rarely encountered poor behaviour, parents evenings were fully booked as every parent cared about their child's education, and the kids were mostly keen to learn. She could spot a mile away when a child had been coached through the 11+ exam and often felt sorry for them as they were always at the bottom.

I teach in a state school. No grammar schools in this area so it's great to have that top 10% in the classroom as it really helps the others to learn.

What we're up against is many parents that do not discipline their children, have no interest in their child's education, and expect the school to parent them. These kids cause SO many problems in lessons - persistent low level disruption, to the point where you lose valuable teaching time. It's exhausting.

So perhaps we need to go the other way - back to the secondary modern school where children are taught something far more practical, life skills etc... on top of basic maths, English, science? So take out the "bottom" 10% of kids who are not particularly academic but are likely to excel in other areas.

To be honest, I grew up in an area where there where no grammar schools. We live in an area without grammar schools and I don't see the need for them at all. My husbands cousin lives in an area with them (Kent) and she found it very difficult having to send her children to different schools. She felt the education available to her children wasn't equal because a lot of children where tutored to get into the grammar schools and the schools left where a poor option.

Maybe we have been lucky that the high schools where I grew up and where we live now are all good schools there are no really poor options. But surely that is what all parents want for their children and I believe what should be available for everyone.

I have two children in grammar schools. They are great- if your child gets in!! If they don't it is a whole other story. And many are tutored to the hilt to get them in- my own children included.
The embed inequality and it isn't right that some children have access to absolutely amazing facilities and other children at a secondary a few minutes away do not.

I think most of the opposition to both grammar schools and private schools is based on the evidence that neither does anything to improve social mobility and they both reinforce structural imbalances in society.

There's also no evidence that grammar schools improve educational outcomes. They also restrict parental choice (the school chooses not the parent)

But from my understanding they were not seen as equal ,kids were basically thought of as failures
.

If comprehensives are well run and staffed then any child can achieve

But so many are not - and academies were definitely not the answer

The school a couple of my DGC go to is absolutely feral with an incompetent HT but where they are there are no other options (didn't pass 11+). And the few that wouldn't have been creamed off by the grammars and private schools wouldn't get anywhere near the education they're getting now if they'd gone there

"There is not nearly as much dislike of sporting schools, creative arts or technical schools"

These are barely different from any school. You can only select 10pc of pupils on that basis. A "sporting school" does barely more PE than any other school, it's all just a fairly meaningless label dating from when Labour first wanted "specialisms" but simultaneously put some much mandatory stuff in the national curriculum that there is no room to do anything beyond that

Technical schools (UTC) have been a resounding failure with many of them failing to attract enough pupils and closing.

Grammar schools are basically irrelevant in most of England but where they do exist, there is no evidence that they do anything for social mobility.
A poor child in Kent achieves lower educational outcomes than a similarly poor child in a non grammar school area.

People look back with rose tinted glasses to the post war era of grammar schools - the economy was changing massively so there was suddenly a big growth in middle class jobs, the professions and industries based on intellectual capital.

Those bright kids were going into a world of work that was massively changing with lots of new opportunities- it was not the magic of grammar schools but the magic of the economy that led to the growth of the educated middle class in the post war era.

I used to live in an area that had grammar schools. They take the brightest pupils from supportive families leaving the rest of the schools for others. They are given more money and if, on the off chance, someone from a shitty council estate gets in, there’s no funding support for them to get the bus there as the school isn’t the “nearest that can meet needs”. In the area that I lived. Senior school options were grammar, small religious school or sink comprehensive. The area had 3 senior schools that featured in the bottom 10 schools In the country.

I believe in equal opportunities but grammar schools create inequality of opportunity.

Where Grammar schools exist you end up with the comprehensives losing a lot of more academically able students and invested parents. We have 2 grammars and 11 comps in the Borough and 2 of the comps are shocking, really very bad. The next borough has no Grammars and all comps are Good or Excellent. It effects all students when selection is used.

DH and I were both very bright kids who were bored out of our minds at our comps (even though our classes were streamed and the work should have been targeted to top set). I want DS to go to our local grammar because there is a greater likelihood of actually being challenged by the work, and there’s more of a culture of learning. I used to live in Germany (but was mostly schooled in the U.K.) and grammar schools (Gymnasien) are a standard part of the schooling system there.

There is considerable research that the grammar school system fosters inequality. As PP have said, most pupils who get in are heavily tutored and that favours the wealthy, not the brightest. Meanwhile the bright kids from poorer backgrounds are lumped into a second tier education.

Just make all schools better, and give every kid a fair chance.

Yes unfortunately where I live there are some schools where nobody really wants to send their kids
Even in the comprehensive system education isn't equal..