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).

People don’t like to confront the fact that all children are not equally able, and all children do not have equal opportunities.

There are a small number of extremely bright children who can go further when catered for in grammar schools. We should not try and hold them back in comps.

People also don’t like that this is something their children won’t have access to, due to none being present in their region or their child not being suited to one.

They don’t always have more wealth. Or necessarily have more support.

I just find the whole concept of separating the sheep from the goats in this manner absolutely abhorrent. Imagine being a failure at eleven. There will be children who really take this to heart and consider themselves stupid and a failure (I know parents can frame this positively but that won't work for most children). I do think the unfairness of private education is easier for children to cope with as not a personal to them failing. I think 11 is too young to start considering yourself 'not enough'.

All those saying that they didn't tutor their kids and they still got in - are you in a super selective area like Cheltenham? It's not enough to pass the exam, you have to compete very hard to get into individual schools who have higher pass marks. It seems absolutely brutal from watching friends kids go through it.

I have a child in a Grammar school and a child in a local school and one at college who went to both schools so Ive seen all sides. I like the Grammar school in that the behaviour seems better, the kids are trusred to take more responsibility (less rules) and the learning is less disrupted by staff shortages, behavioural issues etc. They dont get much homework if any as its not considered necessary which also saves the teachers time I guess with no marking.

The local school has great teachers (if not enough) and my child currently there is very happy there. They do seem to have a lack of resources though, their Ofsted rating is inadequate abd the behavioural issues are something else. I feel for the teachers there. They do set homework but also have a lot of detentions going on every day due to this.

Despite this I expect both my children to come out with similar grades but time will tell. They are in year 9 and 8 respectively so will know in three years

focusing all resources on the ‘have nots’ while the ‘haves’ are at best allowed to coast along and at worst used as a tool to improve standards.

Love this @TempsPerdu. This has been exactly my experience at my kids’ primary school.

They stream for Maths and the brightest 10% get to do the occasional “enrichment” class but, on the whole, if a child is exceeding expectations (according to whatever benchmark they use, with one eye always on the KS2 SATS) then they will not be challenged further. Many will find themselves sat next to kids with learning or behavioural difficulties under the guise of it being beneficial for both of them. It isn’t.

Meanwhile, those who are struggling will have heaven and earth moved to get them up to scratch. Again, all about the SATS.

It certainly opened my eyes to the flaws of the mainstream state system. And as much as I resent the fact that a better education is available to those who can pay for it, I don’t think private schools should be abolished (or destroyed via the back door like Labour is trying to do).

The majority are from more advantaged families. Here's an interactive map.
https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/interactive-map-of-grammar-schools/

That's not what I meant by "teach". The answers given by the top 10% of the class help build on the understanding of the others and also help uncover any misconceptions.

And I've never heard of any pupils being sent to do errands in lesson time! Ours pupils are not allowed out of the classroom.

My son is a top 10% child and got 100% in both Y2 and Y6 SATS but is thriving in a local comprehensive.

Did they go to the local comprehensive instead? Genuine question.

Firstly I think this is totally about how you frame it and suggesting you are a failure at 11 for not passing a test is ridiculous, would you do that to a child and GCSE or A level. Obviously not. Life is full of tests (sats for example) and competitions and exams, whatever it may be so I guess there is always a potential for a child to feel upset that they didn’t achieve what they wanted but facing losses through life can promote resilience, which is clearly lacking in our young people. There are many types of intelligence and 11 plus measures only one, it is possible to navigate your child through exams and testing but it’s all about how you support them and foster that resilience.

But that’s just your experience of one family. In my area it would be considered barking mad to go to those lengths. The vast majority start tutoring at the start of year 5, and that usually extended to one session with a tutor per week, plus a few booklets at home. Certainly not intensive and certainly not the preserve of the very wealthy. I mean if you want to spend thousands on years of tutoring they will take your money, but that is OTT.

What I’ve noticed is that ethnic minority families (primarily South Asian, East Asian and African) go in hardest for 11+ prep, and student numbers pretty much always reflect that. Many are first generation immigrants. None especially wealthy either.

I really believe the relative underrepresentation of white kids at grammars is this weird hang up we have (I say “we” because I’m white) with social class, not having ideas above our own station, not showing off about intelligence, showing off about sporting prowess is fine though, etc.

It’s such a weird cultural hang up that other cultures just don’t have at all.

What worries me is that Starmer is keen on these and will encourage them across the country. It's a way for wealthy families to really strip the state system for all it has - best teachers and resources as well as keeping the brightest away from possibly helping the less bright. It's intellectual segregation without helping the root cause of the disparity.

As an aspirational parent I was looking for the 'best' schools for my DC. I did not just focus on grammar schools and would have been happy for my DC to attend a comprehensive. I visited the schools, looked at prospectus and analysed the league tables but what swung it for me was the behaviour of pupils within the schools. Like most people, I did not have an issue with setting in comprehensives. It was the disruptive behaviours and the impact it would/could have on my DC that put me off certain schools.

My options were : private, grammar schools, single sex faith schools, coed faith schools, partially selective comprehensives, lottery entry comprehensive, banded entry comprehensive, catchment area comprehensives. What affected my ability to choose the most was the distance admission criteria. I couldn't afford to move into the 'nice' areas with the 'nice' comprehensives. I tutored both my DC at home and they both made it into grammar school. Due to its London location the Grammar had a good diverse mix (at that time) of pupils from different races/classes. It was the right choice for my DC they have both excelled, gained good qualifications/friends/experiences, enjoyed their secondary years and have moved onto higher education.

I noticed that all the best performing state schools had some form of entry filter. After going through secondary schools admission I felt the fairest system would be a banded admission based on a test taken at the beginning of Year 6 focusing only on content that children should have covered with transport costs covered to ensure each school had a similar cohort on admission and most importantly appropriate funding for each school in order to provide the same experience no matter which state school a child attends. Until all entry criteria is removed I am an advocate for super selective grammar schools (but not full grammar areas).

@Jellycats4life Yes, all very much our experience too, even though our own DD is only 6 and in Year 1. Just discovered today that DD’s class has instigated a new initiative called ‘Maths Buddies’, where each higher attaining child is allocated a ‘buddy’ who’s struggling to support. DD is already complaining that she’s been given the naughty boy who has frequent tantrums, distracts others and ignores everything she says (don’t get me started on schools’ common strategy of using sensible girls to act as support humans for boys who can’t behave…)

Then you have the manifold joys of phonics and the ridiculous notion of ‘fidelity to the scheme’, which means fluent readers can’t progress further until everyone has mastered the same sounds…

@Jellycats4life "Certainly not intensive and certainly not the preserve of the very wealthy."

No. But certainly the preserve of those who know how the system works, and mostly out of reach of disadvantaged families.

I think most people would be surprised how many wealthy families are in grammar schools. I really think there should be an expose on it. Everyone posh here has more "kudos" to get into a grammar than the private. It's champagne socialite's nectar to stealth boast their kid is bright.

@mathsAIoptions ”I think most people would be surprised how many wealthy families are in grammar schools.”

I agree. And they would also be surprised at how unobtainable the simplest of preparation is for many primary school families.

Trixiefirecracker I do think upon reflection there is a lot of truth in that coping with failing is good for the human experience but I still think the grammar school entry is divisive in a way that other tests are not - it literally separates the children into the best and second best. I suppose I am biased to that view because of knowing a child who didn't get in and struggled subsequently.

All the test books are on Amazon.
Perfectly obtainable.

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.

I think this hits the nail right on the head. I live a grammar area, probably 10 within a 10 mile radius. Yes, some kids are from private schools and extremely well off backgrounds. But others are from much, much poorer backgrounds, where kids passing the 11+ is the whole family’s focus. I have mixed views on Grammars; my DC do attend Grammars and I thank my lucky stars everyday because the local secondary schools seems to have appalling behaviour where the narrative seems to be kids believe they’re ‘too cool to school’ while at Grammars the feeling is the opposite and no child wants to be bottom of the class. My overriding belief is that all schools should be able to cater for all children, irrelevant of their SEN needs, sporting skills and brightness.

I haven't noted particular contempt for grammars?

I went to one of the few grammars in London and it was a real privilege, a fantastic school. I used to be an unequivocal supporter of grammars and in general I'm still for them but with some reservations. I don't think many people at my school could have afforded private schools, but nonetheless we were primarily a better off than average demographic, certainly much more so than was typical for the the school's local neighbourhood, from where very few pupils came. I understand these days kids there are from even further off.

On the other hand, for those kids who would not have had the opportunity to attend an outstanding school with incredibly high expectations, because their parents couldn't afford to live near a high performing comprehensive, it probably was pretty life changing. But I'd say that was only ten per cent or so of kids. I might support grammar schools as a more widespread phenomenon if perhaps they put aside, say 20-25% of places for primaries in the most deprived areas and/or from families with under a certain income level (to prevent better off parents gaming systems by trying to get their kids into less privileged primaries) as then they might really help social mobility. Especially if they invited schools to put forward their most able kids who would benefit, to ensure able kids got the opportunity.

My mum was a governor at a lovely but very challenged and deprived primary nearby and it was a real celebration when they got a kid into the grammar because the likelihood really was that that child would have their life chances transformed.

@Nouvellenovel "All the test books are on Amazon.
Perfectly obtainable"

Well, if you know about them. If you have the knowledge, energy, time and inclination to support your child.

I wouldn’t say first generation immigrant families are particularly advantaged myself.

For every rich ex-prep school kid at my daughter’s school, there’s a second gen kid from a state school.

don’t get me started on schools’ common strategy of using sensible girls to act as support humans for boys who can’t behave…

@TempsPerdu This was my daughter’s entire primary school career. She was tasked with babysitting an autistic boy at lunchtime when his TA was busy with another kid, in year 1. She sobbed to me in year 6 that she’d been forced to sit next to the same disruptive boy for two fucking terms when the seating plan was supposed to be changed termly, and indeed had been changed for everyone else, just not her and this kid. It’s grossly unfair.

Our primary teacher had the revision books to lend out if we wanted them and encouraged us to look at the local grammar. We are certainly not an affluent area by any means. We are rural, with many generational farming families and isolated rural poverty is very real and very widespread. Maybe it’s a different demographic up here but local grammar is huge mix of children from very different backgrounds. We are not in the south where there is huge wealth and much competition for school places though.

I don't follow this, and it's rude of you to call another poster's comment "rubbish". Of course grammar and all-ability schools compete in arts, music, sports, drama and similar activities. There are plenty of orchestras, school theatres and freezing cold sports pitches where these activities take place regularly. I've been to a fair few in my time.
My point is that children of different skills and ambitions need different treatment. Selective and grammar schools can deliver a specifically academic education to young people aiming for medical school the legal profession, or a career in modern languages. Various other schools can prepare would-be plumbers, electricians, chefs, nursery and healthcare assistants, travel agents, retailers, and those whose interests lie in the many aspects of technology available, for their careers. One mediocre academic system does not fit all.

@Jellycats4life "
I wouldn’t say first generation immigrant families are particularly advantaged myself"

Very many immigrant families are highly educated. And, by virtue of their life histories understand bureaucratic processes.