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).

Grammar schools drive the exact same social inequality as private schools, they just like to pretend that they don't

We got rid of The Qually in Scotland for a reason

In many ways I think it would be better if there weren't grammar schools however as long as they are taking the brightest and best from around here out of the other schools I want my children to go to them with those brightest and best kids.

@MuseKira "Fair enough that "some" people won't be able to afford to buy anything, but you can buy the practice/test books from Amazon for under a tenner and second hand from ebay for under a fiver, so they're easily within the ability of most people to pay. I've also seen them in charity shops for 49p/99p"

But you need a parent with the knowledge, time, energy and inclination to support the child. As well as the money to buy the books.......

Wow ok, this type of experience should not be disregarded and sorry you were treated poorly in school (I can imagine many in grammar schools -especially before we as a society have been conscious of mental health - would have been treated poorly if they did not understand something or had a off day.
I vividly remember being shouted at by my headteacher completely loosing his shit because I kept folding my work book in half as I did not like the feeling of the paper :S).

It's blindingly obvious some people on here refuse to see their own privilege and that it allows their kids to get into schools others can't. Or pretending they're "naturally gifted" rather than tutored through the nose and hot-housed.

Putting aside knowledge and money, I'd say a parent without time, energy nor inclination shouldn't have had children in the first place and education won't be the only disadvantage the child suffers.

What a stupid thing to say. Different people have different focuses- you are a product of your environment. I have a friend who places little value on education as none was placed on it for her- her child has just signed with a premiership football club on mega bucks. She may not have given a toss about the eleven plus but she threw herself into football training! Doesn’t mean she is a crap parent. We all do our best with the starting point we are given.

@MuseKira "Putting aside knowledge and money, I'd say a parent without time, energy nor inclination shouldn't have had children in the first place and education won't be the only disadvantage the child suffers."

Jesus. However. First point. Many parents nowadays have at least 2 jobs to make ends meet, which leaves very little time or energy. And grammar school supporters are always talking about children being "lifted out of disadvantage" Apparently only some sorts of disadvantage are appropriate. It's the deserving poor again.

I remember learning at high school (not in UK) about Cyril Burt who faked all his research and how it was so bad because Britain developed a terrible policy (the 11+) as a result. And how stupid the findings were, in retrospect, about genetics mattering above all and that you can determine someone's future potential at 11 by a test. So we must always be honest in research, and always be suspicious of too-neat or ridiculous findings (50 pairs of twins separated at birth?) . That was more than 30 years ago! I'm astonished and disturbed that the 11+ still exists. Why does it? It's a terrible idea, surely?

It's very age of eugenics. Even the comments on here about the best and brightest. Do people deep down really believe in that still?

And I would say in response that accidents happen/ feckless second parent happens / illness happens etc etc.

Yes! My dp’s did.
The situation you describe was my home.
One of 6 dc, both parents working. Dm a nurse so working v. unsociable hours.
Very little money, we literally never had spare food in the pantry.

And yet my dp’s were absolutely determined that their dc would get a good education and in the 70’s getting to a grammar school was the best way.
So my very poor dp’s went to WHSmiths and bought the test books.

There wasn’t eBay or Amazon.
But they used money they could ill afford.
And everyone of us went to grammar school.

Because it benefits the pushy middle classes- you get a private school style education for a very low cost. Child educated in lovely surroundings with mostly other children from similar backgrounds (or studious ethnic children who aren’t swinging from the lights). Why would the people in power get rid of it?

Did I reallly just read “studious ethnic children who aren’t swinging from the lights”?????

I don’t even know where to begin with THAT statement 😳😳😳

"Fair enough that "some" people won't be able to afford to buy anything, but you can buy the practice/test books from Amazon for under a tenner and second hand from ebay for under a fiver, so they're easily within the ability of most people to pay. I've also seen them in charity shops for 49p/99p."

I really don't think you're grasping just how hard up lots of people are in this country at the minute and that's a financial privilege we're so lucky to have.

I genuinely do not have a problem with grammar/private education, as I said, it's not an option for us in our area and of course, if you can afford it then of course you're gonna push for that better education for your children. I absolutely would do the same but we cannot pretend it's a level playing field because it isn't. A bright child with poor parents cannot compete with an average kid with parents prepared to tutor prepare rinse and repeat.

I am in Kent with a Dd at a grammar school some of your narrative is just wrong. Per- pupil grammar school have less funding. The few pupil premium children at Dd's school get all school trips paid for ( 2 X musicals next term and skiing last term). But yes the intake is overwhelmingly middle class.

I was just about to ask what the hell did I just read…

@Janedoe82 I can only imagine what other kind of bigotry you spew. I would be interested to know if there are many British whites swinging from the lights wherever you are in the UK or world?

@Nouvellenovel maybe an increased number of poorer families got in in the 70s but the research is clear the majority of parents are wealthy these days. If only a tiny % are FSM they are actually burdening the rest of the state sector with a higher proportion on FSM children by not allowing them to use their school.

I started at a grammar in 1985 and virtually everyone there was tutored in - my parents practically bankrupted themselves paying for it. There was only one genuinely working class kid in my class of 31. He left without any GCSE passes - the school wouldn't let him sit any because his predicted grades weren't good enough.

The tutoring-to-get-in is even worse now, especially given the ridiculous inflation of house prices. The "social mobility" argument of grammars has been on shaky ground for decades. I'd actually suggest they now have the opposite effect, and create downwards mobility for all but the very well off and very gifted.

I think it’s a very different system nowadays to back in the 70s.

Tutoring was not a thing then. The playing field was level. My Mum grew up on a council estate, they had no money. She passed.

We live in Bucks. Everyone tutors and people from the next county are also fighting for spaces in the local grammars. They come in from miles away. It’s not a local school for local children. We are lucky we have a good secondary but I’ve seen some shocking behaviour (from parents) around 11+ time.

The thing I hate most about it is that you are telling 10 years olds that they are failures. When everyone just matures at a different rate.

If there was any way to ban tutoring I’d be more keen on them. But they are not serving the purpose they were supposed to. Time to get rid of them all.

Absolutely spot on.

It's worth bearing in mind that back in the days when grammars were common and popular, only 25% of kids left school with any qualifications at all, and if you went to a sec mod you were highly likely to be condemned to a lifetime of low paid employment.

It was actually the big changes in the employment market in the 60s that changed education for the better. There was increasing demand for white collar staff as the country shifted away from heavy industry, and a better overall standard of education was needed for that. It was delivered brilliantly by comprehensives, and has improved steadily ever since.

I went to one and left at 16 as you could back then. My sister did too. My mum went to a grammar too and hated it - It's now an independent school.
We live in a grammar area and everyone seems to sit the 11+ - we actually have two as we have the local test and the Kent test.
My daughter didn't pass (by a few points) and went to the local non selective school. She did really well, getting three A levels. At 25 she is still friends with the girls from school. My son passed both and went to the grammar school he chose. He hated it and didn't pass any A levels. I feel that he would have done better at the local non selective school.

PS neither of my children were tutored but many of their primary school friends were, from Yr1 in some cases.

There's actually been quite a lot of research into outcomes for grammar school kids recently, and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that most grammar kids do worse than they would have at comprehensives, due to the extra pressure they're under. Only the very, very few right at the top of grammar school ability ranges do better, and even then, the advantage they gain is so small it won't make any meaningful difference to them.

Kent here. The 11+ is optional and nearly every child is put forward for it. Some parents are advised that it’s not suitable for their child, but otherwise pretty much everyone opts for their DC to sit the test. So you would assume they support the grammar system.

The contempt only comes into play when DC don’t secure a place.