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).

I think that's a very idealistic view.

I hated Latin, I can't say learning it ever did me any good at all, and it made me feel thick because I was bad at it.

Most of my time at grammar school was spent keeping my head down trying to get through the day in one piece.

My kids went to a comprehensive, and actually did have the sort of life you talked about, and I was hugely jealous of them for it. They had a much wider choice of subjects as well.

Again, I think you're reinforcing the blatantly offensive view that kids who pass the 11+ deserve a naice education, and those that fail it don't.

My DD does all of those things at her comp! I want those things to be available to all kids in all schools, not just the chosen few in selective schools.

If you believe that you'd not send your kid to a grammar school - it's literally all about results. They chuck out kids who don't keep up.

Our local private schools get better than the grammars, even the 2 which are for "thickos" as the grammar parents like to say. If they can take kids who didn't pass 11+ and get them to achieve more it either says teachers in the grammars are pretty poor, students there become complacent or both.

I think the point is that if you ‘cream off ‘ some of the motivated, academically achieving, supported kids, then the other schools around cannot actually be comprehensive in fact (even if they are are by name) because they don’t cater for the comprehensive ability range because you’ve removed some of it. Therefore they are de facto secondary moderns.

Full disclosure I went to a grammar, so my opinions are not sour grapes! For me a powerful argument is to look around your DCs’ primary class and choose say which 3 out of 30 should be made to feel great about themselves and based on how they perform on one day when they’re 10 or 11?
The percentage that went to grammar school when they were common varied widely across the country. So it might not be 10% but maybe 25% assumed to be academic’ and the others not. I think it was more like 5% when I went due to recent population growth, 180 places for girls in two grammar schools from 50 primary schools some three form entry.

My father also went to grammar school pre war, I still have a little welcome booklet from his time there that says that every year they take 6 or 7 boys for free places (must have been a type of direct grant grammar where most places were fee-paying) who have been‘entirely educated in state schools’. That was a really small percentage of boys going free to grammar school in a large northern city.

So it’s a very different policy depending on the percentage you ‘cream off’. People don’t like them because there was lots of research on their negative effects on other schools and individual students. I’m so glad my kids went to the local comprehensive with lots of local friends.

Sigh, as soon as I typed that, I figured someone would be along to say "That wasn't MY experience, therefore your entire point is invalid!"

PrimitivePerson, I'm sorry you had such a tough time at your grammar school. It does sound rough. But the wider point is that for many bright children, there can be additional benefits to being surrounded by other bright children - not just academic ones, but social ones.

it's not about 'contempt' at all. But about the unfairness of the system where people can 'buy' into it, and others are discriminated against due to parents, poor housing and conditions, and lack of support. Buy in as much as get private schooling and tutoring to get into selection process- against others who might be much brighter but are not preparedfor the selection system.

As said above, most Counties have long given up on Grammar schools from the 70s onwards, with Comprehensives and subject by subject setting, which is flexible, up or down.

Contempt as they are not available country wide. Opposite of levelling up to begin with.

Huge areas of the country only have state or private if you are privileged enough to afford it.

If they continue to exist then it should be a possibility for all children. Or they all should be scrapped and state education should be fully comprehensive; catering for all abilities.

And DC got a 9 in GCSE Latin for what it’s worth! What makes people think you can’t study Latin, learn philosophy or go to a chess club in a comprehensive school!

I think it's because in a way it limits children's opportunities at such a young age. If getting into a grammar school gives children extra opportunities then that means those that don't get in miss out. So what happens if they happen to shine at 11 or 12 or 13 or 14? Do those children then get the opportunity to join the others in the grammar schools?

This limitation is the main problem I can see.

Surely it is down to the fact that most children are tutored to be able to pass 11+ or come from families that are educated to help children pass. So not available to a huge swathe of families in grammar school areas, or the catchment area becomes too expensive for low income families.

So what you're saying is "screw the thickos".

I find that sort of elitism in taxpayer-funded education to be hugely problematic and offensive.

Kids likely to get into grammar schools are the ones with supportive, driven parents who will do well anywhere. But the perpetuation of grammars drains resources from the education of kids who really, really, really need more inspiration and support.

I'm not alone in being a former grammar school kid who has seen the light. Loads of people who were there with me saw it for what it was as well.

Locally, there are three grammar schools in our nearest city, (two for girls and a much larger one for boys) and the intake is the top 25/30% of the 11+ entrants so not super selective. But none of the primaries really teach for the 11+.

From personal experience, I know that many local doctors sent their children to the prep school from 7 - 11 and paid fees so their children were well taught the basics. And then they took the 11+. I don't know how many were tutored on top. But they did generally get grammar school places. However, I would suggest that two intelligent professional parents, and the genes inherited from them (intelligence being clearly defined as a heritable factor) would tend to give them advantage. The child of a refuse collector and bank teller MIGHT buck the average but it isn't statistically likely.

You can, but you have a lower chance of succeeding. Children can do very well at comprehensive schools, but grammar schools still give them more opportunities. Even if there wasn't any disparity in funding, simply being surrounded only by students who were of higher ability can make a difference.

That's why parents pay so much to live in areas with good schools and to avoid living in areas without good schools.

Myself and older brother both went to grammar schools. Neither of us had tutoring. We were raised by a single mother who was a teacher so valued education and worked in a local comp primary. And because she was a teacher she spent more time doing her 30+kids homework marking than helping us with ours!

I'd be looking to send my child to one if she was academically minded

@Papyrophile Yeah, loads of the kids in my grammar school cohort went to private primary schools. Their parents were happy that they could get a private school standard education on the cheap. Sod the kids that went to state primaries.

So the primary focus needs to be to grow the economy and a population that is predominantly economically productive. Until then - we won't get very far. And it is a huge shame that a G7 country has a huge proportion of it's population unable to buy exam books for a 1 year period - given education is free.

Studies say that isn't actually true. And if it was, it's blatantly offensive. If you think kids at non-grammars having poorer outcomes is acceptable, I'm not sure we can be friends.

Not at all - that is what someone upthread said. I don't believe that at all. They are saying grammar schools don't support mobility because you have to be rich to get in. I am saying that arguments presumes rich kids (whoever they are) don't matter. However, buying books to support exam prep is not expensive. Finding time to help as a parent can be of course (even with tutors) but this is typically a 6-12 month max endeavour. However, if it is really beyond the reach of most - the answer is not to close them but to level up

No, the answer is to close them. They're blatantly unfair and have never "levelled up". Even if you passed the 11+ to go to my school, the uniform was so expensive it was unaffordable for many. Our blazers were £57 in 1985, that's the equivalent of £170 today. Secondhand ones were available, but if you showed up in one that was threadbare and faded, you were bullied absolutely mercilessly for it.

Screw that. Taxpayers' money shouldn't be spent on defending the rights and interests of the already very well off.

I know it's not just that straightforward @PrimitivePerson. One of our colleague's daughters has just won a place at grammar school He earns £16 ph, and has spent a lot of it on his daughter's education because he is determined that she will have the opportunities he was denied. So yes, pushy but she is also very smart, as are both parents.

Taxpayers money should be used to defend the rights and interests of all taxpayers - which includes the well off. I don't believe anyone sets out to be poor. When you do become successful, the idea is to use your wealth and privilege to help others. Privilege is a beautiful thing and people have different privileges. Those with financial privilege paying tonnes into the bucket have every right to also benefit from it.
The reality is some kids learn at a faster rate than others, some of them do so across all subjects and others have a more spikey profile whilst others need more time. We should have a range of choices and environment for kids to learn. As many of those supported by the state as possible - with parental responsibility espoused at every turn.

He's pushy, but definitely not quite middle class. Dad is ex-military, and of the "can do" or "do fuck off, Rupert". Locally, that's quite admired as an attitude.

So what you're saying is "screw the thickos"

Argh, no! I'm not saying that at all. (not even sure how you got that from my posts TBH) And I would not use the word "thickos".

I'm saying that people who maintain that grammars don't give an academic advantage to their pupils, should consider that they may confer a social or pastoral advantage to the brighter kids, too. A supportive environment is something all school kids can benefit from.

In all honesty, I don't think you have a clue about how grammar schools operate and the effect they have on communities, and your comments are very naive.

Where I live now is 100% comprehensive, and the outcomes are so much fairer. There's far less conflict, division, anger and jealousy over which schools kids go to. Where I grew up, it was all people ever spoke about, and loads of friendships among both parents and kids didn't survive because so many people thought their 11+ results were a grave injustice, and were angry about "undeserving" kids who got in.

I can agree with that @zaxxon ..