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).

But closing them would level up the other schools, because they would get their top 30% back and possibly have them encourage a better group mentality and work ethic.

But where grammar schools exist, kids who don't get into them are frequently deprived of that supportive environment.

Also, studies have shown that most grammar school kids are under far more stress than comprehensive school kids, and this can actually make their academic outcomes worse.

So effectively grammars don't really work for anyone except about the top 0.00001% of people.

I went to a non-selective A-level college and within a term it was very clear that the some of us where working at a much faster pace than others. The science classes were split into 3 - we hung out socially but for all intents and purposes we were in different schools academically. I would absolutely not have done as well if the class wasn't separated as the teacher of course gave most of her attention to those that needed more time and explanation and support to get the concepts. Now, I find it harder to learn practical skills so would struggle in a technical drawing class for example.

It may well be that 10/11 is too early but certainly 13/14 ( year 9 onwards) is fine to stream or to have academically gifted schools.

Also important to remember academically grades do not necessarily equate to professional success. The same way we have Guildhall/RAM etc for musically gifted kids - different from your council provision which are still great but not competitive. It is worth nurturing all kinds of talent wherever they may be and focusing on how we can ensure all segments of society have access. Not closing them down in the name of 'fairness'

But a lot of what we have seen posted from parents and various websites suggests they aren't supported; pastoral care is minimal. They don't get good teachers because the kids will do well regardless, unlike the other schools who bend over backwards to get the best out of kids and support them.

But grammars are grossly unfair even to the kids who attend them.

Also, no-one ever says "we should open more secondary moderns", because if there were more grammars, there would be more sec mods too.

Comprehensives were a massive step forward in educational outcomes in this country, and have transformed far more lives than grammars ever did. My local comp gets superb results across a wide range of aptitudes and abilities, and regularly gets kids into Oxbridge and other elite universities.

My kids’ comp has a far wider and richer curriculum than my old grammar school ever did. Including Latin. And astronomy. As well as hospitality, child development and photography.

Well - someone upthread said they are not the actual top 30%, just the over tutored. So it should mean the rest of the 70% still get to thrive without stress and may actually do really well without the pushy parents....

On a serious note - as I have shared, most very academically gifted kids learn at a faster pace than others. And a school with such an ethos does away with things like bullying cos you are a nerd, allows those that need more support to get it without being under any pressured etc.

It seems the issue in the UK is grammar schools made some parents/kids feel like failures. And no one speaks about the high ability academic kids who did not reach their potential because it was their lot to help the rest of the class.

I just know the difference in experience and progress for me when I moved from a comprehensive class to a highly streamed one. I flew! If there is a way to identify academically talented kids from anywhere and allow them the same environment - the innovation that would ensue would be incredible

Sadly @PrimitivePerson , in a very rural area like the one I live in, it's not about fairness. Our local comprehensive is fair to middling but it doesn't do enough for the kids who don't want to drive tractors or be child minders or hairdressers. We have five hairdressing salons open every year in cow town up the road. Builder dads trying to help out their daughters, they spend £10 or 15K to help out their kid. I get it. It just doesn't move the economy along.

Brilliant - so comps are great. I don't think having grammars precludes having comps. Children are different and need different things. Why can't we have options that our kids can choose from? More personalised education. Why must we all have the same thing???

@newmummycwharf1 Bullying was an ENORMOUS problem at the grammar school I went to.

"Also important to remember academically grades do not necessarily equate to professional success. The same way we have Guildhall/RAM etc for musically gifted kids - different from your council provision which are still great but not competitive. It is worth nurturing all kinds of talent wherever they may be and focusing on how we can ensure all segments of society have access. Not closing them down in the name of 'fairness'"

Okay, so you have two kids - one from a disadvantaged family and one from a richer middle class family. Both exactly the same on the Richter scale of cleverness, the same personality, zest for life - twins to all extents if you will! But the rich family pay £1000s from 9 years old on tutoring, preparing, training for 11+ to get into that grammar. The poor kids family scrape by with a few secondhand text books from oxfam. The rich kid gets in over the poorer kid on a couple of points/marks. Explain the fairness to me!

Having grammars DOES preclude having comps. That's the whole point of them.

In grammar school areas, the non-selective schools are secondary moderns, not comps, and regularly get far worse funding, and poorer teachers.

Exactly. It isn't fair, and it never will be fair, and using taxpayers' money to fund something so fundamentally unjust is utterly, utterly wrong.

That is a shame. I hear some horrific stories about bullying in our local comp here. I suspect bullying is multifactorial and not just due to school type.

Sorry, there was still a bullying of “the thick kids” at my grammar school. There’s still a pecking order even among clever(er) kids.

Yeah, so stop acting like grammar schools are beacons of light and comps are feral free-for-alls. My experience is pretty much completely the other way around.

A lot of these comments are ignoring the fact that standards are higher at grammars. My kids are at a super selective grammar and we have friends and relatives at comps (true comps, in non-grammar areas). My friends’ very bright kids are bored at local comps doing basic work in disrupted classrooms. Comps are levelling down and it’s not fair. All kids should have access to what my kids have - calm and orderly classrooms, intellectual environment, stable teaching staff, lessons that properly challenge them. We need to move to a system of giving all kids who want it access to this type of schooling rather than taking it away from bright kids. As has been said the whole thing needs to be about levelling up.

Ohhh, boy, ain't that the truth? It was absolutely rife, as was homophobic bullying, which the teachers did absolutely nothing about.

But that’s bollocks. A good comp can produce everything from Oxbridge graduates to highly skilled mechanics and plumber

Several people have posted in this thread saying they were the "bright kid" at a big comprehensive, and were mostly left to get on with it because they could be trusted to sit and work independently. The staff were too busy bending over backwards to help the kids who were more in need. So they ended up bored and under-taught.

Of course that won't be everyone's experience.

What you've said there is all about preserving privilege for bright kids, and is typically negative about comprehensive education. It basically says "my kids passed the 11+ so deserve a naice education. You plebs can fight it out amongst yourselves."

But I was at the bottom of the ability range at my grammar school, so I was ignored and left to flounder. That's not right either.

For one - there is only so much tutoring can do. It isn't some sort of magic pill. You cannot tutor a child to get 4 grade points above their natural ability. And some kids will have more home support than others - even without an actual tutor which is arguably even more powerful. I had 1 year off work and spent it supporting my kid after school in Year 1 - he has remained at the top of his class since and this is many years ago now. That detailed attention is priceless and more valuable than a tutor for 1 hour or 2 a week. Those differences remain in comps too and will show in the outcomes of the kids.
And secondly, the idea with schools based on aptitude is to evolve tests that are tutor proof. Thirdly - even in a comp, rich people still tutor their kids

Where is the fairness in Imperial College asking for 3As when rich kids can get extra tutoring and do better than poorer kids? Are you going to ban tutoring in the name of fairness? Or rather accept that tutoring will occur and look for ways to ensure the core education everyone gets is suited to them and that we grow the economy so families can be more involved in providing their children a supportive environment

"And no one speaks about the high ability academic kids who did not reach their potential because it was their lot to help the rest of the class."
@newmummycwharf1 I agree with this.

The cost to society of not educating the middle to their top potential is going to be fewer project managers and hairdressers. The cost of not educating the top is fewer innovations, medical breakthroughs, new drugs, cures for illnesses, new methods of engineering.

It's not cost less to society to just bring up the middle and let the top languish. Both have costs.

Sad you had that experience and I have heard similar. But my experience is completely the opposite of yours and I know many with similar experiences to mine. Hence my point about choice. You will clearly not choose a grammar for your child but I may for mine if they are of that aptitude. If they are not - I actually think they would do better in a comp and potentially be a big fish in a small pond. Self confidence is the biggest deal in professional success and doing really well in a comp (plus a very supportive home) will do far more for a child's self esteem and future than being mid range or bottom at a grammar.