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).

@CakeTastesBetterAsBatter "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."

What an unbelievably arrogant, nasty, snobbish, elitist comment. See how you feel if your kid fails the 11+, then come back to me on that one.

Once again, a supporter of grammar schools with snobbish, sneering ideas about comprehensives who assumes their kids are bright enough to get into grammars.

Sec mods and comps are always good enough for other people's children, then?

Precisely this. I can't emphasise this point enough

Lots of good arguments on either side. Personally I like academic selection to cater to different needs but not at 11.

I wonder if grammar would be more acceptable if (not mutually exclusive):

• Selection at GCSE entry point
• State schools are allowed to prep children
• Make test prep resources widely available (distributed at state schools, local libraries, etc)
• Make parents more informed (eg sending letters to parents explaining the process 1-2 years prior)

And.. superselectives only (top 3% or similar) as to minimise impact on other secondaries and mitigate the tutoring impact. Make this available in all areas.

Easier said than done, and of course won’t be foolproof. Let’s be honest well off families will give life advantages to their children no matter what. If not education, it will be gift / inheritance, house deposit, better professional networks, social capital, etc. Life just isn’t fair. This should at least improve the access issue on state-funded facilities.

But comprehensives have been proven to have consistently fairer and better educational outcomes than selective areas, time and time again.

I had one child at a comprehensive and one at the grammar. No tuition/coaching (although most kids in the class did have coaching, I'm not sure how much it really helps with the 11+). Both did well and ended up at Russell group universities. Comprehensive DD was extremely bored at school - but praised highly for her achievement - while grammar DD was challenged academically but good results were expected and not praised.
As a parent I wouldn't have denied grammar DD her choice of school just to be principled.

I would gladly send my kid to a comp if they do not have the aptitude to learn at a fast pace. As I said quite clearly - I am of the firm belief they will do better in a comp in that event.

I agree with someone upthread who said comps produce academically able kids. Of course they do. In my selective school, the pace was just faster and we went off piste cos they knew we could. Now other kids may take more time to get there but still get there all the same.

I think the discussion is tainted by bad experiences and also social perceptions of comps and sec moderns as inferior instead of simply different style of learning. I grew up very academic but learnt in my career that my grades can only get me so far. I have seen people scale lofty professional heights largely due to high selfesteem/confidence/willingness to take risks. So I wouldn't risk pushing my child into an environment not suited to them but yes I will defend the right of every parent to have access to a varied selection of schools. One size can never fit all

I have 3 siblings - all professionally very successful but the most successful (financially) is the least academic. Success is personalised and varied.

Not talking about selective areas like Kent with 20% pass rate but only superselectives. Any actual stats on this? I think it’d be hard to come by.

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

If tutoring as such little impact, then why do so many choose to go down that route? Surely their natural ability will shine like the sun and they'll fly through the 11+ without it?
How did you manage to pay your bills when you took your year out of work to support your child after year 1? So many women, particularly single mothers and those families on minimum incomes would be totally unable to so - so there we are back to money.

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

The fairness in Imperial College asking for 3 As is no more fair than the 11+ is where tutoring is referred to, it's simply rich people buying advantage, but the difference is that those choosing to study there are doing exactly that - choosing for themselves, as adults, to go onto higher education. All children must attend school or be educated, it isn't a choice.

Yes, I would ban tutoring as it goes but I am also aware that I live in the real world and so like many things I find unfair and a disadvantage for poorer members of society it's an unfairness that will keep on keeping on.

Here you go https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/director-of-oecd-says-there-is-no-positive-correlation-between-early-selection-and-better-overall-academic-outcomes/

And here
"Pupil’s results are no better in grammar schools
Another study of more than 500,000 pupils in England by researchers at Durham University found that “results from grammar schools are no better than expected” once social stratification (such as poverty, ethnicity, language, special educational needs) is taken into account. Read an article summarising the results HERE and the full academic paper HERE."

That is such a blunt tool. Some kids do need extra support because the time allocated to them in the classroom is not enough for them to understand a particular concept. That can be in school, by a parent or a paid tutor

Precisely the point - I am privileged enough to be able to take large chunks of time of work. Some are privileged enough not to work at all - do we want to ban stay at home mums?

I would not even use the term fair for these scenarios. Some have grandparents to give free childcare, other don't so they have to pay for childcare and have to work more and therefore their kids see less of them. It is just different circumstances. Not unfair. The human journey is about playing the cards you are dealt the best you can. And yes, raising your kids to see their role in helping creating a beautiful society for us all to live in. But the answer to that is not some sort of homogenous existence

Ability shmability.
Grammar schools are for academically able children. They don't invest in the practical or applied subjects that the more practically able children need.
My FIL didn't get into Grammar school but went to a technical school. There was also a third option school where they didn't focus on much beyond English, maths, and useful skills.
Why we stigmatise children who aren't particularly academic is beyond me.

Somewhere along the line it became desirable to be academically able when it isn't necessary or even optimal for society as a whole.
I quite like a streamed system where every young person gets an education to bring out the best in them.
The academically most able kids need an academic focus.
The technical kids need a technical focus.
The practical kids need a practical focus.
Overlay that with English, maths, physical activity and basic life skills for everyone and stop making a value judgement on what/who is better.
There is no school plan (including the comprehensive) that can offer all these groups the best that they need under one roof. There just isn't the money to support every school with the best of all things. It makes sense to split them, but this only works in a society where we accept that there is no value difference between someone who can speak Latin and someone who can build a wall, or a librarian vs a care worker: both very important, but they don't need the same type of education.

So true.

I think a big advantage to going to a Grammar school is that you get away from most of the disinterested disruptive children.

I find that an absolutely appalling attitude. It basically says if you fail the 11+, you deserve to be in a feral sinkhole, which is a really unfair description of most comprehensives anyway.

A lot of people find their views on grammar schools are somewhat challenged when their precious kid fails the 11+.

Not read the full thread, but am I the only person to have a child in grammar school who was never tutored??

I didn't have grammar schools where I lived so didn't really think much about it until the year they did their 11+. Their primary offered 3 after school prep sessions which they went to and that was it. They had always been 'bright' but I never dwelled on their 'potential'.

When they got their results and had scored highly it was a rush to look round the grammar schools before putting our preferences down.

They only have 1 year left there now and to be honest I don't particularly rate the school that highly. The students aren't particularly pushed, in my opinion, and it feels like it's pretty easy work for the teachers so appears to be quite a bit of coasting from staff as they can rely on the students to generally achieve well.

My dd is a fairly consistent achiever with some exceptional results in the subjects she's truly passionate about. But what I have liked is that it's been a gentler secondary experience for her, as most of the state schools have a lot of very unruly children. We live in area that has a lot of social deprivation and then some very affluent areas mixed in. When she did her 11+ I was a single mum juggling mortage and bills on my very mediocre 31k salary, so hardly very well to do.

My other dc didn't pass 11+ as they have always struggled at school and they went to a state school. This school is amazing and has worked with them to get them from a D student to a B / occasional A student. They have been amazing. BUT they are an exception amongst the other state schools locally, not the norm. And dc2 is far more robust when it comes to dealing with any abrasive personalities than dc1 is.

But that is how many grammar school parents think. I remember as a child being absolutely petrified I wouldn’t pass the exam and would have to go to the local secondary or board. There was huge shame in my social circle of not getting a grammar place.

Exactly what I went through as well. My parents were, for some bizarre reason, absolutely terrified of comprehensive education and passed on all their completely unreasonable fears and prejudices onto me. They made me think my life would be over if I failed the 11+.

That's an appalling burden to place on a sensitive kid who worried a lot about things.

I failed the 11+ and so did my brother, back in the dark ages. We both found our way back to higher education (he has a PHd, having left school with absolutely no qualifications) but it was way harder than it should have been. We were bright kids from a disadvantaged background and we had no tutoring or preparation so simply fell through the net.

I'm really pleased that both my kids went to the same local comp that has catered to both their needs. My eldest is off to a good uni this year; all her friendship group are, with a fair few going to Oxbridge. My youngest is on the 'alternative pathway' for the small number of children who can't do the usual GCSEs. She has a tailored programme involving a couple of GCSEs for those subjects she's quite good at, some BTECs, and a couple of highly vocational courses provided by the local FE college to give her options for employment, apprenticeship or FE study at 16.

I think it's great that they were not stigmatised at 11, that they were streamed where appropriate but this was flexible so they didn't have a glass ceiling atop their aspiration and progress. I'm glad that they have kept up primary school friendships with children of differing abilities, and that they are so rooted in the local community.

I still remember sitting the test vividly and the morning the results came out. I pretended to be asleep as I felt sick at the thought of opening the letter- before my dad- who showed limited interest up to this point- came running up the stairs screaming ‘you passed you passed’. Thought he was going to pass out with delight!

I actually initially failed, and my parents thought it was the end of the world. They made it absolutely clear they thought that as well, which hardly did much for my self-esteem.

I got offered a place some weeks later. I don't know if that's because someone didn't take up their place, or if my parents appealed. I think they did the latter. Given the horrors of my experience there, I really wish they hadn't bothered. It was a touchy subject because they remained convinced they'd done me a massive favour getting me into the school, and wouldn't entertain any criticism of their choice, even when I was clearly massively struggling when I got there.

They're both dead now, so I'll never know the story behind it. That actually really bothers me.

If it really was an equal playing field to get into grammar school I wouldn't have a problem with them.

Sadly, these days if you can't afford to get your child tutored they won't get in. The national curriculum doesn't cover the topics needed to pass the exam.

I couldn't afford a tutor for my child and she's at the local comp. The feral behaviour is off the scale. The vandalism at the school is appalling. Teachers come and go, some only stay a term. We live in a good area and yet the school is failing... the Head can't cope, the kids don't stand a chance. Yet 5 minutes down the road it's a different world. Fantastic grammar school offering everything you could possibly need.

It's all grossly unfair and I feel so sad for my child. I should have just sold a kidney and provided better life chances for her.

Once again, someone who can't see the problem of why behaviour in sec mods is so bad - they're the schools no-one wants. You haven't failed your kid, the bloody system has failed your kid! Grammar schools perpetuate this sort of injustice, and result in people battling each other for places to avoid the schools no-one has any pride in.

So sorry to hear you didn’t have a good experience. I really think with some grammars it’s survival of the fittest and if you can’t cope the attitude seems to be you shouldn’t be there- one of my children is at one like this and I know my other child wouldn’t have come out well had she been there.

I don't agree with them but that doesn't mean I would get rid of them. Unless other schools can improve performance then they still have a place. I would like to see the 11+ modernised so that it actually reflects what kids learn at school to make it a fairer entry rather than an antiquated system that relies on tutoring to understand how to pass it.