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).

There are plenty of outstanding comprehensives out there, just as there are plenty of absolutely appalling grammars.

This just isn’t true…neither of my children were tutored. I don’t know any of their friends that were either.

A couple of teachers suggested I shouldn't have been there. It did get a bit easier later on, but I kinda wish I'd done a bit more to get booted out. It wouldn't have been very hard.

This had never occurred to me before tbh.

We have no grammars and all our local schools are excellent. On balance it would appear they do more harm than good.

I started at a grammar in 1985, and every single one of my friends was tutored. I was as well.

People went to extraordinary lengths to game the system. None of it was even remotely fair. The problem has only got worse since.

Spot on, although I feel it's necessary to take issue with terminology. In grammar school areas, you don't have comprehensives, you have secondary moderns. They make no provision for more able pupils, and are generally schools people try desperately hard to avoid. No wonder they're problematic. They're usually starved of investment, parents are far less engaged, and the teachers are worse as well.

When people say "we should have more grammar schools", they never acknowledge that the flip side of the coin is more Sec Mods.

5% of secondary pupils attend state grammar schools. 7% go to private schools. So that leaves 88% educated at state comprehensives. I rarely read of a child on here who is one of the 88%, nearly everyone seems to be either at a grammar, in the private system or being home educated. Even in the days when selective education was nationwide only 10% of pupils went to them. It's rare to find anyone who admits to failing the 11+, the sense of failure was long lasting and yet 90% of pupils were written off at age 11 as being thick.

Yes- same here. Everyone was tutored. And the ones who said they weren’t were probably lying!! I remember there being a code of secrecy between my mother and her friends about who was doing what!

What needs to change is the comp. No school should have such disruption. No child should have to go to school in that sort of environment. Closing grammars or private schools doesn't fix that.

It actually does.

And vice versa - obviously

Yes, although once again you seem determined to slag off comprehensive education, as not good enough for your precious offspring.

I hate that attitude.

If you don't have grammars in your area, of course the local schools are going to appear good. That's because all the more academic children who would have gone to grammars are there getting good grades. It doesn't actually mean the standard of teaching is better. The school may look better, but those more academic children have to work harder because they get less attention than those who struggle.

All this hype about tutoring is nuts. Just get some sample papers and do it yourself.

You seem really bitter. I am very sorry for your experience. Hope you heal.

Nowhere in any comment I have flagged off comps. As an individual, I am naturally academic so highly selective environments suit me. They may not suit my kid. Please quote where I have said anything about comps not being good enough for my kid

I am for choice - options - because all kids are not the same and different environments suit different kids. And will always advocate for all kids to have access to environments that suit their style of learning. And against disruptive school environments because no child should be subjected to that

You liking or hating that is of zero consequence

Absolute nonsense. Go and look at the Comprehensive Future website - there's loads of studies there that show grammar school areas have worse educational outcomes for virtually everyone, even a lot of the kids that go to grammar schools.

But kids who fail the 11+ don't get any choice, do they?

Plenty of them are very bitter indeed.

Grammar schools as such are fine.

What aren’t great are secondary moderns. And the trouble is, you can’t have a grammar (if we’re talking the Bucks style system, taking the top 30% or so) without the nearby other schools becoming secondary moderns. Nobody calls them secondary moderns any more, but that’s what they are.

Have comprehensive schools with sets and streams - these create flexibility across times (promotions and demotions), and also accommodate kids who are poor at some areas and strong at others. I have an artistic girl who is good at the humanities and not good at maths - a grammar school system would have been awful for her. Same for nerdy types who are great at maths and hard sciences and terrible at anything involving languages.

Why would they have to work harder? All evidence suggests the teachers make no difference to attainment at grammar schools - these kids would do well anywhere https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/facts-figures-and-evidence-about-grammar-schools/

Thank you, that's about the most sense I've read on here.

I went to a grammar school where it was assumed you'd be absolutely brilliant at everything, and if you weren't, like me - well, tough. There was no help or support at all, you were just left to flounder.

I did very well academically in about 5 subjects, and got average results in another 5 at GCSE level, and probably would really have benefitted from setting/streaming at different levels in different subjects.

They should. There should be schools that suit them. And I would structure the system so it is not seen as a failure. Much like when applying to universities

And as someone said up top - maybe such streaming should occur a little later (e.g. Year 8/9 - like prep. And there should be options based on style of learning and strengths

I went superselective at 16 - so quite late and it did me a world of good but I was almost an adult. I think the framing is bad - and the dire state of some comps mean grammar schools are a do or die affair for some. Whether or not it suits their child

There's actually a very serious problem with the amount of stress kids at grammar schools are put under. For a lot of them it results in poorer grades than they would have got at a comprehensive, or even worse, as happened to me, a nice big dollop of trauma that went unresolved for years.

A lot of parents push their children into grammars regardless of whether it is the right place for them. Tutoring the child just to pass the entrance tests is a risk because you've no way of knowing if they are going to cope with the pace and pressure of these types of schools. If you need to be tutored to get into it, you will need to be tutored the whole way through it. Those who naturally work at that level of ability will have much better outcomes. Those with involved supportive families will have much better outcomes. Those who are tutored to get in and then just left to get on with it are going to struggle.

But it IS seen as failure.

And there you are slagging off comprehensives again.

So it needs reframing.