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).

We met a family on holiday a few years ago from Kent, whose DD was starting at a Grammar in September.

The following year we returned and friends of theirs were renting their chalet instead. Their DD hadn't got in and the sense of failure was palpable. We felt sorry for her.

We're in East Sussex in an area with great secondary schools but no grammars. Very grateful for that...

My grammar school was patently obviously better funded than the other schools in the area and had far better facilities. There was also a "voluntary fund" that parents were under intense pressure to contribute to, and the suggested amount was a lot of money. My parents always coughed up, despite not being able to afford to.

Also, the high-powered parents of kids in the school were very good fundraisers.

The message for kids who failed the 11+ was effectively "you're thick, so you deserve to go to a school that's falling apart and has crap facilities".

Grammar schools benefit the very affluent
Research for the UCL Social Research Institute, University College London found that access to grammar schools is highly skewed by a child’s socioeconomic status (SES) with the most deprived families living in grammar school areas standing only a 6% chance of attending a selective school. In contrast the most affluent families – the top 10% by SES – have a 50% or better chance of attending a grammar. While those pupils at the very top – the 1% most affluent – have an 80% chance of attending a grammar. Read an article summarising the research HERE or the full paper HERE.

Rich people fleecing the state - can you unpack that comment for me. Grammars get the same funding per pupil, so where is the “fleecing”. Rich people usually pay a lot of tax so they’ve contributed for the cost of education. Your comment smacks of envy and inverse snobbery.

There are apparently 22% of kids on FSM in England. 8% of kids on FSM in Grammar. So there is an underrepresentation for sure but not as much as one would have thought.

It gives children more opportunities to get admission points. If you don't have a sibling already there, you can maybe get a point for being the first child to go to a grammar.

But that's not how it works. It's an exam pass or nothing.

Well according to gov.uk, the funding formula is the same for comps and grammar schools.

Parents donating is a different thing - and same happens in state primaries and secondaries - and more so in affluent parts of the UK. Again, you can't legislate against people giving their own money to benefit the entire school (not just their kid). That isn't taxpayers money

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree. I believe there is a space for all sorts of schools and the more choice the better. And making sure the curriculum covers the exams would make it more accessible.

More wealthy people will have more options but that is why wealth is desirable. And it often doesnt cost as much as one might think to support kids to thrive. Almost 1 in 10 kids in grammar schools receive FSM .....that is an insightful stat

@newmummycwharf1 Well, I'll keep fighting to see grammars abolished. They're an obscenely unfair waste of taxpayer's money that produce really lousy outcomes.

They were never about expanding opportunities or social mobility. The attitudes of some of the staff and parents at my school was utterly revolting. It was "I'm alright, Jack, I got my kid in, pull up the drawbridge and fuck everyone else". That's left a very strong impression on me.

Some people here seem to think the only reason kids on FSM don't go to grammar school is because rich kids steal their places. Are there any statistics on how many kids on FSM apply for grammar schools and get the grade needed for entry?

My friend's two daughters go to the same grammar. Both FSM. No tutoring. One loves it and is doing amazing. The other DGAF and is constantly in detention. I doubt a state school would be better for her. It would be cheaper for her mum though.

Maybe in your area. Not mine.

I'm not entirely sure we're talking about the same thing, then. All the state-funded grammar schools I know are all about the exam passes. Where you live or your family history or income are completely irrelevant.

That's unfortunate for the children in your area then. Where I am, some of the schools apply other criteria alongside the grade to enable children from various backgrounds to gain admission.

Henrietta Barnet has a catchment area (those living within 3 miles of the school have priority if they make it through the first round of exam). It is one of the most competitive grammar schools. They also prioritise those on FSM. So clearly it varies

The school I went to at the time had a priority for children who lived in the borough, with only 10 places available each year for those who lived outside, but some typically elitist sharp-elbowed types with loads of money took the council to court, and got that restriction lifted. So that screwed over the local kids.

Cannot find my comment from earlier. My children went to local Grammar Schools. Their friends even now after Uni ,still include friends from our town who didn’t attend grammar but the other secondary schools.
All of these adults are doing really well,my son went on a stag weekend with his best friend who went to the non selective school last week!!It’s the parents that need to be supportive with education!

My oldest child is in year 7 at a grammar. We're in Trafford but he's not at AGSB.
He's autistic, very bright but really struggles socially. The school have been amazing with him, there's a nurture centre and they've made so many reasonable adjustments. He's thriving and really enjoying school.
He was tutored, 1 hour a week during year 5. I genuinely don't think it's fair on a child to expect them to attend somewhere new in exam conditions and be faced with the complete oddity that is NVR without some previous experience, not to mention that the maths in the test is not covered in year 6. If they want to make the test tutor-proof they need to change the test so the basic questions are accessible to a year 5 child.
The alternative school for my son was a genuinely horrendous comp. On the open evening there was a fight between pupils and the police came. They have the ASD offer for the area but the resources were completely unsatisfactory and understaffed. He would have hated it. As he's in a birth boom year the choice was there or an hour on a bus out of area.
My daughter is currently in year 5 and preparing for the 11+. I don't think she'll pass and that's fine, there's no pressure on her and we've made that very clear. She's chosen to take it. She's arty and sporty and confident, and more likely to thrive in any environment. The big difference for her is that there's a lower birth rate for her cohort so she stands a chance of getting into a good comp further away from us, and the local all girls comp is a good option as well.
What this shows to me is that a lot of this is the throw of the dice. There's parental support, scaffolding and trying to manipulate factors as best as possible, but so much is outside my control. Not saying that's right, ethically or politically, but it's the system I live with and I'm not in a position to fight against it. I don't have the energy.

Here. Check this. It's last year's, but it's still interesting. It shows all the grammar schools in England and which give priority to deprived pupils. I.e. FSM, children in care etc.

One example -
Aylesbury Grammar School, Buckinghamshire.
Priority for deprived pupils 2022-23?: High priority - first to be allocated places
Deprived pupils: 4% in the school

So, despite poorer children being given priority, only 4% took up places. All the schools which prioritise disadvantaged children have very low numbers attending. You can't blame the tutored rich kids for that. Then there is Dover Grammar School for Boys in Kent with 17% deprived pupils in the school despite them not being given any priority.

There are many reasons why children from "deprived" backgrounds tend not to go to grammar schools. One reason is they have no interest in going to university. Another is they already know they want to do a particular trade. It's very ignorant to think university followed by a professional career is the goal for everyone, and that it is the rich who are depriving poor people of that. Not everyone wants that life, and they are not failures for not choosing it.

How many children/parents would like to go to a "Grammar School"?

Dunno. 60/70 per cent? Maybe less, I suppose - it doesn't matter.

How many children are able to cope with the academic rigour required?

Maybe 40/50 per cent.

So make 40/50 per cent of schools "Grammar Schools" then.

That way there's no ridiculous tutoring or middle class sharp-elbowing nonsense.

Lets get the academic kids into academic schools and the other kids into schools that suit them equally well.

There's no class divide there.

The whole point being that we get social mobility in a way that has been virtually eradicated bc the top people of whichever political hew are protecting themselves as they always do.

They've had enough of the social mobility of the post war decades bc it threatens their friends and families.

Lets push back against that.

Get the clever working class kids into Grammar Schools so they can challenge the establishment elite and we can have people of influence who actually come from "normal" backgrounds.

Grammar schools for all those who who like to would prevent the country being ruled by the 7 per cent who go to private schools. Most of whom cannot relate to ordinary people's experience.

@HollyKnight "There are many reasons why children from "deprived" backgrounds tend not to go to grammar schools. One reason is they have no interest in going to university. Another is they already know they want to do a particular trade. It's very ignorant to think university followed by a professional career is the goal for everyone, and that it is the rich who are depriving poor people of that. Not everyone wants that life, and they are not failures for not choosing it."

You have a very high opinion of the self knowledge and ability to make sound life choices of 10 year olds.

DS left his SS grammar for Oxbridge 2 years ago, I'd say it's pretty accurate. As an example when a girl's bum got pinched in a corner shop there was a whole school assembly about it. The boys were held to very high standards.

Less than 10% FSM is extremely low in state sector. It's 30% at DD's school.

30% is higher than in the general population of kids - so FSM is over-represented in your DD's school. You would expect under-representation at grammar schools due to intersectionality of social determinants - so not surprising. But based on what was being said, I was surprised it was even close to 1 in 10

It's 6% up from 2% in 2016
From this paper

Hmmm - the paper I saw yesterday mentioned 8.1% FSM in grammars in 2023.

I thought the attached is also interesting - top comps also under represent FSM from the 2024 Sutton paper - but to a lesser degree. And kids on FSM more likely to get lower GCSE grades.

I don't know how we have ended with 1 in 5 families with kids being eligible for FSM, although it seems children are eligible through out school if they have ever been eligible, which may skew the true deprivation slightly. Even so - convinced the answer is economic growth and prosperity so we can all thrive