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).

They were not set up to encourage social mobility.

They were set up because there were not enough people to be managers / upper management from the 'upper class'. It was a means of getting some working class kids to university.

Lots of them had been private schools.

If you are going to select on ability then it should be a selection on ability not on who can pay for a tutor.

They are socially decisive, you are not going to get many looked after children in grammars, you are not going to get many from the local sink estate either.

Education should be about more than qualifications. Being in a school with children from diverse backgrounds adds to a child's education.

I don't believe in streaming children, I think sets work much better so you can be in the top set for one subject a middle set for another and a lower set for a third.

I worked in healthcare for many years, at one stage I was living and working in Oxford, all the junior doctors were Oxford grads, most of them had no idea about real life. Things like a single mother bringing her children to her appointment because it was school holidays.

@sashh "
I don't believe in streaming children, I think sets work much better so you can be in the top set for one subject a middle set for another and a lower set for a third."

I agree. To be fair, I do think many people don't understand the distinction.

Personally, I do think the best solution is sets for purely academic subjects but mixed ability for subjects like drama, PHSE, music and art.

Grammar schools in NI have way more money than secondaries. They are set up differently and charge ‘voluntary contributions’ which aren’t really voluntary. You pay by DD every month and range from about 500 per year to 3000. Many of them really are more like private schools.

I don't think it's the case any more, but at the NI grammar School went to, you could be admitted even if you failed the 11+ if you went as a fee-paying border. So kids from wealthy families boarded for Y7 and if they kept up with the work, their result was reviewed and they were able to attend normally for the rest of their time st school.

Some of the brightest girls in my year were 11+ failures whose parents paid for their access to a grammar school and that more than anything is why I disagree with the system, because there are almost certainly plenty of other kids who would have been just as well suited to a grammar school whose parents couldn't pay for access.

Of course there are other secondary schools! There are far more of them than grammars, only 5-10% go to the grammars.

I live in Kent. There is a small town near me that has a very mixed demographic-including areas of significant social deprivation, and also areas of significant privilege. Nearly all the local children go to either the grammar school or the high school-they are less than a mile apart. It is a wholly selective area-the grammar takes around 25%-so not super selective. The grammar has 9% FSM. The high school 37%. So unless you believe that poor children are objectively less clever than better off ones there are obviously other factors at play.

My point was only that parents all want their kids to get into grammars so where does the contempt come from and when does it start?

For the vast majority, it must only start after the 11+ because I don’t know anyone who chose for their DC not to sit it and I’ve only ever known one person to turn down a place at grammar school for their child. And that was because he hated his own time at grammar, not because of any moral objection.

If the contempt was widespread..

…People wouldn’t tutor their kids because the competition wouldn’t be so fierce. It didn’t exist when I went, you just went along and sat the tests.

…Grammar schools wouldn’t be able to fill the places and they’d lower the pass mark. Whereas what’s actually happening is grammar schools in Kent are becoming even more selective.

I hope you don’t support VAT on private schools because the grammar school will be filling up with prep-school kids and they’ll become even more socially polarising.

@newmummycwharf1 this is the data from Henrietta Barnet

The data for Hampstead School is 42% FSM.

A nearby primary school to Henrietta Barnet has 24% FSM

Sadly being from a very poor home does affect your academic output, not because of IQ but more likelihood of lack of support, more risk of over-crowding etc. Objectively lower GCSEs obtained by those on FSM (47% obtaining a pass in English and Maths versus 75% of those not qualifying). Poverty needs fixing as a priority for education to improve for all

@StormingNorman "
Of course there are other secondary schools! There are far more of them than grammars, only 5-10% go to the grammars."

Not in Kent, which is one of the few remaining wholly selective authorities. In Kent, around 25% go to grammar schools.

A lot of what you say is true but doesn’t explain the absolute vitriol directed who do work with the system they have. As for the tests, they are designed to be untutorable but that only goes so far, obviously, so OP is not too far off the mark saying it’s about getting used to the format (and speed) of the tests! I live in quite a heavy grammar area and all primary schools prep for the tests (two primary schools - state - go so far as to have a separate class in year 5 to concentrate in getting those kids through)!

@StormingNorman "My point was only that parents all want their kids to get into grammars so where does the contempt come from and when does it start?"

Contempt is a ridiculous word to use. You can think the system is unfair and socially divisive without having contempt for grammar schools.

Many people in Kent don't want their children to get into grammars. They want them to go to comprehensive schools. But there aren't any.

It's more like 20 per cent go to grammars in Kent. Yes, there are other secondary schools (lots of them), and they may say "comprehensive" over the door, but they are not true comps.

There are no top sets in these Kent schools - the children who would be top set are all at the grammars. This is pretty detrimental. Children who narrowly missed out on a grammar place, or those whom are later developers have nowhere to progress to. Not much to aspire to, and less expectation of what they can achieve. And these are children who have as much potential as many of those in the grammars. My sister was such a one, and her path to university was much, much harder than mine at a grammar.

I’m from Kent and I can categorically tell you there are schools for the children who don’t get in to grammar schools.

Henrietta Barnet is easily top 3 grammar in the country. Previously people came from even as far as the Midlands and beyond. The changes with regards to catchment are new (last 2-3 years). And given the competition I am not surprised the FSM representation is so low but may well be higher than it was.

My understanding is the FSM/catchment options kick in after round 1, with round 1 picking the top 300 (100 spaces per year in the school). Almost 3000 sat round 1 in 2019!

Me too, they are not comprehensive schools.

Lots of people turn down the grammar where I live. We did. I want my son to also be a good human, and I didn't get the impression they cared about that at all at the grammar. And bullying, especially by race, is rampant at the boys grammar. Luckily the comp my son got into is excellent and I believe he is receiving a far better all round education there. There are a number of boys in his year who transferred from the grammar after year 7 for these reasons. They have 4% FSM, but 40% came from private education in my son's year (it is, apparently, higher now for private).
This isn't Kent btw.

@StormingNorman "I’m from Kent and I can categorically tell you there are schools for the children who don’t get in to grammar schools."

Eh? Who said there weren't? <baffled emoticon>

Many around here turn down grammars including HBS for a more rounded education including choosing private schools. There just needs to be options, choice and less poverty so people have true choice

I can'[t remember if it was you or Holly posting about FSM in your SS in London, presumably similar to Startmer's son's. London is one of high density with rich alongside very poor. Starmer's son's school has a FSM of 6%, the next school along has 44%. How is that fair that one half of the catchment is put under so much more pressure to raise kids education? It is the very opposite of social mobility. If grammars were abolished that area could have 2 schools with a far more even split of kids rather than a segregated divide.

Once again, grammars remove choice. If you fail the 11+ you can only go to poorly performing schools.

I went to a grammar school myself and if I ever have children, I would never consider sending them to one.

The mentality in them is just beyond toxic and I'm surprised I got out alive! I'd never want to put an innocent child through that!

Totally agree. I am in Ireland with a very different education system but my dd1 is dyslexic which means she can struggle in some subjects but excels in others. In Ireland each subject for Leaving cert (A level equivalent) is higher, ordinary or foundation level. They have to do 7 subjects. Their level changes subject to subject so you could be in higher level maths but ordinary level English and so on. My dd1 is higher level for most subjects but ordinary level bordering foundation level for German which she really struggles with. Kids have different strengths in different subjects which needs to be accounted for.

Dramatic much

So you can be a middle class parent who grew up in an area without grammar schools but if you move to an area with grammar schools your child would still get points for being the first?