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).

I think if Starmer actually wanted better education for all he would be shutting them down. You can't pretend he isn't using it to advantage his family and saving a fortune in private fees. It would make an immediate difference to thousands of children across the country, let alone in the poorest areas of London, if these schools were opened up and facilities used across the board. It could change the prices of houses in some areas though, including his own, so he obviously won't.

If you shut them down and make private schools unaffordable all you're going to do is create ghettos of schools full of high performing middle class kids and ghettos or sink estates. Essentially a more exaggerated version of what we see now.

The rich kids from the grammar will spread across the schools and perform well as they would do anywhere. All you are doing is stopping elite schools on the taxpayers money creaming off the rich. The whole area would have a more balanced bunch of children and school results.

As a pp said, I don't care if these rich families want to spend their money on private schools, I don't think they should be penalised for taking their kids out of the state system as it frees up space and cash for those needing it.

It shows how little you understand what you're talking about. People will always want their child to go to the best possible school, what they will do is ramp up house prices near the top performing comprehensive schools and create unofficial private and grammar schools. You're naive if you think otherwise, utopia doesn't exist anywhere but in a socialists mind.

They would do what the rest of the country does, yes some schools achieve higher than others but you wouldn't have segregation and selection on a mass scale.

Yes you would. People want the best for them and their families and will spend the money to do so. Are you telling me you will live by your principles and accept the local school for your children if it were the worst in the county or would you be a hypocrite and move?

I have done.
People in the grammar system live in houses in wealthy areas already. Why the catchment area would change overnight is beyond me. It just means the barriers for entry would be removed.

All grammar schools or just certain systems? Not all counties with grammar schools are created equally.

@Overthemenopause not sure what you mean about catchments exhausting the children?

@mathsAIoptions so which is 'least worst' given they're not realistically going to be shut down/ made to go comprehensive?

I don't really know what I think. It would still
be a v competitive process, no guarantees that my son would get a place if priority areas came in and restricted the overall numbers applying.

Lack of catchments exhausts the children.

If Labour can tax education then I don't see why it can't be done. You can't say one selective school on the parent's dime is worse than the same but more rigorously selective to keep out the poor on the taxpayers. It becomes too ideologically shaky.
They'll be making the laws as has been shown with VAT so I would never say never.

88% of children go to comprehensive schools. They work just fine. It's a bit ridiculous saying "getting rid of grammars will ruin everything and make injustices worse" when most people don't live in areas that have them anyway.

I grew up in an area where competition for grammar places was absolutely brutal and the kids were ultimately the victims. There was very little social cohesion, a huge amount of nasty snobbery and the town was for many years represented by an absolute scumbag Tory MP who frequently said extremely nasty things about the lower orders.

Where I live now, everyone just goes to the local comprehensive school. It'll be outing to me if I say who went there, but they have some very high powered alumni, more so than the grammar I went to. The area is also socially much nicer. People are much more friendly and welcoming, will do more for you, and there's good community spirit around the schools. It's a world apart from the horrible snobbery, fearmongering and brutality I was exposed to.

My issue with grammar schools is that I think it is absolutely ridiculous to decide at age 10 who will be able to do well academically i.e that this kid will be able to get 8/9 at GCSE and As and A*s at A level 6 and 8 years later (as that is all they are selecting for). Ok many naturally bright people will stand out at this age, but equally, I have seen many, many kids who were written off as average, or even below par at 11+ turn out to do very, very well academically and go to the exact same universities and get the same degrees as the ones that were deemed grammar school material.

Equally, I've seen lots of kids that were heavily tutored for 11+ flunk out at 16 and not even make it to sixth form as they either weren't actually academic enough or didn't care enough about academic work and exams as it was their parents ambition, not theirs.

10/11 is too young to select imo and also risks demotivating kids that don't get through selection, as maybe not mature enough yet or scared of exams, but could have gone on to do really well (amd often do in their non grammar schools).

I feel the same way about academic and sports scholarships at private schools as well. 10/11 is too young to categorise kids and write some off. It also puts a huge pressure on kids who might be happy to work for hours in the evening, practice an instrument for hours, get up at the crack of dawn every day to swim etc etc at 10/11/12/13 because mummy and daddy want them to, but then find their interests have completely changed at 15/16 and they are stuck on a track they may not enjoy or be suited to.

@smogsville It's pretty obvious - if the school doesn't enforce a catchment area, and is deemed to be particularly good, you'll get kids commuting from ridiculous distances. There were kids at my school with journeys in well in excess of an hour. They really suffered.

I have multiple objections to grammar schools.

1. I object to the principle of deciding that children are "failures" at the age of 11 and deciding which track they are on from such an early age on the basis of such a spurious exam. And yes, they will feel that they have "failed", no matter how it is dressed up.
2. Tutoring definitely makes a difference to 11+ performance without a shadow of a doubt, so the system unfairly advantages the parents who can afford to pay for extra help and/or those who are confident and competent to help themselves.
3. Some kids are very bright but late bloomers, yet they may miss the chance at 11 and end up in the "wrong" school for their ability.
4. Kids who are heavily tutored and/or precocious rather than bright often struggle in the grammar system. This can destroy their self confidence over time.
5. Not all kids have a nice balanced profile. Some may be extremely good at maths but rubbish at English or vice versa. They need schools that can cater to their individual needs in every subject.
6. The presence of grammar schools automatically results in the presence of secondary modern schools, which often don't typically cater particularly well to those who have "failed" to get into the grammar - most parents who support the grammar system assume that their kids will get into the grammar, there aren't that many clamouring for more secondary modern schools.
7. I am actually a huge fan of comprehensive education with appropriate setting use of setting by subject. Children learn to appreciate and value the fact that different people have different areas of strength and weakness, e.g. the kid who struggles with maths might be an amazing artist/sports player, the kid who struggles to write a coherent sentence might be an incredibly kind and thoughtful friend etc.
8. We all have to live together within one society. The more we mix with a range of different people when we're younger, the more empathy and understanding we're likely to have when we are older.

As I said, some areas still have that system, most don't!

@Overthemenopause got it thanks

On balance I think we would be better off as a country without any form of selective education be it private or state and then streaming and proper support for SEN so everyone's needs inc the most able are catered for. It's how they do it Switzerland acc to my friend who moved there with her family a couple of years ago. But they value education as a country and spend accordingly. Teachers respected, salaries reflecting this etc.

Yes that's the other issue. If every region had a full choice of grammar, state, church and independent school I'd have less of an issue with grammr schools. But its a postcide lottery whether of not you live in a grammar school area, which is fundamentally unfair. And leads to all kinds of social problems like 10s of 1000s of people trying to get their kids into out of area grammar schools, forcing out local kids and artificially pushing up house prices etc.

Genuinely interested to know what options you have at the school you’re talking about please? Does your grammar offer things like childcare etc as well as academic subjects? Is the take up high?

I know what I know from my own grammar school days, that’s true. I also know from my child’s friends grammar school options. So that would be my sphere of reference.

If you’d like to show me what I don’t know I’m happy to hear rather than a slightly sneery comment please!

For the billonth time, grammar schools do not improve choice. If you fail the 11+, you're immediately excluded from the best schools.

@Shortfatsuit Brilliant list, I agree completely.

Lol yes! And CurlewKate who made the same point.

Reflecting on this has actually given me a clue to the answer to the question of the thread title. Secondary school is a double whammy, in emotional terms, for most of us. Our own time there encompasses perhaps the most turbulent years in our lives. Many people look back on those years from 12 to 16 as a real maelstrom, emotionally, academically, socially, family-ly (iyswim). That all gets tangled up into our experience of school.

Then, if/when we have kids, we're suddenly struck by a feeling of responsibility towards giving them a positive, formative education, and the best possible opportunity. We don't want to let them down.

That causes anxiety, which gets compounded on top of our existing highly charged associations ... and the result is a weird cocktail of fear, self-justification, hope, defensiveness and, as the OP noted, contempt. It's a mess!

What? Did you read my post? Thats exactky my point. I'm anti grammar schools. I dont think they improve choice. But it would at least be a BIT LESS unfair if everyone at least had a chancero even apply. Same with church schools, which are actually discriminatory and it constantly astounds me that they are still able to exclude kids at 3/4 based on their parents stated religion, or lack there of.

Sorry, got the wrong end of the stick there. The fairest option, of course, would be 100% secular comprehensive education. If you want anything else, pay for it yourself.