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 wouldn’t be as against grammar schools of it was based on innate ability so then bright kids from less privileged backgrounds would have some chance.

The fact the majority of kids are tutored (some for years) just makes a mockery of it all really.

In an ideal world they would not allow any private tuition and if it was found out the child did have it then they’d lose their place. Obviously that would be impossible to police but you get my gist.

I agree.

Personally, I think faith schools are just as much of a problem. In our closest town, we have two huge faith schools, one a catholic and the other a CofE both Ofsted marked as outstanding and both growing. Of course, the engaged/aspirational parents "find" religion to get enough points to get their kids into one of the faith schools. The result is that the other two comps in the town are where the "parents who don't care" send their kids, which are Ofsted marked as required improvement and inadequate respectively.

If people want grammars scrapped then I think faith schools needs to be scrapped too, in fact, all "choice" should be scrapped and it should be compulsory for kids to go to their nearest comp - that's the only way to ensure it's "fair", but even that doesn't deal with the situation where parents move home to get into the catchment areas of the good schools. Just scrapping grammars is the politics of envy if people are happy to leave all other aspects of school choice unchanged!

Yeah, if grammar schools genuinely did what people claim they do, the admission process was fair, and secondary moderns were properly resourced and managed, I'd be fine with them.

However, none of those things are in place.

Agree, I would scrap the lot and only have fully comprehensive state schools. And if I could find a viable way of doing away with selection by postcode, I would do that as well.

Back in the day, when grammars were common in every town, that wasn't the case. People didn't need to tutor. All the primary kids took the 11+ as a "normal" day in primary school and the test was based on what they'd learned in class. Something like a third went to grammar, and two thirds to sec-mods. We didn't have the same pressure to tutor etc.

Such a shame that we didn't change the way it worked rather than just chucking away that system. We could have found a fairer/better way to select children for each, we could have improved the sec-mods so that pupils could do more academic subjects there (and O levels), we could have made pathways to change between the different types for children who were in the wrong one. But no, we just threw away a system that actually worked for the majority.

There are two systems. The one you are objecting to and super selectives where intake really is only the brightest or the bright and the other schools in the county remain as comprehensives. Super selectives are good at what they do and my personal view is this is the system that should be available around the country.

@Overthemenopause does everyone no matter their level of income have the option of going to a super selective grammar school?

@crumblingschools If you think the preparation for "ordinary" grammar schools is intense, the preparation for super selectives would blow your mind!

It's true what previous posters have said about secondary moderns being the choice in areas where grammar schools exist. Where I lived when DC were school age it was a choice between the grammar and the local comp. The exam results at the comp were dire, only 10% of exam entrants scored a C at best. I couldn't send my DC there because unlike the common held belief that bright kids do well anywhere, that is not always the case. Some kids are bright but lazy as were mine. Had they gone to the comp they would have turned in the bare minimum every time, they didn't do much more than that even at the grammar. They weren't tutored, I got a couple of practice books from Smiths and they did them at home. I felt physically sick making them take the entrance exam and appalled that we had to play the system due to choices on offer. The remaining grammars need to be scrapped and proper investment made in true comprehensive provision for all. The whole system is riddled with inequality and underfunding and it's a national disgrace how much talent is left untapped and written off so early.

Yes. It basically means they have no entrance score but you have to be within the top 90 children to get a place. Traditionally they had no catchment area which made them even more sought after but a lot have now introduced one because the commutes were detrimental to child welfare and the school community.

Just looked up The Judd School, 2.7% FSM so I’m guessing not @Overthemenopause

Only because they're a scarce resource. If every county had them then it wouldn't be such an intense process.

Of course not. Because they're only in certain areas l, where theres onlt a few grammar schools, house prices are artificially high and the kids have to be tutored to within an inch of their lives as they are so over subscribed they're only taking the top couple of percent. I dont think that was the original intention of the grammar school system (and that still exists in other counties) where a third or so were expexted to go to (standard) grammar schools.

You're right, we're actually talking about 2 different tupes of grammar school systems.

I really think people's arguments for removing grammars are equally argument for increasing their numbers.

I’d like to see some proof of this. Again not my experience and I work closely with a lot of local schools.

You did…

“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”.

Pulled one at random off the top schools list

https://www.crgs.co.uk/141/pupil-premium-information#

Over 5% here.

Instead of complaining about the grammar schools, we should be trying to improve the comprehensives. The existing grammars are not the problem, the problem is there are not enough resources being pumped in to the mainstream school system or enough teaching staff/funding. Closing grammars will not make any difference to this.

"There are two systems. The one you are objecting to and super selectives where intake really is only the brightest or the bright and the other schools in the county remain as comprehensives. Super selectives are good at what they do and my personal view is this is the system that should be available around the country."

How will you ensure that richer families don't just pay for brains, shoulder barging their way in through intense tutoring? So that the genuinely super-bright from all walks of life do get in and not just the kids whose only mantra in life is 'practice, prepare & perfect'?

@StormingNorman
I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse. Not sure why. There are no COMPREHENSIVE schools in Kent.

By normalising tuition or support for bright children in all primary schools which used to happen. Teachers know which children will likely thrive in a grammar environment but they're not allowed to help them with exam prep. A lot of 11+ exams though are designed to not be able to be tutored for so it really is just exam prep that's needed.

At the very least it should be recognised that the wealthy parents are segregating their kids for their benefit. To this end I personally think kids in selective schools who aren't FSM should pay back the £7.6k pa they take from the system per child to rig it in their favour. It's still remarkably cheap compared to private school and would generate a lot more than VAT on them will. Then they can feel they've done the right thing by paying back into a pot they've gamed to try to help the other schools in the catchment area. If you want to keep the segregation, would that be more palatable?

As I mentioned earlier. A grammar and a high school near me less than a mile apart. Exactly the same catchment. Grammar has 9% FSM. The high school 37%.

@Overthemenopause in contrast Colchester Academy has 39% FSM