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).

You can't have proper comprehensives if you also have grammar schools. They are mutually exclusive.

Yes, of course, if you only cream off a few kids into a super selective, then the secondary modern schools will still have a lot of very clever children in them, so it might not make a huge difference in practice. And of course, those that do get into the super selectives may not be the brightest ones in any case, they may simply have had more tuition. But the brighter children in the secondary modern schools may well miss out as a result of having fewer of their bright peers learning alongside them.

And of course, scrapping grammar schools won't fix the problems associated with chronic underfunding of mainstream schools, but that isn't the point. For people who are opposed to grammar schools on principle because they see them as inherently unfair, there is a value in scrapping them anyway.

Is it rigging the system or is it caring about your children's education? Many families don't get FSM but would probably be classed as lower income and see grammars as a way of investing in their child's education. It really doesn't take intense tutoring, if your child is grammar material they should be learning at a year ahead of their age, read widely and only need support to learn how to sit and exam, that is it. It costs nothing.

"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."

Who will fund the tuition in primary schools in disadvantaged areas? Those with already overstretched staff? Who will ensure that extra tuition and 'exam prep' isn't being given to those rich kids outside of 'all primary schools'? If your child is 'super-bright' then why the need for tuition? They're either bright or they're not.

I just want someone, anyone to at least acknowledge that tutoring is a disadvantage to poorer children!

@Overthemenopause if you have no money or are low income how are the children going to read widely? If they come from a low aspirational family do you really think they have exactly the same chance of getting into a grammar school than from a wealthy, well educated family?

@Overthemenopause and if your parents don't care about education, shouldn't we be giving those children the best opportunities we can to help them get out of that mindset.

Libraries ("but they're all shutting down!" I hear you cry, borrowbox, school library...)
Schools manage to find the resources to hot house their students through the SATS it wouldn't take much more effort to give a little bit more support to the few with grammar potential. Set them with a thesaurus and a task to use a challenging word in a sentence, help them find more challenging books in the school library, find some past paper links and give them to the parents.

But it didn't work. In the days when grammars were common, only 25% of kids left school with any qualifications at all. The comprehensive system came about because grammars were becoming increasingly unpopular, and the education system wasn't producing people with the skills needed for the boom in white collar employment in the 60s and 70s.

You can't parent the parents. Attitudes like yours of "oh those poor poor people can't help themselves" is really patronising.

What would make a difference is scrapping the private school system and grammar. I would definitely agree with that but I don’t recognise the grammar school system from the accounts in this thread. My children’s grammar has a very diverse mix of students and has given children from lower income brackets a chance to move forward. The exam they sit is not really one you can tutor for so that has eliminated the problem of hot housing to a huge degree from the start. I was not opposed to sending the kids to our local comprehensive by any means, in fact it has many plus points but it is their education and their choice. Yes, in an ideal world neither private or grammar should exist but no system is perfect and I think if you are advocating for removing grammars you can’t do so without advocating for removal of fee-paying schools.

"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."

And if that's the case, why are so many paying for it for years and years? Or is it because their children aren't quite as clever as they'd like everyone to believe?

It's because their children aren't clever, they won't admit it, but it's true. They're not tutoring to pass the exam they're tutoring things like the expanded vocabulary that a naturally bright child would absorb with ease.

@Trixiefirecracker Now, I completely disagree with you on private schools. I think they have every right to exist. You can spend your own money on whatever you damn well like. What I object to is state funding of an unfair and elitist system that the already well off use to protect their privilege. That is exactly what happens with grammar schools.

I think that a state school that gets excellent results by excluding 90% of pupils is a really offensive concept.

@Overthemenopause do you work in a school with high FSM?

I think you'll find that state primary schools don't have time for that before the SATS and it would only be relevant for a small minority of their class any way. However, I would say post SATS would be a great time for extension beyond the curriculum. However the test protocols are very different to normal assessment and would very much be 'niche'.
Also, many schools both secondary and primary are really struggling funding wise. Many, many school libraries have disappeared and their buildings are crumbling. (I speak as a secondary teacher that has no heating in the winter and has been rejected for funding bids to remedy that three years in a row.) There really is very little slack in the system.

Tbh, I would love to get rid of fee paying schools. However, for me, equality of opportunity within the state sector is a higher priority. Taxpayers' money should not be used to perpetuate inequality.

I am very sceptical about your claim that the exam used by your children's school cannot be tutored for. I would like to know more about the assessment used. The same claim has often been made about the 11+ but none of the evidence that I've seen seems to actually back that up.

"It's because their children aren't clever, they won't admit it, but it's true. They're not tutoring to pass the exam they're tutoring things like the expanded vocabulary that a naturally bright child would absorb with ease."

So, therefore by being richer they are shoehorning a rich child into a school and thus disadvantaging a poorer, cleverer, naturally bright child because of money?

So essentially their money steals a place from a more deserving child?

I think you are massively over simplifying things. It is way more than just academics. The gap in attainment is already there before children even start primary school. I have a child at one of the hardest to get into grammars- the idea that it is an equal playing field is farcical. Not only are the children all bright but they have been involved in a huge range of confidence boosting extra curriculars for years and have well educated parents with plenty of resources and most have stable home environments that are conducive to learning. Plus all the tutoring! My child's school has FSM as one of the first criteria in event of a tie breaker for places- but they still have to get the score, this year in top 10% to get in.

In the 60s people didn't really use tutors so it was a genuine test of ability. My Mum got in from a really poor background and had friends that did.

Also about 1/3rd went to grammars in the 60s whereas some areas now have 1 grammar serving a whole county. It's really just private school by the back door - kids who are bright but their parents don't support their education don't stand a chance.

https://www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/

If you really want a free resource and a full insight into how invested parents are in their children's education, this forum is a bit bat shit crazy.

Primary schools are not allowed to coach for the 11+ (I know some do- and some get into trouble for doing it) because it is supposed to be an unsociable test. Which we all know is ridiculous. But the problem with coaching is that children who are already being coached get more. And parents would complain about resources being used on grammar possibles.

I've said this before, and got pasted for it-but I'm happy to say it again. Show me a Reception class on their first day, before any baseline testing, and I will show you with a worrying degree of accuracy the ones who will go on to pass the 11+.

Or you could argue people patronise poor people by telling them their attainment will be low because they happen to live on the sink estate. It's been said a lot on this thread but success is really frowned upon in this country. When I was at primary school my teachers didn't adapt their language to the age group they spoke fluently and using complex words and phrases, it was down to us to say we didn't understand and to ask what they meant.

My experience with my children was that education is dumbed down (we aren't in an affluent area) and put in our boxes, there was no academic challenge it was all very much "you're poor, your kids won't thrive, we expect them to behave like little shits, we'll treat you as such". It's an attitude I'm reading on this thread too. Know your place poors.

We have a similar one just for NI and it is dominated by the middle class parents who are clued in. You can even see it when the working class parents come on and don't know the basics about how the scoring works or what schools are even an option. There is a complete knowledge gap because they haven't been through the system themselves, and certainly don't know all the tricks of the trade in relation to extra time and special circumstances and how to play the system.

Having worked in all types of these schools, I can categorically tell you that grammar school kids are clever. The tuition, especially in areas where the exam is designed to not require tuition, tends to focus on making sure the year 6 curriculum has been covered (which I actually think is the biggest barrier for state school kids who attend schools which aren’t actively prepping for the exams) and exam technique which is becoming more and more important in some areas where the exam is getting more and more difficult to try and mitigate the effects of the influx of kids from Hong Kong who are miles ahead of their peers in maths.

You can spot smart kids early doors, no one likes to hear it because 90% of children just aren't smart!