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).

Nail on the head!

@crumblingschools "
As such it should be down to the schools to support them to create an equitable access to local school provision."

Is it? Personally, I think it's up to the government in power to do that. How is a school supposed to mitigate an inherently unfair system? And what are they going to take resources away from do it?

@Overthemenopause are you now not being patronising about certain parents, or are we both being realistic about certain demographics

When I sat the 11+ and went to grammar school it was very much about the brightest children being selected. At my primary school everyone did the practice tests, everyone was taught the verbal reasoning, and everyone sat the actual tests. No-one in my class was having extra tutoring, the closest we came was revision/test books from WHSmith. In my year, out of 60+ children 4 of us passed.

From my experience with my youngest daughter, even 10years ago, it's a very different kettle of fish now. The skills needed to pass are no longer practiced in primary school and unless the parent is very dedicated and has the right sort of mind (because you do need a particular kind of mind for the actual tests), if you can't afford tutoring then the child has an extremely low chance of even sitting the 11+ let alone passing. It's no longer something that everyone has a chance at, which makes it feel much more elitist.
*disclaimer : as was my Dad before me when he went to grammar school, I was firmly in the working class, we could not have afforded for me to have tutoring. Luckily I have the kind of brain that does well in both Maths and Verbal reasoning.

I would also, from experience with my daughters classmates, say that it's not always the brightest children that passed and those that had had lots of tutoring struggled to keep up in the actual grammar school.

Anyway if it went back to how it was when I was 11 and the generations before, it would feel a lot less elitist to many

exception to the rule.

Ah-are we starting to talk about grammar schools to protect the "well spoken" children from the hoi polloi? At last-some honesty!!

I'd say you don't even need to see the kid, just the parents salary and occupation. You can predict in utero bar any SEN.

My kids went to the local comp. One is now a doctor and the other a vet student. Their friends are lawyers, doctors, accountants etc. Some are also plumbers and electricians (v v useful), car mechanics and hairdressers. All lovely humans who are friends because they went to school together.

My priority would be to get rid of poverty - at least to reduce it. I don't know how anyone is comfortable with living in a G7 country where 1 in 5 qualify for free school meals (I.e. less than 16k household income/income support). And then whatever is so fantastic at Grammar schools, work to bring comps to that level where they are not. Some clearly are amazing and there are loads of examples of comps that are great but again fewer FSM children go to these amazing comps

We can't be distracted - the economy needs to grow!

You deliberately missing the point that kids from deprived backgrounds rarely get the same chances to get in. It's an elite system that parents should pay for as a selective school.

No one seems to have countered why grammar parents shouldn't reimburse their kid's school fees to their area to support the poorer kids and pre-schools. £7.6k pa is a snip and most parents at grammars would afford that without batting an eyelid, FSM would be excepted. That would go some way to enable mobility by funding the other schools properly, helping pre-schoolers and would re-balance the fact the rich kids are gaming the system.

Yes 3 out of 4 who passed in DD’s primary class I could have called from first weeks of reception. All able readers with professional parents. All 3 now predicted A*/A and off to study medicine etc.
The other one was tutored heavily.
In our area which isn’t super selective - pass in catchment is 75% mark. Strong reading is key inc classics for vocab. They need someone to teach them yr 6 maths as they are tested on all yr 6 maths curriculum 3 weeks into yr 6. They also need to be familiar with test format and exam technique to get speed up. Beyond that it’s not school for them if they need years of tuition.
My mum passed in 50s and was tutored within her state primary school, those grammar likely were taught with yr above and had extra classes with headmaster.

I'm not. The reason they're not getting the opportunity is because it's not being created. Perhaps if the grammars worked with the local primaries the same way catchment secondaries do they could diversity their intake. Just because something is a barrier doesn't mean it can't be overcome.

Because grammar parents aren't all wealthy. Many may not be on FSM but may very well be on the cusp of it and put everything into their children.

Again, bollocks. A good comprehensive doesn’t have this issue at all. A good comprehensive can be highly regarded in the community and appeal and give access to kids and parents from all backgrounds. That’s the whole point.

Tutoring doesn’t make an average child pass the test, the child needs to be especially bright to start with. And motivated. There are plenty of ressources online to practice, and cheaper tutors online, parents could set aside time to help them, etc.

Also, about how taking the highest achieving 5-10% of pupils from an area is disadvantaging the rest of the children: even if it were true, it is not for them to sacrifice their education to help others! They are not going to school to help their peers, they are there to get the best education possible - and before someone says it: explaining something might help to consolidate the knowledge… but that is true once in a while, not if done weekly/daily!

Especially as it is not just about grades but attitude as well - why on earth would someone disadvantage motivated and well behaved children by forcing them to study with others who misbehave in class, on the off chance that the good behaviour will rub off.
If a school is not great (grades, antisocial behaviour, lack of PTA…), the parents there could do something instead of trying to force other parents to join the school and do it for them!

@mathsAIoptions No one seems to have countered why grammar parents shouldn't reimburse their kid's school fees to their area to support the poorer kids and pre-schools

I guess no one is answering because the question doesn’t make sense: why should they? Education is paid for by taxing the general population : parents of state/grammar/private school kids and child-free adults all pay towards it already.
As a country it makes perfect sense to give the best education possible to children with great academic potential, why drag them down? Not in the country’s best interest.

@MademoiselleRose "Tutoring doesn’t make an average child pass the test, the child needs to be especially bright to start with."

Are you suggesting that disadvantaged children are never "especially bright"?

Grammar supporters tend to shuffle their feet awkwardly and turn away when asked difficult questions. With a few honourable exceptions!

"Tutoring doesn’t make an average child pass the test, the child needs to be especially bright to start with"

No one is saying it does. What it does do is takes two children, both of equal intelligence but unequal financial backing and gives the advantage to the child with the money. If tutoring made no difference then Mummy & Daddy Moneybags wouldn't pay for it!

I have got the money to pay for it but there are no grammars or selective schools in my area and my sons intelligent and bright enough to not need it, but I'm also not daft enough, nor is my head buried in any sand so I am quite aware that tutoring, which costs money, is an advantage or it would not be so popular.

As a country it makes perfect sense to give the best education possible to children with great academic potential, why drag them down? Not in the country’s best interest.

I agree with this but don't think the grammar system achieves it unless you think the children with great academic potential are coincidentally the ones with the parents who provide the best coaching.

It’s like IQ test, you’re not supposed to practice as it will be advantageous. It’s one thing preparing kids for the test by showing the layout of a previous paper etc… but some people spend years practicing.

I think you’re wrong, an average child with 3 years of hot housing will certainly have a good chance at passing the test. It’s the practice that takes them to the level to be able to pass. That’s the problem, they scrape in and then can’t cope with the workload as the reason they got in on the first place wasn’t on pure ability. Then children who would be more suitable and more capable don’t get a look in because their parents can’t afford to hot hosue.

There will be children that won’t pass the test, regardless of how much help they get, but they will have below average ability.

Also the grammas schools explicitly state they don’t require students to do any prep because they know it inflates their ability and isn’t a reflection of their actual ability.

Last thing, if it’s irrelevant and you can’t make an average child pass by tutoring- then why do people bother tutoring in the first place? They do it because they know it’s advantageous.

I think you’re wrong, an average child with 3 years of hot housing will certainly have a good chance at passing the test. It’s the practice that takes them to the level to be able to pass

I agree with this. We looked at tutoring for our son to get into the local super selective and some of the tutor's results are amazing (in the 90% for the kids getting in if you start at the beginning of year 3) but it's also crazy amounts of work. I think some people are picturing an hour a week at the tutor's kitchen table but the one we went to see it's two hours a week in years 3 and 4 the four hours a week in year 5 - with about the same again in homework.

100% can take an average child way past a super bright but untutored kid. I also looked at lots of past papers - there is an absolute knack to them that definitely can be taught.

I like to think I'm an exception to this! But my view with disadvantaged intelligent children is to throw everything at them in school to get them into the best schools in their area. If that is a grammar school then help them into it, if the local private school offer 100% scholarships then help them onto one. If you're a motivated teacher then partner up with these schools and get them in and engaging with these students, many do DofE and may have 6th formers who can do tutoring/TAing as their volunteer time.

I went to a shitty comprehensive and was one of those 'top 10%' that's supposedly there to encourage the others. Well let me tell you - it doesn't. The top 10% experiences:

• Being ignored by the teachers because you can get on with the work yourself, you're not struggling, you're not shouting, you speak English and basically you're the least of their worries.
• Being victimised and bullied as a swot, a try hard etc when there is no culture of curiosity or care for education. In fact there's actively a culture of anti-intellectualism.
• Not getting recognition from the school because instead of giving the prizes to the most able students they focus on encouraging the kid who wouldn't normally read but has started visiting the library or the kid who hasn't thrown a chair for a whole fortnight.
• Being bored because the work is easy and you're not stretched or challenged at all.
• Working hard and not getting pieces of work marked (many, many, many times - both homework and classwork) because the teacher is overstretched, fed up or whatever else reason.
• Not getting to go on educational trips and activities because the behaviour of the class is too poor.
• Not having any interesting extra curriculars like a school newspaper, debating team, robotics club, model UN etc because there simply aren't enough students who are interested and absolutely no culture for academia.
• Having fewer likeminded friends.

Etc. The most able students don't benefit from being in the mixed educational settings, in my experience. Whereas my kids, who go to grammars, have the total opposite experience. Their friends are bright and the school really values learning. All the kids work hard on their homework and want to do well in tests and exams. They go on supplementary trips and do fun activities in school (that don't get ruined by the troublemakers) and the whole ethos is completely different. Behavioural issues are very, very minor and expectations of the children are high. Parental engagement is high so the expectations on teachers to mark, report etc are there and they get held to a high standard. And no, not all the parents are rich or middle class, and the school has a far more diverse mix than the local comp in terms of ethnicities. I'm so glad they have this experience and environment and I think we should have far more grammar schools. I think all education should be streamed.

They weren't tutored to get in but we did do some practice papers at home so they'd be familiar with what was being asked of them in the test and not have to work it out for themselves on the day, since the test is so tightly timed.

It's always a bloody race to the bottom when people talk about education - we don't want private schools, we don't want grammar schools, just throw all the kids in a big melting pot so nobody gets jealous or hurt feelings. How about instead we just cater to individual groups in the way that best suits them? Kids who aren't ever going to be academic - let's give them skills that they can use. Kids that are musical or creative or sports, let's find ways to enhance and explore opportunities in those areas. Instead of trying to create silly taxes on private schools that won't affect the wealthy anyway, let's try to make more state schools like private schools. Let's look at what they do and demand public money for those opportunities for OUR children too. Don't demand that other people don't get what they've got - demand more for everyone.

I don't agree that bright, motivated kids are shunned in comprehensive schools at all. This is a bit of a myth.

There was one very bright girl at dc's school that struggled with friendships etc, and perhaps her parents assumed that it was because she was clever, but it actually had much more to do with her poor social skills and lack of self awareness, e.g. constantly boasting to others about how clever she was. Other, equally clever children behaved differently and didn't have any social issues. Quite the contrary, actually - dd always felt that "being clever" was something that was admired by her peers as long as she wasn't smug about it.

The timing of your post is impeccable.