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).

Our local one is 3% free school meals.

31% English not first language. 2% Black, 32% White, 45% Asian.

Grammar schools educate a low proportion of disadvantaged pupils and a high proportion of pupils who previously attended private schools
The Sutton Trust published research which stated that the relatively low proportion of grammar pupils eligible for FSM attending grammar schools cannot be explained by the location of the schools, or by differences in the prior attainment of disadvantaged pupils. At the other end of the scale, they claim grammar schools take a relatively large proportion of their pupils from independent primary schools. In 2016 the Sutton Trust estimated this rate at around 11%, nearly double the proportion of pupils aged 10 who attended independent schools that year. Read more HERE.

There needs to be a means tested fee introduced in my opinion, with home visits to stop people gaming the system. I bet a lot of these people get very angry at people on benefits too.

Funny. My 1 dc had a few books from Amazon. Went to a sink estate junior school. Some kids are naturally brighter than others.

I went to grammar, my brother did, my dad did and my mother did. Something tells me genetics might be at play here too!

Inheritance can be inherited to a point but plenty of studies show that can go up with increasing wealth. Attainment for poor families increases when they have better financial stability.

Access to grammar schools is strongly graded by family background.
Children from the poorest families are substantially less likely to attain a place even when they have high academic achievement at age 11. Read more HERE.

So, as per the OP's initial post, we're right back to it being "bad" for children to get a better academic education, but apparently still fine for children to be "advantaged" in other ways, such as the specialist arts, music, sports schools, and of course, by having parents who are already in the "industry" of arts, music, acting, sports, who "know" people. You simply can't eradicate advantage and there'll never be a level playing field. Life isn't fair, and people need to accept it. Engaged parents will always find ways to do the best for their kids, whether it's an academic education, using "contacts" in sports, arts, etc., or whatever other ways they can. Funny there isn't an outpouring of anger when a football player gets their child into a prestigious football academy, or an actor gets their kid into a top acting school, isn't it?

@MuseKira I have absolutely no problem with kids being in top sets. My problem is with those top sets being in a different building that you can only access by taking a test at the age of 10. And yes, I agree that life isn't fair. However, I don't think society should deliberately make it less fair. And I don't think that people with privilege should be handed more privilege.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mailplus/article-13488285/state-school-property-boom-Experts-say-Labour-VAT-fees-use-interactive-guide-prices-near-outstanding-secondary.html?ico=mol_mobile_home

From today's paper. Is getting rid of grammars really going to improve inequalities?

This is interesting data from Sutton Trust. How disadvantage interacts with ethnicity at Grammar schools. Somehow those from non-White British backgrounds are the most represented, including disadvantaged children from ethnic backgrounds. And they are actually overrepresented in grammar schools than their proportion in the general pupil population. I wonder why.....

Just for clarity - from the same Sutton Trust paper...

I don't think it takes a genius to work out that cultural factors are significant in this. Some cultures place a very high value on academic achievement and a strong emphasis on work ethic, with parenting strategies that reinforce those cultural values.

Brilliant for those children who absolutely deserve their success, but that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to the needs of disadvantaged children who don't have the benefits of those cultural approaches to parenting.

I agree that you can't ever eradicate the advantages conferred by engaged and effective parents.

However, I don't think that means that you shouldn't at least try to level the playing field.

I will never be able to support a taxpayer-funded system that actively seeks to increase the level of privilege amongst those that are already privileged. The state should be doing all it can to close the gap.

There are many well reasoned posts on this thread about why grammars can be problematic, and this is your conclusion?

Specialist arts, music, acting, sports etc schools do not have a detrimental impact on other schools or the education of other children. Neither does a lone super selective catering to the very brightest.

Grammars in a system like Kent do, because they create glass ceilings for those not fortunate enough to get into them. The majority of the top twenty per cent are not so special that they cannot receive a good academic education in a comprehensive system. And a system that actively works against those who don't quite make the grade at 11 but still have academic potential is abhorrent. I don't understand how anyone with a trace of social conscience can think that such a system is ok.

Why though? Why being in a different building makes it not ok?

Well the discussion is about bought privilege. And these are groups with significantly less privilege (at least financially) who are getting it done. So clearly priorities and attitudes to education play a huge part in outcomes.

And many in these schools do not actually have this privilege handed to them - they are working from a very low base, uprooted from their countries etc. Multiple jobs , little command of the language but can find £100 to invest in amazon books and an hour a day with their kid to support....

There is a lot we can all learn from them. And I speak as someone from exactly this background. Yes the government can do more and should. But I have to ask - what are the parents doing to better their lot? What personal effort is being put in to ensure this generation of FSM does not become multitude generations of FSM? Pages and pages on the government's role. Vanishingly little on what we as a community of parents can do. Let's blame the rich

That’s quite a jump you’ve made there

@MademoiselleRose "Why though? Why being in a different building makes it not ok?"

Because you're put in that building after a test at the age of 10. There is no opportunity of movement. You're told ( if not in so many words, definitely covertly) , that the kids in the other building are better than you and those kids are also told that they are better than you-reinforcing differences and a sense of inferiority/superiority. No opportnity to do sport or drama with each other.

40(ish) years ago I took a 'no fuss' test the whole cohort sat in the school hall. Tutoring certainly wasn't commonplace. The playing field was more level. My achieved score meant I could choose a Grammar option. I got a Grammar placement and enjoyed my schooling, I attended with many local girls from my area. Yes it was a selection process but as a child I was unaware.

Roll on 28(ish) years and my first son is now approaching the end of juniors. The test is now one you have to apply to take on a Saturday morning. Most of his school mates at great expense had been tutored for 2yrs for the test - then struggled once in. He even went for tea at a 'friend's' house and they did a test before eating - to see how effective his 'friend's' tutoring had been. Some local schools run clubs to familiarise pupils with the test format. There is no catchment for schools so people come from out of County travelling 2hrs a day for education. Resultant friendship groups cross county borders, the wider net cast means less local children are accepted. And when it came to GCSE's I was astounded at the number of pupils at the Grammar his friend attended deemed to need extra exam time - considering they were educated in a 'fast paced learning environment'. Now its more than a selection process its a competition driven by parents - some to save private school fees, and some is plain status and snobbery.

We live on the border of a grammar county. We therefore fall in catchments of grammars and the local good secondary schools.

We went to have a look round the local schools. I have to say we did go down the grammar route mainly due to behaviour/ lack of disruption at the grammar and the higher expectations on basically everything - uniform, punctuality, personal accountability. Also all the parents that I saw valued education.

The local comp was also good but just had that undercurrent of misconduct from a few pupils who bugger it up for the rest of the class. Have to say that the 6th form students really impressed me though. I guess by Y12 & 13 you have found your groove a bit more and the disruptive ones had left to go to college at this stage

And these are groups with significantly less privilege (at least financially) who are getting it done

That's not at all the case at ours. Huge amount of Asian kids but their parents aren't poor!

@newmummycwharf1 it's not the kids fault if they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But denying them an opportunity to step out of disadvantage is simply outrageous.

I don't disagree that parents could often do more. I just don't think that the kids should have to face unnecessary additional disadvantages simply because they weren't lucky enough to have engaged and aspirational parents.

It isn't about blaming the rich. It's about wanting the state to do more to balance out the inequalities that are inherent in the lottery of who your parents are.

The kids with the disengaged parents who don't prioritise education need a massive leg up simply to get onto the same level as their peers. Why are some people so eager to push them even further down?

@Brooks11 "And these are groups with significantly less privilege (at least financially) who are getting it done"

You seem to be suggesting that immigrants are not educated and middle class.......

The data presented above is comparing the disadvantaged proportions from all ethnicities in grammar versus population of students. I live in affluent N.London and our area has alot of wealthy non-British ethnic groups. But this is England-wide data

Of course there are wealthy people from all ethnic backgrounds but sadly and still deprivation intersections with ethnicity in the UK and hasn't changed much in decades.

So you're saying the demographic with the largest amount of students at Grammar schools are also the most socio-economically deprived? The math ain't mathing here.

No - I was replying to that post. I am not saying that.