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).

Rather that they are less likely to be. I am a first generation immigrant from a upper middle class background and many in my community are from poorer backgrounds and economic backgrounds. Impact of colonialism and other various injustices over centuries but there we are. And then there is the impact of racism. It is not a level playing field at all.

We need to raise aspiration, grow the economy and yes the government needs to help but levelling down isn't it. My view is selective schools can be redesigned to improve access but even with that more parents are going to need to put in much more effort so that every kid is contributing to a good learning environment for all.

Even the best comprehensives have fewer intake from certain backgrounds - selection by house prices. And it isn't all about snobbery. Education should not be about learning how to push through the noise.

Advocate for equality from the government but also advocate for higher aspirations in the general population. We can do better

Immigrants are by definition resourceful determined people. I remember hearing Nish Kumar saying that in his family they were all encouraged to work hard at school and get jobs that meant they were less likely to be thrown out of the country. Quite an incentive. I don't think it's a helpful comparison.

And anyway-children from disadvantaged backgrounds are much more "deserving" of what limited resources are available than privileged children. Both for their sake and for the sake of society.

Grammar schools create house price inflation - so the areas with grammars are likely to only attract a certain type and amount of first generation immigrants also. Clearly they are poor not or they would be represented in the FSM data.

Would you be happy to pay a minimal amount for your super selective school? If you honestly think there is no other option in the area you would send them to? Or would you move or go private if they did abolish selective schools?

I don't think there would be an issue with paying for most grammar parents, if it was to reimburse what the state are funding, as I said about £7.6k per year, and it actually went back into non-selective education in their area.

Surely this is obvious? It's much easier and less disruptive to move between sets for specific subjects within the same school than it is to uproot and move to a completely different school?

Anyone who moves half way across the world for a better life clearly has some level of ambition and aspiration. Of course that will have an impact.

People from my DH's cultural background tend to do extremely well in the UK education system, but back in his home country, there are many children from disadvantaged families that face the same challenges caused by intergenerational poverty that we often see in white working class communities in the UK. So in some cases, it isn't even just that cultural values are different - there may be something about immigrant values in particular that helps to drive success.

Is the grammar system flawed? Yes

Should the aim be a high-quality education for all? Of course

Will I pay for tuition to familiarise my (very bright, ADHD, sporty) DS with the 11+ format so he’s more likely to get into one of the local grammar schools, which will mean he doesn’t have to go to a school where kids bring in knives and barely anyone gets 5 GCSEs? Yes, of course I will. I’d be a shit parent if I put my ideology above my child’s future.

(i went to a non-selective state school and am fully aware that some are great, btw - but i am not exaggerating when I say the state secondaries are appalling in my area. As in, some have been on TV as examples of failing schools. It’s unfair and its heartbreaking, but fuck me if i let my child be used as an object lesson in fairness)

So let's learn from them - knowledge and cultural exchange.

This idea that abolishing selective schools will fix everything is very flawed. There are swathes of the country with no grammar schools and still the educational experience leaves much to be desired.

Anyway - to each their own

I came from a rural village, my parents had no spare money (my dad was made redundant in my last year of primary), of course back then there was no tutoring, but I got into grammar (as did my dad, from a council flat, and my mum from a standard mid-terrace in a town 20mins from London). Transport was paid (took most of an hour to get to school from my village). In the end, I didn't get on with the grammar and went switched to a comprehensive in the next county over (by then my parents could afford my train ticket) and the standards were very different, even though they were streamed.

I came out with OK results, rather than the excellent I'd have got if I remained at the grammar.

Reading all of this, I have a bit of a distaste from the idea of using academic kids to raise the standards of non-academic ones - feels a bit like having everyone sit boy/girl/boy/girl in an attempt to have the girls keep the boys under control.

But equally morally it is no better than private, worse if you consider the tax payer is funding a free version for already wealthy families.

There is no evidence that these kids do worse in non-selective, actually the opposite has been shown.

If you want selective schooling you should have to pay for it.

Now this I can agree with!

You're right - they do often leave a lot to be desired. It's a crying shame and not something I see improving regardless of who is in Downing Street come July.

I don't blame anyone for trying to better their children's potential, the vast majority of us would of course - me included and that includes sitting with my child like I have done tonight, doing work books, online titbits and yes, if needed I absolutely would pay for tuition but that's because I am financially able to and I think that's (even though I would!) grossly unfair and it's a financial privilege. The financial advantage of the MASSIVE majority of children in selective schools needs to be acknowledged, not least by the parents of those children it gives the advantage to.

Yes, that's true. We don't have a grammar in our town. We have two crap comps. The fact that they're both crap is absolutely nothing to do with private schools nor grammar schools.

Of course the "parents who care" enrol their kids in the much better schools across the county borders using the convoy of special school buses.

Should we ban being able to cross a county border in the same way that people want to ban grammars. After all, it's the same kind of "privilege" that "pushy" parents can benefit from.

Sorry, can’t agree. All kids are deserving. The kid who has worked their backside off every day of their lives is no less deserving of excellent teaching and resources than a disadvantaged child.

But equally morally it is no better than private, worse if you consider the tax payer is funding a free version for already wealthy families.

My parents, I, my sister's kids - all got into grammar with no coaching, and that's across 60 years in multiple counties. Yes, I remember there were girls from private primaries at my grammar, and that's still the case now for my niece/nephew, but there's also lots of normal kids, shopping at the second hand school uniform shop (or having grandparents in my sister's case) buy the uniform.

The grammar school is full - it's not taking any more funding than a non-selective school (we were still taught in portacabins as much as the main building for example) - if there weren't the two grammars in my sister's town, then they'd need extra comps instead. All you're asking is that these academic kids are used to boost a comp's exam results or what? Set an example for less academic kids? You want to share out the grammar school teachers on the assumption they're better?

If a child is in at the top of some sport, they can get specialised training etc. (again, dependent on location/opportunity much like grammars). This is the top academic kids - even heavily coached they need to be fairly bright.

@Moglet4 "The kid who has worked their backside off every day of their lives is no less deserving of excellent teaching and resources than a disadvantaged child"

So much unconscious prejudice on this thread......

@Moglet4 "Sorry, can’t agree. All kids are deserving."

Of course they are. But I can offer support to my children that many parents can't. So in times of limited resources when funds have to be allocated I would rather that the children who need it most come first.

No, just experience and frankly horror at some of the prejudice towards hard-working kids on here! A lot of people seem to think that if they go to grammars or privates or are in top set of a comp but from a middle-class family- whichever - that they are in fact not bright at all or hard-working and are handed their 8s and 9s on a plate. They’re not. They work their arses off for them, doing 3-4 hours a night hw from being very young, going above and beyond with every aspect of their homework (and no, I don’t mean that they go and visit an appropriate museum, I mean they sit for an hour with their pencils and illustrate their homework rather than print off a picture). Some kids do not come from a background of high expectations or aspirations which is why yes, they need more help and that is why thousands of teachers go above and beyond every day to help them achieve their grades - sometimes this also happens to be their potential and sometimes it isn’t. But that does not mean that the high achievers from middle class backgrounds don’t fully deserve their academic rewards.

I think you've missed the whole bulk of the thread where we have discussed that they are full of wealthy families and not the poor.

It is rich families avoiding paying for private schools to hoard wealth and feel morally superior. It disadvantages the poor and gives the rich a leg up at the tax payers expense. It has never been good for social mobility in the entire history of grammar schools. Just gives the wealthy families a school segregated from the poor funded by the tax payer.

It is lots of families - including rich ones. I had a look at my old grammar - 20% of the free school meal entitlement of the closest comp, but nearly twice the english as a second language.

I've skimmed the discussion, and I'll still note, that the kids still need to be bright. Coaching helps I'm sure, but you don't have to be coached (my niece and nephew weren't) and you don't have to be rich (my sisters are both low-income - one a single parent).

Except poor people from ethnic backgrounds are over-represented. So clearly money is not the main limiting factor....

@Moglet4 "that they are in fact not bright at all or hard-working and are handed their 8s and 9s on a plate. They’re not. They work their arses off for them, doing 3-4 hours a night hw from being very young, going above and beyond with every aspect of their homework (and no, I don’t mean that they go and visit an appropriate museum, I mean they sit for an hour with their pencils and illustrate their homework rather than print off a picture).
0f course they are bright and hardworking. But I have to say, I would question a high achieving school where a child needed 3-4 hours of hw a night "from very young" to get their 8s and 9s. I think that's utterly outrageous.

The original purpose of grammar schools (back in the 14th century) was to identify and educate the clever ones, out of an entirely uneducated illiterate population. Back then it was boys only, but now I think girls benefit more.

As I have explained, grammars have far less FSM pupils, therefore they do not represent the population of poor children.

Free School Meals pupils are underrepresented in grammar schools, with just 6.7% of grammar school pupils taking free school meals, while the average in non-selective schools in selective areas is 28.4%.
Pupil Premium is an alternative measure of disadvantage based on eligibility for Free School Meals at any point in a pupil’s school life. Grammar school’s intake is made up of around 8.1% Pupil Premium pupils, compared to a national average of 27.1% disadvantaged pupils in secondary schools.

I would say that I am in favour of grammar schools as they were originally conceived. Much less keen on the selection by wealth and ability to pay for tuition, but I struggle to distinguish retrospectively. Personally I benefited from selective education and having the right sort of brain to pass the 11+ (entirely untutored) with apparently a high score. But according to my DM I had already learned to read at 3, just by following her finger under the words she read in stories and relating the sounds to the letters. Obviously, I wasn't aware of the learning process then.