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).

@newmummycwharf1 "Except poor people from ethnic backgrounds are over-represented. So clearly money is not the main limiting factor."

Two things. I. No, money is by no means the only limiting factor. And 2. How do you know the people from ethnic minority (not just ethnic) backgrounds are poor?

I should add, that I have been hyper-literate since I was five, and my reading age has been three or four years ahead of my age ever since. It was a big factor all though my working life. The ability to hoist in large amounts of information quickly, even if you don't retain it long term is very useful professionally.

And as I explained - whilst FSM are under-represented in Grammar, amongst those from ethnic backgrounds, FSM kids are over represented in Grammar.

To help you understand, that means if for example there are 10% of kids from Asian backgrounds that are eligible for FSM in the general student population, there are 20% of kids eligible for FSM in Grammar from Asian backgrounds.

In other words - there are more people from poor backgrounds of ethnic groups than you would expect in Grammar based on their proportion in the student population.

The data you quote is overall and is not disaggregated so we can understand the nuance.

Hope that helps

That map is not very useful. Clicking on my area brings up only the stats for a single grammar school. Girls only. There are three grammar schools using the 11+ to select pupils in Plymouth. Two for girls and one (double the size) for boys. But I would agree that many of Plymouth's other schools are secondary moderns by default. I did my PGCE there, and saw some brilliant teaching and some that was shabby.

Because of the Sutton report I shared earlier. Shared here again. It compares FSM by ethnicity in general population and in Grammar. So only kids eligible for FSM. I presume being eligible for FSM means poor by most standards?

My point hasn't changed. A minority of poor children are educated at grammar schools.

They are selective so are not open to all, segregating the classes, options, facilities and peer groups in areas with grammar. This contributes to social divides rather than cohesion. Selective schooling for the wealthy should not be funded for by the tax payer.

Sigh....glad I was of help

I think you that have a closed mindset so I am not sure why I am bothering to ask, but here goes. Why are you determined to characterise grammar school parents as “wealthy”? My son goes to one and the parents are solid middle/ lower middle and working class. I went to a very prestigious boarding school myself, some parents were stratospherically wealthy. I am guessing that it suits your narrative and agenda.

Yup, inflammatory and irrational. You have a lot of prejudice about grammar school parents. Shame. We are actually quite nice, hard working, educated, resourceful, determined, aspirational, tax paying, law abiding citizens. Only on Mumsnet would pushing your child to succeed academically and go to the best state school locally be used as a source of contempt.

Big thread this...as always with this topic, I think.

Anyway, to repeat my earlier point; lets just have as many Grammar Schools as there are academically capable children to fill them, in all parts of the country.

No scarcity. No need for tutoring. No need to move house.

Grammar schools will give everyone the chance to get the kind of education that facilitates social mobility.

We desperately need this in this country - as we had it during the post war decades.

Then we'll have extremely bright people from relatively ordinary backgrounds in positions of power, influence, eminence and prominence rather than the whole thing being run by the 7 per cent as we have now.

And imagine how good it would be for the non academic kids to be freed to focus more one their strengths and interests. At least with the traditional trades there's a pathway to work and prosperity - much more chance of home ownership at a reasonable age than having a random degree in humanities even from and RG university.

I went to a grammar school and dislike them. They are taking in the most capable students, don't have to deal with the behavioural and leaning needs many state schools do, then get hailed as outstanding for their results. The teachers in many comp schools will be working a lot harder to get told their failing.

They also typically have significantly fewer Disadvantaged pupils with parents happy to contribute to school funds, get better teachers and promote arts such as drama and music. Basically I think they widen the gap between the more and less able pupils rather than closing it.

Exactly what the below poster said, but also the passive-aggressive bolding of "your daughter is not of grammar school standard" in the rejection letter my daughter got. A tiny little detail that tells me how unjustifiably up themselves they are despite the widespread drugtaking and very low uniform standards at that particular school. The rejection letter from another, even better-performing selective was far more pleasant and I have no contempt for them.

That’s horrendous!!!

Why not just ‘unfortunately we were over subscribed and your child can not be offered a place on this occassion’

The thing is we can't really get an accurate picture or comparison when there isn't a full grammar system across the country. Unlike in the past there aren't that many grammars and they're only in some areas.

I'd like a return to the previous system but with changes. 11+ not seen as something to pass or fail, and secondary moderns not viewed or treated as lesser, and equal investment for both grammars and vocational schools. Schools catering for different but equally valued abilities. I'd also want options for movement between academic and vocational schools.

Both academic and vocational abilities are valuable and both should be catered for.

That's exactly what I was saying a few pages ago. We should have changed the old system in the 70s rather than scrapping it. Improved the sec-mods, change the 11+ and put in pathways for the minority who found themselves in the wrong type of school to move over.

Another who hasn't bothered to read the thread.
Sigh

Grammar schools benefit the very affluent
Research for the UCL Social Research Institute, University College London found that access to grammar schools is highly skewed by a child’s socioeconomic status (SES) with the most deprived families living in grammar school areas standing only a 6% chance of attending a selective school. In contrast the most affluent families – the top 10% by SES – have a 50% or better chance of attending a grammar. While those pupils at the very top – the 1% most affluent – have an 80% chance of attending a grammar. Read an article summarising the research HERE or the full paper HERE.

I'd like a return to the previous system but with changes. 11+ not seen as something to pass or fail, and secondary moderns not viewed or treated as lesser, and equal investment for both grammars and vocational schools. Schools catering for different but equallyvalued abilities. I'd also want options for movement between academic and vocational schools.

How can it possibly not be seen as something you pass or fail, if you take an exam which has a pass mark. How do you seriously expect secondary moderns to not be seen as lesser when they only contain children who failed to reach that pass mark. How do you know that that children have equal but valued abilities if they are not tested on anything else in the 11+? All you know about them is they didn’t reach the pass mark, whether by one mark, or whether they got hardly any marks at all? What vocations do you expect children to have at 11?

And if you want a return to the previous system, look no further than Kent which runs a selective system very much as was!

Interesting debate, has been some reform where grammars are concern to address the balance. One being that some schools are setting aside places in quotas for disadvantaged pupils - from 21 in 2016, to 65 in 2022 and Some of them have also lowered the pass mark in the 11+… Another 51 schools have put disadvantaged pupils at the front of the queue in their policies when allocating places. That’s not bad numbers (if true) given that there are very few of these true grammar schools left in the country.

That’s the point though, kids shouldn’t need to be coached in order to pass the 11+. If they’re bright enough they’ll pass without it because they’ll be say in the top 20%.

Your niece and nephew passed without the hot housing because they have an innate and natural ability. That’s how it should be.l the it would be a more fair and even playing field irrespective of privilege.

That’s the point though, kids shouldn’t need to be coached in order to pass the 11+. If they’re bright enough they’ll pass without it because they’ll be say in the top 20%.

Your niece and nephew passed without the hot housing because they have an innate and natural ability. That’s how it should be.l the it would be a more fair and even playing field irrespective of privilege.

Absolutely. God love my cousin, her son goes to a grammar school, she's a lovely woman but for THREE years she bemoaned the fact she was paying extortionate amounts of money for tutoring. My nephew got in to the chosen grammar school and as soon as he did she would brag to anyone who would listen about her 'little genius' and his fabulous school! Yeah, well- your three years of paying achieved that. He's no more bright than the majority of cleverish kids, he was just well trained. Like a dog who can give you a paw.

I’ve seen a few posters saying that work ethic and spending 3 hours a day in order to pass the test should be applauded, because it clearly shows determination etc and their place should be equally valid.

I agree that those kids should be acknowledged and they will go far because of their parental influence and their determination. My concern is that the grammar are filled with these types of child - bright but housed to do well.

The impact of this means that the genuinely higher ability kids from deprived backgrounds won’t get a place as they’ve not had the same advantages, whether that be financially or having parents that are able to spend so much time on practicing etc…

This does nothing to help social mobility and everything to keep the more affluent… well…. Affluent!

That’s the point though, kids shouldn’t need to be coached in order to pass the 11+. If they’re bright enough they’ll pass without it because they’ll be say in the top 20%.

Except if everyone is coaching, by not coaching, whether DIY or paying a fortune, someone else’s kid will rise to the 20th centile whilst you child will be bumped down to the 21st!

Bingo. In MN-world, the only child truly worthy of a grammar school place is one that aces the test with absolutely zero prep.

Meanwhile, out in the real world, parents with aspirations for grammar school understand that the tests feature maths concepts that haven’t been covered by the national curriculum yet. And that non verbal reasoning puzzles can be pretty impenetrable if you’ve never seen one before. Hence the need for some prep. And that doesn’t mean three hours a day, every day. If some parents force their children to do that, that’s on them.

One option would be to redesign the tests to make them more accessible to those children whose parents can’t help them prepare, or afford 11+ books, access 11+ books, know that 11+ books exist (I think I’ve covered all the devils advocate posts that have appeared in this thread).

But guess what, those kids will still be inched out by the kids who have been preparing for the test.