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).

Not to mention the parents with their heads in the sand about their kid’s autistic traits, because they “don’t want to label them” and, perhaps more crucially, because they are autistic too and see it as normal.

The stats really don’t reflect the numbers of ND kids at grammars at all.

Reading comprehension in the adult population is clearly something the government need to plough some resources into.

Maybe they could if you lot would pay for your specialist segregated schools.

I'm sensing bitterness

If we need special schools for kids who are autistic, I could get on board with that. But if we're doing that, let's call them that and actually prioritise the resource for children who are autistic.

There are plenty of high achieving children who aren't autistic and definitely don't need a special school. They will be fine in a comprehensive school.

I'm sensing fear.

I’ve never taught a kid in a grammar school who wasn’t naturally bright. I’ve taught plenty who weren’t wealthy. I’ve also taught plenty of bright children in comprehensive schools and plenty who have been let down by their backgrounds. The wealth of some grammar kids’ parents might help them in the form of tuition, exposure to books etc but no kid is getting is getting into grammar school without natural academic ability too.

Fear of what? I'm not in the demographic that can afford private education but I see the merits of it. All I can see from the comprehensive system is how it has failed 2 generations of children. All those lovely statistics and reviews and reports you've shared have shown is what an abject failure the British education system is for the overwhelming majority of children.

For a country with a proud history in innovation and the arts I find it sad that we push for mediocrity and celebrate not being proud of achievements.

I don't agree. I've seen parents push and push to get their kid in on appeal. The kid having been tutored since Y1. That kid is not bright, it is scared of failure and forced to try to keep up by having tutoring every week.

It may come out with semi decent GCSE's or it may have a breakdown.
I could not agree that child is "inherently bright".

If they’re getting in on appeal then they haven’t passed the exam. Step into a grammar classroom. Teach a lesson. Those kids are bright.

Parents at grammars get free private schooling.
The state should not fund it.
Pay back what the state pays for your special school that denies entry to the majority. Let them have funding directly to try to re-balance the system benefiting the richest at the expense of the poorest.

Of course they haven't passed the exam.
They are in that classroom.
They are not all 'bright'.

Flip your thinking around and stop being envious. These children have a specialist educational need and that deserves to be met the same as any other educational need.

Have you ever been inside a grammar school or spoken with anyone with a grammar school education?

EXACTLY!!! I had no say at all in where I went to school.

Grammar schools are next.

If they are implementing additional private school taxes on idealogical grounds then attacking grammar schools is the next logical step.

Autism schools do exist, although the admission criteria is high. There are a lot of kids out there that exist in a no man’s land as their needs don’t meet the threshold for a SEN or autism school, but struggle immensely in mainstream. They are simultaneously not autistic enough for SEN, but too autistic for MS. But let’s be real: there aren’t enough SEN school places for kids with complex needs, so the idea that we’re going to start opening schools for the inbetweeners is unrealistic.

And all the more unrealistic to open schools for the autistic high flyers. Not all autistic kids need to be segregated away from their neurotypical peers either 🤷‍♀️

Guess what though? Some grammar schools have autism resource bases which is a recognition that “gifted” autistic kids exist and deserve to have both their SEN and academic needs met.

Yes, my dad.
My grandparents could have easily afforded private school too. He still thinks he is brighter than most despite all evidence showing to the contrary. Maybe that's the niche specialist need you all want so badly. It's not confidence, it's pig ignorance of the effect your use of the state system has on the ones it excludes.

I feel you don't get on with your father

Good.

We live in Scotland so no grammar schools. There are private schools but the nearest one is a 30 minute drive away and we can't afford to send all 3 kids there anyway. I'm willing to homeschooling or tutor.

There are a lot of posters that object to grammar schools because it takes away bright kids from the local state school and that these kids will help other learn. So it might be in less academic kids favour having more academic kids there but what about the other way around? I went to a state school where 35% of kids got 5 passes at GCSE. I learnt nothing in year 7 as it was mixed ability and the teachers were always dealing with behaviour issues. It was only when we got separted due to ability that I actually flourished and was in all top sets. I still had to teach myself as I was entered for separate sciences despite not having regular lessons to cover the work. We couldn't afford tuition. I was on the gifted and talented scheme and that helped in some ways.

As a child I remember the 'naughty' kids always getting sat next to me in the supposed idea that I would help their behaviour or model better behaviour. It didn't work and only made me feel miserable but as an 8 year old girl I didn't feel able to tell the teacher but did eventually tell my dad. Dad went into school the next day and demanded that I not be used to manage other kids behaviour! Yet this 'technique' if you can call it that is still being used in schools and whilst it might benefit the less well behaved child why don't teachers consider the impact it has on the other child?

I went to a grammar school. We were not that special. We certainly didn't have a special educational need that warranted a separate school. Maybe the very top 1 per cent or whatever, but not the majority of us.

A generation on, and my son in top sets at his bog standard comp is getting an education better than the one I got in my grammar. (He has autism and dyslexia by the way. He doesn't need a specialist "clever" school, just decent support for his particular set of needs in his comp).

I don't envy my friends back in my home town having to navigate the Kent system.

I completely agree that not all autistic children need to be separated from their neurotypical peers. I have seen many thrive in comprehensive schools, including one of my dd's closest friends who also happened to be academically very gifted.

And of course, they deserve to have their SEN needs and their academic needs met, but I see no reason why that can't happen within a comprehensive school. It often does.

My issue is with those who seem to be arguing in favour of grammar schools because they are needed as some sort of pseudo special school for bright autistic children. My point is that, if some autistic children need a special school, the state should absolutely provide that (and personally, I would happily pay more taxes to support better SEN provision), but let's be clear about what it's for and not dress it up as something else entirely.

Yes, let's hope so!

Not specifically for bright autistic children. Bright children in general but an observation is that a disproportionate amount of these children are on the autistic spectrum.