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).

@Moglet4 "But that’s the point. They don’t NEED 3-4 hrs hw a night but that’s the amount of time they spend because of the amount of effort that they put into it"

Why would you want your young child to do 3-4 hours of homework a night they don't need to do? When do they play, walk the dog, hang out with friends, watch TV? Do crafts. Go to clubs. Scouts. And a million other things kids do.

Do you have any statistics for that?

Autistic children are present across the full range of ability. Is there actually a disproportionate amount at the top end?

You've proposed this several times on this thread, I think, suggesting £7.6k per year as a grammar-school fee. (I believe you called it "a snip")

The problem with that system is that it would definitively close the door on grammars for a genuinely bright and motivated child whose parents could not afford that. In a country of 4.7 million secondary-aged students, it's hard to believe there aren't some children in that situation. It seems sad to deny them that opportunity, which after all is what the whole grammar system was designed for in the first place.

You keep saying the problem with grammars is that their selection process is ineluctably linked to wealth, creating an unfair two-tier system – but what you're suggesting is a three-tier system on the same basis.

I strongly disagree about bright children in general. I think many actively benefit from being in a mixed ability environment.

That doesn't mean that bright children don't have specific needs that should be appropriately catered for, but I don't personally think that segregation is the most effective way of doing this.

That’s not what @Overthemenopause said.

She didn’t say a disproportionate number of autistic children are gifted, rather that a disproportionate number of gifted children are autistic.

I would still like to see some statistics showing that grammar school have higher numbers of autistic children that other types of school.

What?? No they aren’t. They do a test at 11, which many are highly coached for. They aren’t all highly intelligent! there is a small percentage who are exceptional but it really is a small number. And I say that as a parent of a child in a school you had to come in top 10% to get into.

And what would that prove? I’m not even trying to argue that grammar schools have more autistic kids than comprehensives in the first place.

What I am trying to argue is that grammar schools can support a particular type of autistic kid in a way that other schools either can’t or won’t.

I attended a grammar (one that consistently tops the league tables) - as did all my friends. Trust me there were plenty there that weren’t that bright!! Just had been tutored to get in and had a good start in life.

My experience of grammar very similar. A small number of very bright who looking back on it now probably were neuro divergent, but majority were bright but not exceptional.

I am saying that. I am saying based on current experience that approx 25% (that's being generously low) of the kids at dd's comp ARE either actual thugs or thuggish, verbally abusive, offensive, racist, bullying and/or antisocial to the point that no decent, kind and respectful child can associate with them or even walk down the same corridors at the same time, let alone have positive interactions or make friends with them. A further 25% still have no respect, manners or interest in learning and go to school without creating too many problems for other kids, but likewise, are not a positive influence.

I'd describe my dd as a straight-B average student with a happy, outgoing and friendly demeanour. Not weak, not easily intimidated, not precious, no SN. But she's living in fear and anxiety due to having been thrown to the wolves because she didn't pass the 12+, our area is highly selective and the "good" schools are rammed to the gills, appeals fail. Resilience Studies should be a GCSE.

What mathsAIoptions said is absolutely 100% true in my current experience. This is the crux of the problem. The GS system is just perpetuating the UK's horrible class-based culture. The offspring of irresponsible parents should be distributed evenly throughout the education system so their behaviour becomes the exception within a school environment, rather than the norm that makes life difficult if not unbearable for everybody else. Can people just stop making excuses and raise their kids better?

To quote the pastoral lead at dd's societally-challenged comp, "it would be better if half of them didn't even come to school to be honest". He can only teach a handful of hours a week because the rest of his time is spent hauling kids out of class and dealing with the consequences of appalling parenting.

Enormous respect to any mners who teach at this kind of place, honestly I am in awe of your patience and professionalism. That is what will get my daughter through this school experience.

I don’t have an issue with Grammars per se. However, I don’t like how education is geared to those who can afford more, getting better.

An example is my sister, she could afford private education for her two children, that education was undoubtedly better than the education my children got.

Then, as there was a grammar school near them, they paid for tutors on top of the Private school, meaning that her children then got into the grammar school, again, the education there is undoubtedly better.

My also bright children are at the local comp, which is fine, but I can’t think how much more my also bright children could have flown if I could have afforded the same.

Education is now becoming the domain of those who can afford private school, afford tutors and afford to move into the catchment areas for the best schools if all else fails

We can't set up our entire education system around the needs of a particular type of autistic kid. The system needs to work for everyone.

The grammar system really doesn't work for the majority. If a particular type of autistic children need a particular type of SEN school, or indeed, a particular type of provision within mainstream, then I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree that we need to ensure that those children get what they need. They have as much right as any other child to have their needs met, and I recognise that this doesn't always happen at the moment. But I can't get behind an argument in favour of grammar schools to meet the needs of this one small cohort of children because I believe that the grammar system is damaging to many other children who also deserve to have their needs met.

I think parental support is the biggest factor tbh. Work out what your dsis's kids are getting in the private sector that your kids don't currently have access to, and see if there are ways in which you can supplement.

I have a lot of friends who privately educated their kids. There is really no difference between those kids and my dd/some of her state educated peers. Same exam results, same university places, comparable extracurricular achievements, comparable confidence and social skills etc.

The children of educated, aspirational and supportive parents with a reasonable amount of disposable income will thrive and excel in virtually any school. The real problem is how we level the playing field for those children who aren't lucky enough to have parents that tick those boxes.

Ah but according to the quite clear undercurrent from the mothers who paid for tuition, who took years off from work to personally tutor etc, it's simply their child's natural 'brightness'! They were born with it, they just wouldn't survive in a school for the peasants! They will not admit that their children are no more intelligent than the average kid and it's the training, coaching, prepping and hot-housing that got their average kid into grammar school all funded by money! They just cannot, be honest and say that it is not, under any circumstances, a level playing field or fair!

A lot of research suggests that only a tiny minority of grammar school pupils do better than they would at comps, and the difference is so marginal it's almost undetectable.

Most grammar pupils do worse than they would at comps, because they're put under additional stress they can't cope with.

Overall educational outcomes for just about everyone are worse in selective areas than they are in comprehensive areas.

Overthemenapause appeared to be arguing that grammar schools should exist because they are a type of pseudo SEN school with disproportionate numbers of autistic children. And she actually used the word "bright" not "gifted" - there is a pretty big difference.

I'm really not convinced they do have greater numbers of autistic children, but I don't actually know! Most children at grammars are not gifted, they are bright. I have a bright autistic child of my own doing very well in a bog standard comprehensive. Most bright autistic children do not need grammar schools - they need appropriate support.

It just seemed a very poor argument for Grammars to me.

@ApplePippa Basically the best argument anyone seems to come up with for grammar schools is "my precious child deserves to go to one because they're special, and comps are so terrible", and they then go ahead to game the system to their advantage.

I've seen it over and over again. Pretty much everyone in a typical grammar has been tutored to within an inch of their life and has parents wealthy enough to go private, who want an elitist, segregated education funded by the state.

Pretty much everyone in a typical grammar has been tutored to within an inch of their life and has parents wealthy enough to go private, who want an elitist, segregated education funded by the state.

That’s bollocks and I’m sure deep down you know that @PrimitivePerson. “Pretty much everyone?” Not even close.

I’m sorry you had a bad time at school but letting the chip on your shoulder spout such hyperbole is doing your arguments no favours.

@PrimitivePerson Everyone in a grammar school is tutored, be it professionally or at home. Of course they have as the children have not had to take tests before. That does not mean they have been tutored within an inch of their life.

You seem to have a real issue with not understanding that not everyone that attends a grammar is wealthy enough to go to private school. There are lot of average income families there. Around 10% of the intake of the local super selective grammar schools near me are from private schools. This leaves 90% from state schools.

Out of interest, what elite education do you think grammars are providing?

@OnlyTheBravest Isn't it obvious? They run schools that get the best staff, the best resources and the easiest pupils to deal with, and can exclude all the pupils with expensive and resource hungry special needs.

The FSM stats speak for themselves.

I don't think grammar school parents are all wealthy. I do think that they are overwhelmingly middle class and know how the system works, and have been in a position to give their children social capital since birth. Nothing wrong with that. But we should be working on giving social capital to kids who have very little. Not giving kids who have lots even more.

Exactly. Quite why the state should pay to give them even more advantage, I have no idea.

Grammars do absolutely nothing for equality and social mobility. All they do is entrench existing privilege and allow middle class parents to get a private school style education for their kids on the cheap.

No hyperbole there, the tutoring thing is spot on. Everyone and I mean everyone I know who sends their kids to grammars does so either because they're in the above category, or because they are desperate to avoid the local crime dens comps.

Grammars are doing more harm than good, not serving the majority.

Honestly, so hard to understand why the UK is still flagging this dead horse. I grew up in NE England. Went to a comprehensive, got three As at A Level in the 90s, then a first class degree from Cambridge. While at uni I was surprised to see how many ex private and grammar school kids were so confident in their abilities and used to being hothoused that they didn't know how to do the really independent work that gets you the best results at that level.
Both my parents failed the 11+ (NE England in the 50s), so that's certainly part of my aversion. But I really don't see what a grammar school education would have brought me other than even more strife with a non-academic sister (who now earns way more than I do BTW).
Exam based selection at age 10 is not a respectful and constructive way to treat children.