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).

Where I lived there wasn't a consistent pass mark from year to year. The top 120 scorers got in each time, and some years were tougher than others.

Where I am they’re given priority.

Those of us in NI can't really participate in this thread as our schooling system is dramatically different.
45% of pupils in NI go to a grammar school.
All PS teach those who wish to study for the SEAG, and the exam is covered by the syllabus.
And finally we are not segregating the exam at 11 by religion.

There is 1 private secondary education level school in NI.

Many of the facilities available in England in private schools are available in our Grammar or even secondary schools. Our education system is usually better......but educating Protestant boys is failing.

Out of the 55% that are in high schools, roughly 5% of these are integrated. Leaving, again roughly 25% Protestant and 25% Catholic.

I have been involved with research into this. And worked with community groups and schools throughout Northern Ireland.

I am being "basic" and aim to cause no offence

Since the troubles the Catholic Community have aimed high, the Catholic schools, grammar or high school will aim to promote the best education for the children. Parents will "usually" see this as the way forward and schools "potentially" have better behaved kids and have year on year the best marks in the country.

The Protestant community, especially the lower classes have looked down on education, a throwback to when yer das mate could get you a job and so Protestant communities are failing and being overrun. Teenage boys are especially at risk. Many high schools are failing.

Today I was at a meeting with the grammar my DS is going to, it's the one I also went to. I noticed that the rules haven't got any more lenient since I was there, and they were very strict then. But a new one was absolutely NO phones turned on on school property. Caught once, lose it for a day, twice a week, three times a term. I signed to agree with this and I do very much believe in it.

In my DN school it is overrun with violence and no punishments. Neither of them (2nd and 4th form) have ever had a homework yet. A boy has been frequently upskirting girls and nothing is done. It's a Protestant high school.
It used to have a brilliant reputation. Our family actually relocated so my sister could go there, she did her gcses and a levels. It has now become an academy and gone horrifyingly downhill. The "boys" keep a close eye on the children coming put of school. I wish I could get my DS to relocate them anywhere but here.

@Moglet4 I "Where I am they’re given priority"

Interesting. How is that organised?

Nope. Some are given priority. Here is one.

Newstead Wood School, Bromley.

The Selection Criteria
3.1 The published admission number of 168 is inclusive of students with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan that are admitted to the School pursuant to Newstead Wood School being named in their EHC Plan. Girls with an EHC Plan will have demonstrated their academic ability through the School’s Test procedure. Children with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan are dealt with under a separate process by the Special Educational Needs Team, then Admissions

3.2 Places will be then allocated in the following order of priority:
3.2.1 Currently Looked After Children and previously Looked After Children* whose score in the selection test is higher than or equal to the required standard, then

3.2.2 Girls whose permanent place of residence is within a 9-mile radius of the school who are in receipt of Pupil Premium or Service Premium**, at the time of application to sit the test, whose score in the selection test is higher than or equal to the required standard, then

3.3 The remaining places will be allocated strictly from the rank order list of the total score of girls achieving the required standard in the selection test in the following order of priority:

3.3.1 Girls whose permanent place of residence is within a 9-mile radius* of the school and girls of a member of Newstead Wood staff who has been employed at the school for two or more years at the time of application to sit the test who live outside a 9-mile radius of the school in rank order, then

3.3.2 Girls whose permanent place of residence is outside a 9-mile radius of the school in rank order.

Yet, currently, only 4% of their students are PP students.

See also,
Beaconsfield High School - 2%
The Royal Grammar School - 4%
Aylesbury Grammar School - 4%

Etc.

@HollyKnight But they still have to pass the exam, though.......

...exactly! That's the point. Poorer children are either not doing the test, not passing the test, or not applying for grammar schools.

Tutored children are not taking places from poorer children. Tutored children are not keeping poorer children out of grammar schools.

The middle classes are not the reason why poorer children are not going to grammar school.

In fact, some of the schools I looked at actually provide exclusive material only for PP children to help them prepare for the test. But they still only have 4% of PP/FSM children attending.

To understand this data - you would need to know the proportion of kids on pupil premium that live within 9 miles of this school.

4% may seem little - but it may be in the context of 12% of kids being eligible in that area. In Barnet - % on FSM is 14%. We know social factors mean people at that level of income will have a lot going on that may be more likely to preclude even submitting an application to a school viewed as the 'special school'. FSM household income is circa £16k or less.

I would be interested in the proportion of people with household income less than £62k (x2 median income) that apply. Not convinced Grammars are overflowing with 'rich' people. Privileged, engaged and valuing education above most things....yes, but not necessarily monied.

@HollyKnight not being tutored, not having resources at home, not having educated parents. They don’t have access to the same resources as wealthier and/or more educated families. Or parents are not aspirational

I know. I don't have a breakdown of how many applied. For that one I quoted, I know it said that no one was admitted under the last criteria last year. So everyone admitted was from within the 9-mile area.

There are many reasons why there aren't more poorer children going to grammar school. But that reason isn't that selfish rich people are stealing their places.

Yup. Agreed. So to change that, more needs to be done to help these children. Getting rid of grammar schools isn't going to change any of that for those children.

@newmummycwharf1 Totally agree. It's an outdated system that's breaking apart, like most of England's ancient "systems". It is feeding snobbery and division on so many levels and grammars are simply inaccessible to many, regardless of what anyone says on this thread.

This ridiculous segregation system also means that the ever-growing criminal underclass, as opposed to and far removed from the real, honest working class, are making certain schools and communities virtually no-go areas because they "take over" a school and define its image and ambience, meaning normal parents do everything in their power to avoid that school for their child, and making the teachers' lives hell.

Also, scarily (I assume because of Ofsted targets), this clustering of social classes and abilities results in kids from "disadvantaged" families (usually complete with multiple iphones, huge expensive cars, pot farms and/or illegal dog breeding businesses) being pandered to, to get the attendance figures up, while royally taking the piss out of our education system.

From my own recent experience: The "disadvantaged" are given everything on a plate, literally. Not only do they get first-rate teaching, free books, free stationery, they get free food, free uniform, free breakfast, teachers literally begging them to come in for extra free lessons (seen this first-hand), extra exam prep sessions, free counselling, free buses that the "non disadvantaged" kids can't get because they are too terrified of the thugs runnung riot, free pastoral care... everything.

The "disadvantaged" parents reward and acknowledge all this effort by not turning up at the start of year meeting (there were 20 parents for a year group of 170 kids), sending kids to school half dressed with no bag, not buying PE kit, stealing other kids' new uniform ... but turning up in new Audis with 1000s of pounds of cosmetic enhancements and in droves for the trip to an exciting destination costing £1500+.

It's priorities at the rnd of the day. I am sick of having my kids' lives compromised to cater to other people's greed and indolence.

So thanks very much grammar school system, for giving my daughter an intensive 4 year course in crime, child abuse and dysfunctional behaviours. I take comfort in the knowledge she is far from the only one going through this.

The GS parents whose kids were tutored to insanity since age 9 can sit back and enjoy their ten-point 11+ differential that cost my daughter her place at two selectives and has given me an extra parenting load from having to correct the behaviours inevitably brought home from the comp.

9 miles is a long way in an urban area. It would undoubtedly cover some areas of council estate. Most secondary pupils attend schools within 3 miles of home.

In my area, there's a set pass mark, then after ehcp specifying that school and looked after children it's a set number of places for FSM children. After that it's in order of distance from the school. The fsm places are not usually full. Even though the area is very mixed with plenty of FSM kids - in fact some of the most deprived areas in Europe are within 4 miles or so. Having said that the non selective local schools are rated good or excellent and are respected locally.

I think people just do what their friends and family do, they assume the school will be good enough. I was surprised how few people I know visited any schools before choosing - even including "middle class" people. I don't think it's that people are on the breadline or working 3 jobs. Perhaps people just value different things. People value their children living close by, having children, being a close family group. It's a different viewpoint to those who think success means a high powered job but rarely seeing your grandchildren because they have settled far away for their work.

Just checked - proportion of students in receipt of pupil premium in the borough of Newstead Wood is circa 15% in the most deprived areas of that region. In most areas of that region (Bromley), it is 9%. It is a pretty affluent area in general

I agree with your last paragraph. Definitions of success differ, how people value time differ etc

@newmummycwharf1 but isn't better that children have the choice of whether they want to stay in the area or move for a different sort of job

There was a careers fair held in my local area, some parents complained that there were some employers from outside the town (not large town) and universities more than 30 miles away

Oh absolutely- and I think that kind of thinking is limiting. But I also believe that the world works better when we can accept that people will have different perspectives. So I am pro-choice and diversity of options

And knowing some people prefer these sorts of options helps to understand the decisions they may make. Instead of assuming it is all about money or lack thereof

So much talk on here about the 11+. In my area the children go to grammar two years later after taking the 13+. By this age it is much clearer whether the child will suit a grammar school education or not. The exam is not the only criteria, there is an interview and school reports to support the application. Not everyone who passes the 13+ gets in.

My DC were not tutored as such, but I do accept that having a parent that is well-educated does make a difference to the child's general education.

I think highly selective grammars with wide catchment areas have less impact on other schools, which do tend to retain their comprehensive feel as a result. Trouble is, they are a poor fit for a society like the UK where most cities outside London have terrible public transport, meaning that parents would end up dragging kids around in the car - a big burden on them and it creates awful traffic issues around schools. We have some government-run junior high (12-15) and high (15-18) schools like this in Japan which are highly selective and heavily subsidzed by the government (so very cheap though not free), but then kids virtually always get there independently unless they are well out in the countryside.

Just have comprehensive schools with sets and streams. Job done. Has most of the advantages of grammar school systems but is more flexible and avoids the most pernicious side-effects.

You can't have proper comprehensives if you also have grammar schools. They are mutually exclusive.

Actually you can, sort of.

Where I went to high school they abolished the 11+ but retained two grammar schools, one for boys and one for girls, and this will confuse people in Kent, the boys' was referred to as the grammar and the girls' was the high school.

Basically everyone went to their nearest school for the first three years. Then the top classes of the comps transferred to the grammars.

But there were two RC schools which had been secondary moderns, the grammers that used to take the children were in another town that had completely abolished grammars. So both school became comprehensives.

So you had two comprehensives, then you had comps that effectively became secondary moderns from 14+ and two grammars from 14+.

realise this is a very unusual system that doesn't exist there any more.

So

Same peo

again really when it comes to