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).

A grammar school, like any other educational facility, will support their students in all areas of the curriculum not just the subjects they excel in. They wouldn't be getting 100% A*-C grades otherwise.

We don’t have grammars in Scotland but I don’t think any state schools should be selective. I know that this is simplistic when well off people simply move into catchment for better schools anyway mind you. As for private up to individuals what they spend their money on but would have been a waste of money for us given how well my child performed in a (not particularly great) state, and they wouldn’t have wanted his brother due to additional needs.

You must live in a naice area with good schools then.

Being a state secondary school teacher, I was adamant that my children would not be subjected to the little shits that kick off and disrupt every lesson, slow down the progression of everyone else, and generally take up all the teaching time. Therefore my children go to private primary school where classes are small and behaviour exceptional and are progressing to grammar school. Those are my reasons and I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone thinks. I have two well behaved, well educated, happy children.

I strongly disagree with about 75% of this. First off, not all children get tutored - the majority of children who get tutored are aiming for super selective schools. And in fact the tutoring which I agree should have never become a thing unfortunately levels the playing field for the majority (this is not to ignore those that lose a deserved place because tutoring was not an option due to finances or moral stand points).

My DC in many cases would not have needed any tutoring at all, they have been achieving greater depth in pretty much everything since I can recall - in their last end of unit assessment they scored 77/80 (schools average being 55/80 and national being 45/80). Because they were not being challenged at their first primary we ended up moving to a school which uses sets. Even at their second school I was worried about the impact of their first school and Covid - so we began tutoring after which it became very clear that was the norm no matter the student due to there being 2 commutable super selectives.

In no way did I purchase their in intelligence - I just centred to the moving goal posts. DC is performing well at school and is consistently at the top of their tutoring group which they enjoy along side their other extra curricular activities - it is something we have started and we will finish. In any case the 11+ it is not the end of the world.

I was a bright kid in a comprehensive school, so I can tell you what happened to me:

• teachers taught by reference to a GCSE 'pass' (grade C)
• In mixed ability classes (everything except maths and languages) I was always paired to work with the least bright person. It was slow, boring and frustrating. I hated it.
• The kids that got merit marks/teachers awards/end of year awards were the ones who'd behaved for a change/ surprisingly upped a grade/ done well despite home challenges. Never the one (me) churning out the A's every week for the whole year. Teachers had a sort of 'oh it's easy for you' type attitude that they didn't think was worthy of reward (in fact once when I got 100% in a biology test the teacher hauled me up and told me I could teach the class for the next lesson - I guess a way of winning the hearts and minds of the other 29 pupils)
• Being clever was not cool. I was bullied for asking questions and the class revelled in any time I did not get the highest mark.
• I witnessed loads of horrible violence and pupil on pupil abuse. I also learnt how to steal a car, derail a train and make a pot smoking pipe out of a Coke can (I never applied any of this knowledge, only heard what was required!)

The most valuable lesson I learnt was to earn enough money to send my kids private.

"Not the case! The 11+ exam includes things that state primaries havn't taught at the point in time that the exams are sat (i.e. start of year 6) as they include topics that are taught during year 6! Some element of "preparing" them is usually necessary to cover the gaps at the very least and also an element of exam technique, likewise which isn't taught much at primaries by the start of year 6 - SATS exams are very different to 11+!"

Exactly - So, if a child in a lowly state primary haven't covered a topic, despite being very bright they will not be able answer those questions without being 'prepared'. Yet, those in private primary schools will having been prepped - that's advantage by money

"But even then, it depends on the school and the area. Professional long term tuition is probably required for high demand super-selective areas, even for the brightest of kids simply due to it being a numbers game with ultra high pass marks."

Again, advantage by money. If a super selective school is choosing children based on the ability of parents to fund long term tuition then that child isn't at an advantage because of their intelligence, they are at an advantage because of money!

And again, I really don't understand the anger some people feel over it, the world is unfair, but to claim it is fair or equal for ALL children is really quite some stretch!

what I find ridiculous is the fact that some grammars even really bright kids can’t get it as parents tutor their kids for years to pass the test. My DS who got 9x9’s & 2 8’s at GCSE and 3 x A* at A level didn’t get in the very competitive grammars in our area, DD didn’t bother trying but is also up for mostly 9’s. Yet some kids who were tutored to pass the test then struggled and dropped out. Doesn’t seem like the best admissions process to me

From what I understand there's not that many grammars in London? I think some of the suburbs have them but going by the other thread about grammar schools (which I'm on) London is mainly private or state comp. It actually highlights the extreme inequality in London, which has seen many average income households forced out. Only the wealthy or the lucky few who get social housing (friends from London tell me wait lists are around 15 years) can afford to stay or move there.

There's more grammars in some of the home counties, but also other areas. I know someone who has a DC at a Manchester grammar.

It's not off topic to mention housing issues because that, together with poverty and the two are often interlinked, is one of the main reasons behind school inequality. It's less about grammar versus comprehensive or state versus private, and more about whether someone lives near a 'sink' school or can afford to live near a 'good' state school.

The politics of envy is wanting to maintain the privilege of a few it's absolutey not wanting to improve the educational outcomes of everyone.

Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that a well resourced state system, as seen in other countries, would outperform our system on every metric you care to measure.

I think the size of school you need to make it truly comprehensive actually makes it so big it becomes unworkable.

It's very difficult to simultaneously provide opportunities for:

• the amazing musician with perfect pitch who is pretty average at everything else
• the girl who speaks three languages at home and loves writing stories but isn't great at maths
• the student who wants to be a doctor but nobody in the family did science
• the ones who struggle in every subject because their reading isn't great but they want to improve,
• the one who wants to work on the family farm and his dad failed all his GCSEs so why does it matter anyway
• the girl who knows she wants to do hairdressing at college, so isn't fussed at all about French, but wants qualifications to get to college and doesn't want to be in a bottom maths set with disruptive pupils

To be able to run streamed core subjects, plus A-levels in music, languages, art, psychology with small numbers etc. plus intervention groups, and then things like functional skills plus other practical courses (like secondary moderns taught bricklaying, animal husbandry, cookery, nowadays you'd probably including coding, healthy exercise, money management, maybe something about modern factory work practice?) needs so many teachers and facilities.

I don't know what to do about it though. Split schools over multiple smaller sites? Say Y7/8, 9-11, sixth form, all with maths/english/science and PE teachers, and the smaller subject teachers move around? Then one site has your workshops and kitchens and each age group does a day a week there, more if it's a BTech/A-level?

Or schools in an area group together and offer multiple subjects across schools.

It would cost a huge amount and be logistically very difficult though. That's why you either get academic splitting or specialism splitting (a friend from Bulgaria went to a maths/science school from 13. I wouldn't have liked that though because I ended up doing a science degree I loved languages and wouldn't have wanted to give them up).

Not my personal experience at all.

I was a "bright" kid at primary school - always top of the class, top marks in tests, etc. I went to a comp. Left at 16 without a single GCE pass. That was because I was horrendously bullied, often paired/grouped with my bullies (despite teachers being aware), and just completely lost interest. No one cared at the school. Teachers, form teacher, etc just shrugged it off and did the usual "victim blaming" by telling me to fight back, avoid them (hard when the teachers pair you up!), etc. I was suicidal as the bullying wasn't just words, it was physical abuse (fag end burns, being kicked & punched etc) and property damage/theft, i.e. coat put down the loo, bag ripped, etc.

My real education only started once I left that hell hole. I got O and A levels (good grades) from a combination of self study and evening classes at the local adult education college and went on to get a professional qualification.

Not a single teacher at the crap comp even sat back and wondered why I started as a straight A pupil and left with nothing. No one cared!

"I teach in a state school. No grammar schools in this area so it's great to have that top 10% in the classroom as it really helps the others to learn."

How exactly? To help out their weaker classmates? To not need as much teacher attention?

I have an IQ that puts me in the top 1% of the population, and that was very much my own experience. I was also ostracised for being "clever". I don't know what the current term of abuse is for able bookish children but I'm sure there is on.

My own children went to private schools. None of our local comps offered separate sciences and with a strong science/maths history on both sides of the family it was very likely that at least one would want to do a science at a high level. In the end it was DD who got the Masters in chemistry.

Our current education system is failing nearly everyone. Those who succeed in it seem to do so against the odds, those who don't are totally failed by it and teachers are leaving in droves.

There is nothing wrong in allowing vocational training for the non academics from an earlier age but our current attitudes won't allow it.

Yes, I live in an area with good schools. Virtually all the schools where I live are good schools. I also live in a very cheap house on a council estate in a house I bought off the people who bought their own council house, and where many of my neighbours are council tenants. Like a previous poster said, improving inequality in housing, and giving more support to all pupils in deprived areas would be far more beneficial than introducing even more inequality through grammar schools.

I f you sat o levels than your older than me and I'm 50 I think education was very different in the 70,s and80,s even at my good comprehensive. Teachers only really cared about the kids that wanted to learn

I left school in 1990 and I think some kids didn't sit any exams im sure some kids left at Easter before the exams.

I said YABU because around here people don't have contempt for grammar school. We do have them and I know more people who prefer to send their dc to the comprehensives than get involved in tutoring but thats a financial decision. I also know a lot who tutor, dc don't get in then do well elsewhere.

I am all for them as we seem to have some good comprehensives as well so it's not some huge inequality based on ability to pay.

I mentioned the German education model on the other thread. It's a good one imo. The problem with the UK grammar system, which led to it being largely abandoned, was the 11+ came to be seen as something to pass or fail, and secondary moderns were viewed as being for 'failures'. When really both academic and vocational abilities and education should be equally valued and catered for, and the 11+ should've been viewed as a way to determine which type of schooling best suited each individual child.

Here's some information on the German system. As I said on the other thread the one possible negative with their system is children with SEN aren't integrated into mainstream schools and instead go to specialist schools. It's subjective though whether that's a plus or minus. Could be seen as better tailored to cater for needs but the downside is, as the article mentions, disabled children might be less integrated in society.

https://www.simplegermany.com/german-school-system/

Exactly what I stated in my other posts! Tutoring levels the playing field if you are aiming for a super selective.

Otherwise this has been a very interesting discussion - thanks for providing insight from both opinions!

I love them, as someone who is on benefits in a deprived area, it's been great for my children, they mix with a nice bunch of kids that also want to learn and gives them higher aspirations. It's completely bonkers people wanting to get rid of them and "make all schools great" ... you can't force children to learn and the more we face that fact the better.

There should be grammar schools, comp and tech colleges (to support children that aren't interested in learning academically but more kinetically).

I'm so glad I live in an area were there is a grammar school as its given my children such a bright future. They have engaged well and their confidence has blossomed which wasn't a thing, when they went to primary, they were quiet and bullying was quite prominent.

I have a child at a special school it really depends on the the extent of the SEN bit there's no way I would want my son integrated into a mainstream ,his school is fantastic at what it does and has great facilities ,no mainstream can offer him that.

@x2boys dont think you can include the NI Grammar Schools. We’ve
different system over here. Not perfect but seems much better than rest of the UK.

I bet you wouldn't love them so much if your kids hadent got in though.

I'm quite conflicted on this issue. We do not live in a grammar school area but we do live in a "naice" area with good state comprehensive schools.

There are a couple of feeder preps which seem to exist solely to hot house children through the 11 plus and into the two super selective grammars (one for boys one for girls) in the area. This does give me a bit of a bad taste in my mouth and I do think it's trying to game the system.

My son has been at state comp (didn't have him take 11+) and is now in year 11 taking GCSEs. His school doesn't have a sixth form so we've applied to local schools and colleges including the super selective grammar.

He has been offered a place at the SS grammar for sixth form and it's his first choice.

It's not my choice, but it's what my son wants, and it is an incredible opportunity to study for A levels in one of the best performing schools in the country. He has earned his place so I don't feel guilty that he's going but I still don't like the idea of grammar schools (or of single sex schools but that's a different debate).

Agree. Education isn’t an exercise in equality, it’s to produce a workforce capable of meeting the country’s needs and to compete in the global world. If you want to hold bright kids back by making them a moderator of less bright children’s behaviour and education, then fine but don’t complain we don’t have enough educated people to fill essential roles in medicine, science, teaching, and other services.

this is not to ignore those that lose a deserved place because tutoring was not an option due to finances or moral stand points.

But you are ignoring them. You certainly haven’t suggested a solution/ anything to help.

And you think that tutoring is wrong but you then decided to tutor your own, already bright kids and change their school, to “center their moving goalposts” or some other nonsense. In other words you’ve accepted that your kids probably wouldn’t (or won’t) have got into school without help.

I think your own posts show exactly why so many people hold grammar schools in contempt.

Plus why ask the question if you’re not even prepared to accept the most obvious points being made against you?