Genuine question - why do some people have a problem with the grammar school system

[englishteacher78]

I went to one - my choice in part, parents would have preferred me to go to the Catholic secondary. As a teacher I have worked in two.
I know if I had gone to the Catholic school I would have coasted (even more than I did).
Some people seem to he very against the grammar school system and I'm not sure why. It was the making of my dad (miner's son from council estate in Scotland)and I think that all counties should have that provision. Surely it's just split site streaming in a way.

There are 19 grammar schools in greater London. I can't be bothered to find out how many secondary schools are in greater London, but for comparison, just in the London Borough of Richmond there are 10 private secondaries. Most people in London aren't effected by grammar schools one way or the other.

I brought up the Sutton stats and situation because you mentioned Sutton as a 'top LEA'.

DS and about a quarter or third of his class in state primary (poor, even notorious borough, high FSM yada yada) were working at level 6 by the time they did SATS.

But that wouldn't have equipped them to do the super-selective tests. VR and NVR isn't tested in SATS and isn't part of the NC.

Every kid I know who has entered the super selectives reachable from our area is tutored from Yr 3 or 4 in order to take these tests, whether at home with support from the 11+ forum or by tutors. I don't know anyone who has decided to put kids into these tests for faraway super-selectives who makes that decision / choice and then says 'we'll pick up a Bonds test papers book and run through it a week or so before the test day, maybe'.

Even if you add another 4 grammar schools to your Essex statistics, again, most people in Essex just aren't affected by grammar schools in the way that people in Kent and Buckinghamshire are.

The article is looking at areas that mirror more closely the old grammar school system, not areas that just happen to have the odd grammar school. I can't say that the statistics in the article are perfect - who knows what other data should have been included? However, many (most?) other areas don't have enough grammar schools to draw conclusions about whether they are a good or bad thing.

"in London aren't affected..."

Merry I agree that most people in London are not impacted on by grammar schools either way. And those stats (which I think are highly dubious and which I didn't post originally but which everyone seemed happy to accept as authoritative when they thought they condemned grammar schools across the board) indicate that according to the measures the author chose to use for many of them, London does 'the best'. And London has a system whcihc is mainly comp but with superselectives as well. As does the south west (as defined by the author not the map) which for many of the measures chosen, comes second-ish.

Which seems to support both the viewpoint that Curlew and her predecessors have been making for so long, which is that the Kent system is BAD (a viewpoint I completely agree with) and my viewpoint which is that superselectives can be good for the kids they serve without damaging the comp system for everyone else in their geographical area, because of their nature and the size of their particpation zone. Each individual comp might lose one or two kids to the SS at most, not an entire top stream.

Blu I did indeed but that was before those interesting stats were posted. :) I know - from reading threads here - that the Sutton grammars are very competitive. I'm delighted that the equally excellent superselective that is reachable from where I live and which my DD1 attends (and DD2 will attend) kids don't have to be tutored from Yr 3 or 4 in order to take the test. It must be horrible and I can see why parents don't like it.

merry They aren't my stats. And if we can conclude that the Kent system is a bad thing from the results presented we can also conclude that a system of a few superselectives and mainly comps is the best thing.

I actually think both those conclusions are likely correct, however I also know that the information presented is so context free that no conclusions drawn from it can be considered valid in any rigorous sense.

London has a system that is mainly comp, quite a few private schools, then, so few that you would hardly spot them if you didn't know they were there, grammar schools.

In Kingston it's not the 1 child off to Tiffin's that skews the system, it's the ten off to private schools.

I can definitely see the argument for superselectives. I personally don't support them because it seems to me that setting children apart from their peers is not a good idea if it can possibly be avoided. I honestly don't see why the needs of the very able shouldn't be met in the same building as their peers- and why a child very gifted in maths, say, shouldn't join their peers for Tec or Drama. It just seems so much better for everyone. Surely better than a massive commute to a separate school with little contact with more "ordinary" contemporaries?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Class

This is what is needed. This system worked really well because the students didn't just grow academically, every week they learnt something meaningful about themselves.

How does the 'high attainers' category in the Dept of Ed website compare with the level of attainers you might expect in a Selectivia Grammar?

zzzzz
because very bright children can self guide their learning - set them a piece of work, let them loose in a library and get them to check back in - that is what Universities do after all.

lower ability children need much more assistance.

Does specialist teaching have to take place in a different building? Does having children of regular high or middle intelligence just down the corridor affect the thought processes of the super intelligent?

In which case what on earth should they do if their siblings and / or parents are of 'average bright' or midling intelligence? I suppose a brother or sister could be sent to a small chalet at the end of the garden?

zzzzzz
but why do the bright children whose parents have the money to tutor them, get to go to "better" STATE schools than those who are bright, but whose parents do NOT have the money to tutor them - or even the knowledge that these tutors exist.

Any kids who get to grammar in Gloucestershire without tutoring (or public prep school) really are the very, very top of the brightness scale.....

zzzzz
To assume that all children with high IQs are self starting and precociously mature is to waste many of our children's potential.
In which case those who are not will most definitely benefit from the contrasts in learning and teaching styles and the enrichment available in a comp with good setting.

My DD is in year 11, I had her parents evening last night.
The whole of her triple Science set are predicted A/A* as are the whole of her Maths, English, History, Geography and Latin sets.
The other subjects are by necessity mixed ability.
Her comp school is by no means exceptional and is not the highest performing one in the area.

What more would you want than solid A/A* sets?

I would expect, or wish, children of very high intelligence to receive special enrichment activities or curriculum - an IEP, or something. Whether they were in the top sets at a comp, or at a grammar or whether at a special school for hearing impaired or blind children.

And by very high inteligence I mean the teeny % that are 30 IQ ppoints above a bright Grammar or top set child.

1. it has been shown to be difficult to find these children with high IQ's and not just those who have been coached.
2. many people don't put much store in IQ testing anyway.
3. a child with SN and high IQ is often one and the same.

blu
So those very few incredibly bright children - how would you get them to school?
as I suspect there may be no more than 20 in Hampshire - day pupils? boarding?
The logistics of such a segregated idea outside London are daft I'm afraid.
AND
Educating those people in total isolation from the other people their age will not do them any favours later in life when they have to deal with the great unwashed

It is one of the failings of my education (selective, single sex, private) that I only started to learn about 'normal' people once I had graduated from University and had to give them instructions at work - something I was singularly unprepared for.

God soooo don't get the angst over all this.

You can't dismiss all kids who are tutored.

Primary schools differ hugely.Some are private,some are Outstanding,Good,Unsatisfactory etc.There will be bright kids in all.Some non tutored kids will have huge advantages over others.

Many kids won't have covered the 11+ syllabus so will need tutoring regardless of ability.You can't answer questions on prime numbers if you haven't covered them.Intelligence is neither here nor there.

So improve the selection process so it's less "coachable", and ensure secondary moderns don't fail the pupils they serve. It certainly doesn't have to be the same as 50 years ago.

With the 11-plus, quite a few poor but very bright children will get the chance of a high-flying education. There could even be a "weighting" to take into account circumstances. Without the 11-plus, that's definitely not going to happen, and selection will only be for those who can somehow find the money.

It's beneficial to our society to enable the top-level academic education to be available to children from all backgrounds. This way, more people from poorer backgrounds will eventually make it into the most influential positions as politicians, judges, etc. Leave things as they are and you just get nearly all well-off privately educated people, a cabinet full of Old Etonians etc.

The thing that confuses me is that if over 50% of people are now supposed to be capable of going to university (can function at a high academic standard, have ability to undertake in depth research, write a dissertation, work independently), presumably the assumption is that most people are now reasonably able and most schools should not struggle to cater for bright children.

Even the super bright should be able to get support in this kind of environment.