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.

Needs constantly to be grounded by reality - segregation into a superselective would be really bad for that person.

Talkinpeace why do you think academically selective state schools lack reality? They have to be more "real" than a private school cushioned by money alone, surely?

The reality for a very bright young person can be that if they rarely meet anyone of a similar level to themselves, they'll be bullied and feel they have to "dumb down" their achievements to fit in.

But what benefit would the 1-2% gain from being segregated? Why wouldn't they benefit from doing sport and art and dt and RE and stuff with the merely bright- or even (gasp) the not so bright?

Coupon
There are two issues
(1) I do not believe that any state funded school should be selective in any way - you want selection on grounds of God or maths tests, go pay for it
(2) In a big comp - DCs is 300 per year group - there are quite a few extremely bright kids and they hang around in a group. Only a bad school would allow them to be bullied for being bright.
Where do you set the cutoff?
as the academic evidence shows that the ones who just miss the cut into superselectives are pretty darned bright too, and its only an arbitrary mark between them rather than accepting the reality that ability in all subjects is a normal distribution curve.

And as I said above about my own situation, I left university woefully unprepared for dealing with real people.
The behaviour of the current cabinet shows that little has changed.

coupon That was DD1's experience at primary school, and to a lesser extent, DD2's (she is fierce and tough. Many tried to bully her once, few came back for a second go). DD1 has sadly not escaped bullying entirely at secondary school, but she has been so much happier there.

alemci Watford Grammar School for Girls is a comprehensive if you look at OFSTED. However 25% are selected by ability and 10% by musical aptitude. Siblings are way up the criteria list and so is having a brother at the boys grammar. Teachers in the school are way up the list for getting their child a place. Looked after children are top. My friend's DD got a community place, without a test.
There are very desirable comprehensives that put up house prices!

Can I ask a question? I am expecting a serious flaming, but I'm tough.

Why do people think that it's OK to plan an education system around the needs of the right and very bright? Both the super selective and merely selective systems seem to provide most parents with what they want for their bright and very bright children, but, particularly the merely selective, does so at the expense of the less able majority. Why is this OK? Why are we giving more privilege to the already privileged. Because, however much people put their fingers in their ears and hum, pretending not to hear, the kids who go to grammar schools are the children of privileged middle classes. Comprehensive schools possibly provide a less......congenial..... environment for the children of the privileged, but they do provide a top set for them to inhabit, and don't tell the majority that they have failed at the age of 10. And they do provide the opportunity for said majority to move up into the top set should they be late developers, either psychologically or academically.

curlew
Simplez.
Because government policy has been set by people who went to selective schools - often fee paying
and they are too unimaginative to realise that it might not be the right thing for everybody
In 15 years time when the Comp kids start working through the system more it will change methinks

Yes talkin, I can't believe that in a truly selective comprehensive of a reasonable size there would be this one child who was so bright that they had nothing in common academically with anybody else.

And another thing. Why the assumption that middle and lower ability children will automatically bully the higher ability ones?

curlew
Probably because posh private school kids remember getting a good kicking back in the 70's
Remember that before setting was brought in properly, mixed ability classes for things like maths were a bad thing

"As I said up thread a very able child is as different from an average child as an average child is from an academically challenged one."

How many such children are there? Children who are so incredibly able in everything that they just can't be accommodated in an ordinary top set? And what are the differences?

But why wouldn't you achieve a challenging education in your set with children of similar abilities?

I am also in Bucks - it's so utterly depressing for those of us with children who probably won't pass the 11+.

I don't have a problem with the system (I would be delighted if DS passes, but it's certainly not a given...) the problem I have are the alternatives. His secondary options are dire - one is in special measures, in shabby buildings, with poor results (although they have drafted in a super-head from one of the Grammar's to turn it around) The other one is in a super posh market town and struggles with results and the attitudes of staff and pupils.

It is little wonder that as a parent you feel as if your only option is to tutor, even if the goal is only to get them streamed into the top sets at secondary.

Oh, FFS at compulsory BTec PE.
Like the sort-of compulsory RE GCSE this is doubtless a stat-chasing exercise so that time which has to be spent on PE can translate into some brownie points for exams passed.

what I am saying, is that I accept that I live in a Grammar area, but I don't accept the poor quality of the secondary schools - for anyone.

Curlew - because mostly, bright children are Eaten Alive in comps.

Talkin It's obviously not universal, clearly the vast majority of really high performing super selective ability kids aren't bullied. But some are, at primary school, and it's because they aren't part of that 'top 25%' group which is a gang all of its own - they are the isolated one or two, that annoy the rest of the top 25% as much as they annoy the rest of the class (and sometimes they annoy the parents too just by their very existence :( ) My DD1 wasn't bullied for being the ability she was, she wasn't bullied for being dyspraxic, she was bullied for being both at the same time. :( This is clearly anecdote not data and anyone who argues that the only way you will defeat a tidal wave of bullying sweeping the nation is probably being a bit overly dramatic.

Regarding mixed ability sets for maths - they were fabulous. 55 minutes to catch up on my sleep almost every day. Result! But then I was able to doze with my eyes open. without that superhero skill it might have been a different story.

Seriously, I think some of the v bright children who have awkward social skills may well be more vulnerable to bullying than others, but that is because of the awkward social skills not because of the intelligence.

On the other hand I have recently observed a middle ability child be deliberately and cleverly manipulated by a top achieving child into being a victim of cyber bullying.

Generalisations are fatuous and not useful.

As most children in the country go to comps, if bright children get eaten alive either a lot of children are being eaten alive, or all the bright children really are in independent schools (since most of us don't live in bucks or Kent). This doesn't sound likely to me.

Sorry, got interrupted and didn't finish a thought in my last post - should have said:

Anyone who argues that the only way you will defeat a tidal wave of bullying sweeping the nation is by setting up lots of grammar schools is probably being a bit overly dramatic.

And then I'd add - not least because bullying is far from unknown in Grammar schools.

Tiggy- I think your post is very true.

People were using some schools in Gloucestershire as an example further down the thread. This is interesting as having taught at and still teaching at schools in this area, I think it provides a good illustration of what happens to the other comprehensive schools in a selective area.

E.g Cheltenham has 1 grammar- very little effect on the surrounding schools as it is super-selective and takes from a broad area.
Stroud- 2 single sex grammar schools, still some very good comps in the area as lots of parents do not want their children to take the test. Technically not true comps but even so good 80% plus results.
Gloucester- 4 grammar schools, the local schools in the city would all be classed as secondary modern's and have poor results. Some better schools on the outskirts.
Cirencester- No grammar schools. Middle class area but the 2 comprehensives are true comps.

Obviously this is purely anecdotal (as are most of the speculative comments on this thread and mainly based on my experience, my friends that teach in those schools, friends whose children attend those schools). There are also clear soci-economic differences between parts of Cirencester and Gloucester for example. but I do think it paints an interesting picture.

Now, I was raised and educated in West Sussex and had never actually heard of a grammar school before I moved to Gloucestershire to study my PGCE. It cannot actually be talked about as an actual 'system' can it............if it doesn't exist in many parts of the country.
How many counties are there left that have a pure 11 plus system? The simple answer seems to me that if it is not all the counties then why should it exist at all? Even if it is in some counties......why not in all areas of the county, doesn't seem to make sense to me.