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.

I have one at a SS GS and one at a comp, although there isn't a use difference in their academic ability. They are both very good schools, and both have things that I prefer about them in comparison to the other. They are suited to different children, that's all.

If the problem with grammar schools in grammar school areas is that the alternative schools aren't good enough, then the answer is to improve the alternatives, not do away with the grammars.

Plus3- "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."

But, but- maybe the other schools are so poor because of the existence of the GS! Where the 'MC' DC of committed parents go, leaving the DC who either fail the 11+, or those whose parents either didn't know or care about the 11+, or whose parents are ideologically opposed to selective education in the other school.

WooWoo- I am thinking you maybe haven't read the whole thread? Many have already stated that one of the many issues of GS is that not all DC are good at all academia- great at VR and NVR, maybe, reasonable at Maths, possibly, well-tutored, more or less definitely. A comp will contain a wide mix of DC, too, some who can be top set Maths, but middle set English, 4th set French etc. The Big Debate is- why, oh why do DC need to be segregated in this way? What is the possible benefit to society of doing so? Bearing in mind that all of society is paying for its next generation to be educated.

You'd need to elucidate on how 'SS' the GS is as the distinction between 'top 2% school' and 'top 23-30% school' is being made. The 2% school maybe doesn't have a huge impact on the local education, i.e. the alternative school, which is almost but not quite a 'comp; the 23-30% school leaves a SM however you dress it up.

Most comps I have been involved in have managed to stretch the bright, aspire the middle and ensure those that struggle - don't. My brother and I went to a comp in the 80s and went to Oxbridge (my parents left school at 15). I have worked in over 25 schools, mostly comps,and found most of them brilliant. Bright kids are not eaten alive, they are fine. And I'm a parent of 5, all attending, or left a comp. All done v well. I have a huge problem segregating kids so young as many don't bloom until much later, and the tutoring to get them in seems to be an industry in itself (look at the % Free School Meals at grammers and tell me this is fair). If you are equally happy for your kids to go to secondary modern then that's fine, but I never hear the campaign to have more of these.

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

Ah yes, forgot that.

I admit I haven't read all of this thread, but I've been on enough grammar school debates on MN (probably under different names) to know the jist of it.

I don't think children need to be segregated, but nor do I think that children going to different schools that suit them in different ways is that bad a thing either. Like I said, my children are 'segregated' by their schools, and they're fine. Better than fine in fact.

The GS I use is probably top 5-2%, I'm not sure exactly, but we aren't in a GS area where the majority of children do the 11+. The existence of the GS doesn't affect the surrounding schools at all, children come from quite a distance to attend it.

But, but- maybe the other schools are so poor because of the existence of the GS!

I completely disagree with this, and everything you say in that paragraph. I don't think blaming commited MC parents who apply for the best school they have available for their child is a valid argument against grammar schools. If high schools that exist in grammar areas aren't good enough, the that's down to the parents and teachers of that school. It is not the responsibility of other parents or their children.

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

But why shouldn't the top set of. Comprehensive be the answer?

The argument about the percentage of children on FSMs doesn't hold much weight for me either tbh.

Apart from the fact that children on FSMs unfairly have the luxury of the pupil premium being added to their education which other children don't get, it doesn't have to cost anything to give your child some preparation for the 11+. We bought a couple of books from Smiths and used free Internet resources - job done.

Having a low income does not automatically mean that you aren't engaged and involved in your child's education, nor does it mean that your children are less intelligent than anyone else's.

The state primary I work in only has 3% FSM. Should that school be abolished too?

" For some children the top set will be great, for others not so much."

So should the whole system be geared to those children? Regardless of the impact on all the other children in the area?

No, it doesn't mean your kids are less intelligent: it does mean, statistically, that you children are less likely to do well academically. Which is why they have all that luxurious pupil premium to address it. There are a number of reasons for this, which I really don't feel like going into at length here.

I should probably point out, yet again, that the non-leafy comp in which my daughter (whose maths is now considerably improved) and her friends (some of whom are quite scarily over-achieving) are not getting their heads kicked in (sorry to piss on your chips about that one) has a high contingent of kids on FSM (thus demonstrating its non-desirability in the leafiness stakes).

Why shouldn't the top set of comprehensive be the answer?

It is the answer for children who don't have or don't want a grammar school, but why should it be the answer for children who don't have a problem and therefore don't need an answer?

I'm aware that FSM children are statistically less likely to do well, but I don't think that's all down to income. A low income can be as a result of many things, not all of those will have an effect on children's education. And lots of those same problems will exist for families that don't have a low income.

My child at a comp is also doing well and nobody has tried to take a bite out of him or any of his friends yet thankfully.

"Apart from the fact that children on FSMs unfairly have the luxury of the pupil premium being added to their education which other children don't get"
Why is it unfair that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have a bit extra? And anyway often pupil premium funding benefits the whole school.

*Why shouldn't the top set of comprehensive be the answer?

It is the answer for children who don't have or don't want a grammar school, but why should it be the answer for children who don't have a problem and therefore don't need an answer? *

You've lost me there. What problem do kids at GSs not have, or is it that their glorious seclusion from the ahem more vocationally oriented pupils mean they are safe from inappropriate consumption?

Because some children that are on FSM really don't need the extra intervention, but some children who aren't on FSM really do need it. This is very definitely the case in the school I work in.

Funding should be made available for children that need it, regardless of what jobs their parents do or don't do, but at the moment, it really doesn't work like that.

The comp my ds goes to stated at the start of the term that they will use the pupil premium to pay for the foreign residential trip for children that get FSMs. Yet there are other children who's working parents genuinely can't afford for their children to go, and they get no help at all.

Yes, but that's the only way of having any kind of rule, really, isn't it. You can't institute some kind of Test Of Parental Support. It's a relatively blunt instrument but the association with educational underachievement clearly demonstrates that there is a link, so schools might as well work with that one.

Mother, sorry, didn't word that well and it got complicated!

The GS kids don't have a problem, that's the point. The comp top set doesn't need to be an answer.

But that's presupposing that it's true about the being Eaten Alive. Which the bright kids I know in several different comps seem really to be quite immune from.

I disagree with schools working with that blunt instrument, it doesn't work enough, it wastes money, and it lets down children that need extra support but whose parents income isn't high or low enough to help them.

Woo woo- I'm afraid that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

The FSM related pupil premium is a blunt instrument but clearly needed. The additional money given to schools where there are forces children is outrageous though. As is the disparity between funding levels for different LEAs which is manifestly inequitable.

woowoo I agree a couple of books from smiths aren't expensive. However having parents who buy the books - that's priceless.

I think it's reasonable to argue that the grammar school system goes some way to even out the advantage enjoyed by children at private schools, and certainly in many areas the independents take far more children out of the 'comprehensive' system than grammars.

However, to argue that access to grammars isn't flawed is just plain wrong.

We all want the best for are families, if that means sheltering them from
the "Great Unwashed" for as long as possible so be it. The great unwashed
will eventually be part of you child's life.

A grammar school education is probably the only thing the state offers, that is worth having... I expect to get flamed for saying that.

My secondary education was awful, the three years at my "Supposed" leafy comprehensive were traumatic every day . I cannot remember one teacher or one thing i learnt in that time My views are probably biased
against comprehensive schools because of my experiences . In fact i wished i had gone to a "MODERN" school in the nearby selective area
because i would have learnt more there than i did at that hole.

The MODERN school that i am talking about beats the comprehensive in every measure and at 5 A*-C .. I know you get no sympathy on this site.

Your Child's life...

For the avoidance of doubt: That bright kids get Eaten Alive in comps is what I have learned from reading numerous threads about appeals, moving house, temporary renting, going private, tutoring for grammar or SS, how awful S London is, how awful schools that have a high ratio of FSM / EAL are (those are especially lethal) etc etc.

What I have learned from throwing my small, weedy, clever, top set, sensitive child into this arena is that he hasn't even been lightly nibbled and has been challenged and pushed and inspired, and given lots of extra curricular opportunities (currently doing leadership workshops).

Admittedly his school is one of the good comps in our area (not leafy, nor m/c, not in a premium house price area...). there are schools within reasonable travelling distance that I would not be so happy for his to attend. The answer is to invest in those schools and in the communities around them. Not to 'rescue' more kids into a Grammar system where there are only spaces in the lifeboat for the top 23% in academic terms.