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.

zzzzz
the wheelchair kid is not a fiction - shes a friend. she cannot write for long, she can barely walk now (deteriorating) but her secondary school (comp) saw beyond that and she's on line for v high grades
her college options are limited by wheel access , but all the colleges will accept her grades
selective schools would have copped out of helping her years ago

Erebus, I think your experience of grammar schools must be very different to mine.

I really don't think it's about clever children being educated separately. When I referred to a type of education, I mean different, not better.

Because that's what my experience is. I don't live in an area where 25% of all children from primary schools get sectioned off to be educated better. I have a great local comp, and if this one weren't our closest then there would be other good ones to choose from. The grammar is very much opt in if you want to, if you and your child think he or she would prefer to have more maths and Latin or more design and technology, drama and a normal amount of maths.

WooWoo
but at the school Erebus is talkind about they can do drama and Latin, while building a trebuchet in tech
why should it be either or?
she and I believe in having access to both
(I do not know her by the way)

I do have access to both, so my experience eif the system isn't bad. I appreciate that may not be the same for others. I just have to make a choice for and with my child.

All families make choices about secondary schools, even comprehensives aren't all the same. The education is different, but it's not so vastly different that either is going to serve my children badly.

"Would you understand if you put it in the context of asking you to educate a middle of the road child in a special school? What about if your top set child was placed in the bottom set? What would be the issues?"

The point is that this education doesn't have to take place in different schools. Children of a wide variety of abilities, talents, and needs can all be educated appropriately in the same school. And the advantage of being in the same school is that when the late August born child who got straight level 4s on exit from Primary suddenly matures and develops top scores in English they can easily be shifted into a higher set. And when the high achieving child who bombed the 11+ on the day starts racing ahead they can be put in the top set and be challenged. And when the kid who passed the 11+ but was actually having an fluke good day on the maths bit begins to lag behind and lose a lot of confidence in maths they can be put in a set which is leaning at a steadier pace.

I think that many children with learning disabilities - what SEN is called outside education, perhaps - actually need a particular approach to learning, totally different methods and environment, and in that case inclusion does not serve them best. I have listened to parents of children with MLD SLD ' ASD all say that, and I think that is a different question from dividing NT children across a fairly arbitrary IQ judgement line.

"there are some that fail to understand how difficult it is to never be challenged. "

I don't think anyone fails to understand this. What I don't understand is why the challenging need to be done in a different school.

But grammar schools does not = outer extremes, does it?

I don't quite know what SENs children with outer extreme intelligence have, beyond an advanced curriculum and challenging work - that is because I am not, as I said earlier, familiar. But in terms, say, of a child with AS or ASD who also happens to have sky high intelligence, don't they need academically appropriate work as well as support to help them with the issues they have as a result of ASD - such as sensory issues or social, or whatever? Is that a Grammar school specific provision?

There is a comp near us that will have a certain number of places every year supporting children with ASD.

I really do feel as if I'm on a different planet on threads like these. I have never met a child who was so bright that they couldn't be accommodated in a normal school-obviously with adaptations. The maths genius is working with people from the university in the same way that the swimmer and the musicians are working with specialist teachers. But they are still making macaroni cheese and discussing famine relief and making prints with their peers. How can that not be the best possible way to do it?

But a comprehensive school is designed for a wide range of abilities. Dropping a child with an IQ of 100 into a school designed for children with IQs of 70 obviously wouldn't work. But dropping a child with an IQ of 100 into a school with kids with IQs of 60 to 95 would be fine. Why wouldn't it be?

If the school was ONLY designed for children with an IQ of 70 then thatwould be a problem.

But a good comp should be designed to educate - in different classes - children who can get 1 BTec and children who can get 10 A*s.In fact that is exactly what many comps do.

ZZZZ - what kind of school do you think is needed for a child with an IQ of 145?

Mention was made earlier of the Warwick Uni ran gifted program. This was based on CAT scores, and (I think) you needed a score of about 134 to be offered a place. The level was later reduced to 128.

Not sure where that would put an 11 year old on the IQ curve, but as a mum with 2 DC who were both on that programme with high cat scores, can I just reassure you that they were definitely challenged, encouraged and well taught in their comprehensive school.

OK. Take this child with an IQ of 145. What does he need that a child with an IQ of 135 doesn't? Or a child with an IQ of 125?

I wish there was a 'good' high school in my town but there isnt. 1 of the schools last year got a very disappointing 21% pass 5 GCSE's and the other managed 37%. Next year they are also hoping to achieve 10 % of their students getting a place at university.

Given these are the choices I currently have surely I should have the option of my DD sitting the exam at the GS in the next town just as I should have the option of sending my children to a 'good' high school that at least manages to get a few more GCSE grades than they currently do.

I think given lots of schools try to stream the students anyway, why is it that much of an isssue they are taught at a different location ? Maybe if they werent called Grammar Schools and were just considered to be the top percentage of pupils in the school year instead, perhaps people would not consider them to be such a bad idea.

I think you're asking the wrong question zzzz. Grammar schools work for the vast majority of children that attend them, even with the oh so terrible 11+ at the start.

We don't need to question what is so bad about grammar schools and what they are doing for this hypothetical child with a high IQ, because it's more than likely that they are doing a great job.

Yes children with a high IQ can be catered for in comps, but they can also be catered for in grammar schools if that's what their parents choose for them, the same way they could be educated at home, or at private school, or at a state single sex school, or a religious school.

Why take away a choice that works for so many children?

"Why take away a choice that works for so many children?"

Because it does not give them anything they couldn't get in another setting, and it is detrimental to so many more children.

Because it does not give them anything they couldn't get in another setting

I dont believe this is true. The GS in the next town definately offers a far better education than the local comp's I have a choice of in my town. (The 2 high schools are merged as one academy)

My local schools believe 'happy children make better people' (quote from the booklet I got at the open evening this week) and they have an emphasis on 'fun' and 'a miriad of extra curricular activities'. They also believe that 'good exam results arent the be all and end all' and they have decided that students require a 30 minute break after every lesson to help them recover from the stresses of education.

We all know thats not strictly true about exam results because my DD cant get the place at university she wants to become an Engineer without those exam results and the schools attempts to keep students in lessons by making the day shorter with less 'education' is a bad decision.

For me what is on offer at the local comprehensive school does not match up to what is required in the working world. The GS will offer my children the opportunity to gain the qualifications they need to do what they want to do in life. The local schools just will not.

It gives them Latin and more maths. That's all. It's not much, but it's what some children would prefer to learn. I can't see what harm it's doing.

If a grammar school existing is detrimental to other children then it can only be because the other schools aren't doing a good enough job.