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.

Actually I think they should bring back state grammar schools. I think the free schools and academies should be abolished and a return to state comprehensive schools.

The reason I say that is that grammar schools are great because they select the brightest pupils irrespective of post code or social class. It allows the poorest of the poor an opportunity to get into the bright kids school.

No a local comprehensive is not fair as it is selection by postcode and therefore selection by house prices. This is selection by money which which makes the school a free independent school where the poor are excluded.

kenlee my son is at a grammar school , most of the children he seems to mix with have come from private prep schools. I wouldn't say his grammar school is a bastion of social mobility . It seems to be a way of mixing with other middle class children without paying fees. Every now and again they let a poor kid in to justify their existence.

Arisbottle yes but the fact is there is bright poor children there. They would not be there if it was a local comprehensive on the other side of the rails.

It just seems a huge coincidence that the place is packed to the rafters with kids from prep schools and children from families like us. in fact scrap that we probably stand out as being common and we are both Oxbridge educated , in professional jobs and spend out weekends watching out children ride horses, fence and sail.

True Kenlee , they could be taught in the comprehensive / secondary modern that I teach in - and the rest of my children attend - getting a jolly good education with better facilities.

My point is that grammar schools today are very rarely a vehicle of social mobility in the way they were in the past.

Of course nature and nurture affect a child's IQ. However are poor parents incapable do giving their children a good environment in which to learn? is that why they are not fairly represented in the grammar school system.

To be honest even if they managed to get a place, they would be put off by the huge expense when they are there. Much cheaper than the school fees that most parents are trying to avoid, but still expensive for the average parent.

If that is the case why does my son's grammar school have such a low rate of students on FSM? Why are pupils from private schools over represented?

Arisbottle yes but they wont goto your local comprehensive they are on the wrong side of the tracks....

The school in which I teach has between 20 and 25% FSM, about ten times that of the grammars. So yes they are at my local school.

So why dont your children attend your school?

They do or will, with one exception because he was moved as we faced a permanent exclusion. I would have preferred to have kept him at the comprehensive / secondary modern.

If you boil down all these posts two questions emerge:

1. Is it fair ?
2. why do people have a problem with it

So, in reverse order...

Let's look at the single largest unitary education authority in Europe (by miles)...
Birmingham...
The second city.

Eight free grammar schools (only one is co-ed) who select on the basis of one exam taken in Early September. Postcode means nothing. House price in your street means nothing because your kids are competing with almost every other kid in the second largest city in Britain and with thousands of kids from the surrounding counties. Given it's sheer size Birmingham can claim to be perhaps the most economically and ethnically diverse city in Britain. Only real academic excellence will win you a place and all arguments about postcodes, money or family privilege fall away when you look at the potential catchment area that the Birmingham grammar schools have so the system itself, the very idea of selective education comes into focus.

There are 1,106 places on offer and routinely over 30,000 children from Birmingham and the surrounding counties sit the exam.

Why? Because these eight schools all have 100% pass rates for five GCSEs at grades A to C. Actually they have a 90% pass rate for for five GCSEs at grades A or A. So only 10% of pupils are not getting straight As. They all have a sixth form and all the sixth formers walk out with three or four A A levels.

As a parent, do you want your kids to go to these schools ? Of course you do. They are as ethnically and economically diverse as any comprehensive school anywhere in the country, they are not packed with prep school kids (quite the reverse in fact) and tutoring (i.e. being rich) won't help your kids get in as the exam is a mystery and past papers are never and have never been available.

Do the kids who go to these schools have an advantage? Yes, of course.
Is that fair? Yes, it is. I'm afraid the horrible truth about grammar schools is that the kids who get in simply ARE the brightest and most academically excellent irrespective of their backgrounds. The advantage comes by them walking into a classroom where everyone in that room is "into" education. Where no one wants to disrupt the lesson, waste time or cause trouble. The teachers spend all their time with pupils who are engaged, interested and who are numerate literate and interested. There's no fire-fighting.

What about the kids who blossom at 13? Yeah - that happens. It happens at 15 and at 24 too. There is a cut off point and it is at the start of secondary education - which is 11. Where would you have the cut off point?

If you want something to get hot under the collar about then check this out. In 2010 / 2011 Oxbridge was proud to say that almost (almost) half of the intake were from non-fee paying schools. That is a proper scandal.

There are 164 state funded grammar schools in England all packed to the windows with the brightest kids in the country. But they are not filling up the Oxbridge or even the Russell group places. Why?

In any given year around 32,000 kids will leave a grammar school's sixth form with tip-top A level results but will somehow be trounced for a place at Oxbridge or a Russell group uni by a kid from a fee paying school.
How and why is this happening?

Im confused ....you say you teach at a local comprehensive and your children go to said school...Then you have another son who is in Grammar school too?

The point is the son who is in grammar took the exam and is getting a good education...with like minded peers.

Your others didnt and will have a great education on the right side of the track...

Whereas the poor kid get in ...but if he didnt hhe would be on the wrong side of the track....

As a parent, do you want your kids to go to these schools ? Of course you do

No I don't, I want my children to have a comprehensive education.

My children at the comp/ secondary modern are getting a better education. My son at the grammar has at best had a passable education, ironically he has been allowed to attend revision classes back at the comp I teach at.

My dd1 took the exam, because she is super competitive, she achieved a mark that secured her place but chose not to take it.

my stepson went to the comp/ secondary modern and achieved straight A and A* at GCSE and A level and is now at a top university .

DD2 went to the comp/ secondary modern, I suspect that she could have got into the grammar, certainly would have done with tuition. But she wanted to go to the same school as he elder sister.

I am a bit lost about all the sides of the tracks, who is on the right or wrong side and what that means.

2. Why do people have a problem with it?

Before we start know this:
Kids who get into grammar school love being there but routinely report that during out of school activities (scouts, cadets etc) they quickly learn to lie about or hide the fact that they attend a grammar school because other kids call them "posh" or "boffins" (and other much worse names) and are hostile to them because of their academic success. Jealousy is real and being on the receiving end is no fun as a kid.

As adults, it's all too easy to only apply "grown up" arguments to the debate and all too easy to ignore or forget the negative experiences of kids who do get "over the bar" and into grammar school.
Bear this in mind...

Arguments:

"It's divisive".
Yes, it is, in the fairest possible way.
Life is divisive. Constantly. It divides the cool from the dull, the beautiful from the ugly and the canny from the idiots.
This happens every day.
Life is divisive.
So is rank in the army.
So is union membership in some industries even to this day.
So is your level of ability to read and write, to communicate well, to empathise, cope and manage in all walks of life.
Some do it well, some struggle.
Shall we really pretend that we can all be everything?

I'd rather select the brightest and best and allow them to fly high than hold them, cap them at the level of "the best of the rest" and see those who could excel only become average. We need exceptional people - why be afraid to acknowledge that we have some?

"It's the preserve of the middle class"
See the historical evidence and quickly change your mind...

"Those with money can have their kids tutored and gain success"
They would (and do) love to think thats true - but it just isn't.
You can't really tutor for the 11+ (no matter what they tell you) because it's structured in such a way that it will test genuine intelligence and all round academic ability. The exam itself will see through and search out the "tutored" kids and they don't tend to make it. You can't tutor a child to answer a creative writing brief they have no clue about in advance. You can practice non-verbal reasoning with a child 'till you're blue in the face but if they don't just "geddit" then they never will however much you pay.
Think of it in terms of musical talent - some people seem to just have it without knowing why or even caring - it all comes so easily. It's the same deal with the 11+ academic test. Some people are going to cruise through without breaking a sweat and the other 99% (tutored or not) will crash and burn.
They are testing and looking for an elite. You can't be tutored to be elite.

I need to say more - but I'm tired (sorry) and off to bed...

Think this stuff through very carefully, it's not as cut and dried as it first appears. The Grammar school system served Britain extremely well for many years and still has many supporters.

If you can't tutor for the 11+ why is there such a thriving local industry in tutors.

If you can't tutor for the 11+ why do distinctly average children get places after intensive tutoring?

Arisbottle:
You are confusing us all...
You seem to have one son at grammar and other kids elsewhere - yet when I ask: As a parent, do you want your kids to go to these schools ?
You say:
No I don't, I want my children to have a comprehensive education.

If that's the case why do you still have a child in the grammar system ?

If you can't tutor for the 11+ why is there such a thriving local industry in tutors.
If chocolate is bad for you why is there such a thriving industry ?
(because it panders to a need)...

If you can't tutor for the 11+ why do distinctly average children get places after intensive tutoring?
They don't. These are the kids who would have got in anyway. A few coins won't buy a child intelligence.

PS, you've split an infinitive there babe.

Difficult to be distinctly average.