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.

Soooo Curlew you buy a book.

VR isn't the issue,if you read a lot which most grammar candidates would do it doesn't take a lot.It's piss easy if you have a good vocabulary etc.

However the English,essay and Maths are hugely dependant on quality of teaching,work covered and how far kids are pushed at school.

there is only VR testing here..... and the prep school lot have done this from age 4.....

Guess who get the VAST majority of the top places at the super selective..... as in 90%+

I don't think anyone believes that tutoring makes no difference. Of course it makes a difference. But the children in my experience who try and fail to get grammar school place don't miss out because they haven't been tutored. They miss out because there aren't enough places to accommodate every child who passes the test, and many do pass the test without formal tutoring just by doing a bit of practice at home with their parents.

If there were more places in some areas and fewer places in others, the system would be more balanced. At our GS, there is no doubt that all of the children there are worthy of their place. The unfairness comes when other children who are worthy of a place can't get one.

Parents who claim FSMs can make the same choices about their child's education as those who don't. If they choose not to for whatever reason, then that's down to their personal choice.

State primaries do not prepare for 11+ even if they are good or outstanding.

No but they will push kids more and produce better quality writing and maths.They will also give kids more access to the work covered in the 11+ a lot of which happens in year 6(too late).

The schools stretching the more able will be covering the work in time,those that aren't won't.

Personally I think this is far more of a disadvantage than nothing else.

Parents who claim FSMs can make the same choices about their child's education as those who don't.

I don't really think so - the more wealthy you are the more choices you have. If you have £30K available after all day to day living expenses are met, you can afford to put two children through private education, but you could still go to the local primary/comprehensive/academy if you chose.

If you are only earning £14K max a year or less, then day to day living is difficult, and private school is out of the question, or the 'good' school which is not the nearest and is two bus rides away.

State primaries don't prepare specifically for the 11+, but some do do a mall amount of VR/NVR, and the 11+ is supposed to be based on ks2 work anyway.

I realise that private prep schools will do a lot more tuition for the 11+ and common entrance exams a d that can lead to an unfair advantage, but again, if there were enough places for all the children that reached a high enough standard academically, then it wouldn't really make any difference.

Some private school children are only privately educated because there aren't enough places at outstanding state primaries, and it's a choice that some parents feel they are forced to make.

The answer there is to improve all primary schools, not penalise private school children who are perfectly entitled to a state place as well.

I do think private schools could offer 11+ tuition to state pupils in order to keep their charity status though.

There is a lot that could be done to improve the system without getting rid of grammar schools altogether.

The grammars in Birmingham have a free school rate between 1 and 15% ( from memory). The one grammar near 15 is highly unusual . Most grammars have a FSM rate about 2%.

Indeed it is - extremely unusual. It is strange that minimonty, included it amongst the 8 in her rather long, and seemingly knowledgable post, about Birmingham.

My DH is from Kent, an area where the grammar system still stands for a lot. He wanted to go to the grammar with his friends, but didn't even get to sit his entrance papers as his parents who taught at the local Catholic secondary were under pressure from the head not to send him to a grammar.

DH went on to receive better grades than his peers who went to grammar school. However, many of his friends went on to land good jobs in the city, and DH couldn't even get an interview. The old school tie system isn't just prevalent with public school old boys. It's still rife in the grammar system too.

I never had strong feelings about grammar schools until I met DH, but am really struck at how in some areas of the country it really can affect your whole future. It's not just about the grades.

The school system is supposed to serve all children, not just those with parents who have the ability/willingness to tutor them. Some children have parents who are as likely to fly to the moon as buy Bond test papers, or even fill in the forms and get them to the exam.

However in a truly flexible and inclusive comprehensive system a good teacher can spot a child's potential and support them accordingly whether they are 5, 11 or 13.

We all have a duty to provide an education for our children, in school or otherwise. We all have different children and different options, and most people are just trying to do their best with what is available to them at the time. However, intelligent people should be able to spot the flaws in the system, even if they don't have easy solutions.

^I'm afraid the horrible truth about grammar schools......... 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.

Is that so? If it is, it has certainly changed since I was at grammar school, or more recently (the last 15 years) when friends did PGCEs in Bucks Grammars. The inference I drew after hearing my friends stories was that clever children can think of clever ways to disrupt lessons.^

Certainly the case in the grammar school I attended, though it was many, many years ago. While there was no truly delinquent behavour, low level disruption was endemic. The idea that we so wanted to learn that we hung on the teacher's every word, is just laughable.

That's true LaVolcan, but there must be a huge number of people that don't qualify for FSMs but could never afford private school or even private tuition no matter how many sacrifices they make elsewhere.

Being ineligible for FSMs doesn't equal wealthy.

If they choose not to for whatever reason, then that's down to their personal choice.

That is the parent's choice, not the child's. I am paying taxes to educate all children appropriately regardless of their parents.

Some people seem to he very against the grammar school system and I'm not sure why

It was introduced after WWII when the government realised there were not enough people from private schools to be managers/leaders and some working class people were needed, hence the quota. It didn't matter what mark you got on the 11+/scholarship exam, there were a certain number of places and the top 100 or 50 or 250 got in.

I grew up in a town with comprehensive RC schools and grammar (selection at 13 not 11) for everyone else.

The RC schools had more people passing exams than the grammar.

^I don't think anyone believes that tutoring makes no difference. Of course it makes a difference. But the children in my experience who try and fail to get grammar school place don't miss out because they haven't been tutored. They miss out because there aren't enough places to accommodate every child who passes the test, and many do pass the test without formal tutoring just by doing a bit of practice at home with their parents.

If there were more places in some areas and fewer places in others, the system would be more balanced. At our GS, there is no doubt that all of the children there are worthy of their place. The unfairness comes when other children who are worthy of a place can't get one.^

That is a false argument; the number of passes is entirely determined by the number of places available. You can set an arbitrary pass mark below which no child can be offered a place, but the genuine pass mark is the mark at which the last child is offered a place. Regardless of how many places there are, it is a competition. Those who prepare for that competition will do better than those who do not.

"Parents who claim FSMs can make the same choices about their child's education as those who don't. If they choose not to for whatever reason, then that's down to their personal choice."

Wow. Just wow. I honestly don't know where to start with this one.

Do share Curlew.

^No but they will push kids more and produce better quality writing and maths.They will also give kids more access to the work covered in the 11+ a lot of which happens in year 6(too late).

The schools stretching the more able will be covering the work in time,those that aren't won't.

Personally I think this is far more of a disadvantage than nothing else.^

I think we might be at cross purposes here as different 11+ exams cover different things. But a lot of selective areas moved to VR and NVR because of the variability of the primary school experience. They naively thought that these test just measure intelligence which, arguably, they do - but only if people take the tests cold. So primary schools were not allowed to prepare pupils for the tests - and this is really where tutoring (whether paid for or home-made) grew up to fill the gap. I am really quite shocked that prep schools actually have VR and NVR on the curriculum - is this true?

I suspect that anyone who agrees that families who qualify for FSM can make the same choices about their children's education as anyone else will not be convinced by anything I might say.

Yes they do.

Many 11+ exams contain maths and English too.

Cecily, there is a private school near us whose raison d'être is it's nearly 100% 11+ success rate. Overtly. It's on the prospectus and everything.

Qualifying for FSM doesn't mean you are incapable of making decisions,why would it?

Just because you get FSM doesn't mean you turn into a lesser being.

Many 11+ exams contain maths and English too.

As I believe I acknowledged in 'different 11+ exams cover different things' before going on to focus specifically on those which don't.

"Qualifying for FSM doesn't mean you are incapable of making decisions,why would it?

Just because you get FSM doesn't mean you turn into a lesser being."

That's what I mean. Faux naïveté.

Cecily, there is a private school near us whose raison d'être is it's nearly 100% 11+ success rate. Overtly. It's on the prospectus and everything.

Yes I know, from the time when the children my friend was a nanny to, went to such a school. But that was in the days when the exam was more Engish and Maths based. I am surprised that VR and NVR (which are basically IQ tests) are on the curriculum.