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.

And you only have to listen to Desert island Discs to hear how deep failing the 11+ runs in some people.

It's a system which has dubious benefits- and hideous downsides. Why is it still here?

Because, as one poste on here said with such refreshing honesty, it keeps some kids away from the "great unwashed"

My children are the beneficiaries of my knowledge of what is required to get into good universities, and my desire to see them in good universities is based on the knowledge that it costs as much to go to a really good one as it does to waste four years at one that is mediocre. It's also the case that over a lifetime of earning, a good university is going to make a huge difference. A really good third level education and payment of taxes means you can contribute more to your community if your heart is in the right place.

I am all in favour of the level playing field, of abolishing private schools, public schools, and independent schools. I think comprehensives (or in the Irish case, community schools and techs) are the way forward. I hate to see the American public schools undermined by growing income and expectation discrepancy, because they are the bedrock of American democracy. The career of Dwight Eisenhower is a great example of how free public education can be of immeasurable benefit to a country, and I think he himself acknowledged this.

The DCs went to a USpublic high school of 3,500 teens and rubbed shoulders with everyone else. It definitely did them the world of good, but if I had not pushed them to the point where they got into the honours classes, they would have sat in class with students whose parents were not pushing and who were resisting the efforts of teachers and administration to simply work in class and do homework and their own chances would have suffered. Students get very dispirited when they have to do it all themselves at home because a teacher spent a lot of class time dealing with interruptions. A parent with sharp elbows can make a big difference. So can an administration that seeks to cater for all abilities and all levels of expectation realistically while encouraging students and parents who have low expectations to hope for better things for their children. This was the case in the high school they attended.

However, I recognise from my own experience at a community school in Dublin (and from seeing the dismal performance of some students in the US) that you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. My dad, who was probably dyslexic, and who for political and personal reasons loved the idea of good technical education available to all, went to the Irish equivalent of Eton and hated it so much there he was taken out after matriculating to university at 15 and was sent to the local tech for his Leaving Cert. He toured my community school when it first opened (my class was one of the first to enter and go all the way through) and was overjoyed to see the metalwork and technical drawing and fantastic kitchens and language labs. He would have loved a school like that for himself. Instead he got Elements, Rudiments, Grammar, Syntax, Poetry and Rhetoric. Many students at my school took great pleasure from and put a lot of effort into systematically trashing the gorgeous facilities. An administration has to do more than just open the doors and provide great teachers and facilities if a school is to address the needs of the students.

Our non grammar alternative is IMO better than the grammar so this is not sour grapes on my part. I also have four children of my own and a stepson of varying personality types and intelligence including one on the AS. Yes they have different needs in the classroom but those needs do not mean that they need to be educated in different buildings.

"I am at a loss to see why the non-grammar schools are considered so awful."

Not all the non-grammar schools are so awful, zzzz, that's why many parents in my area whose children haven't succeeded in the 11+ (or who haven't even taken it) send their children to non-selective schools not in the immediate vicinity, or even to a particularly good comprehensive in the next county.

Which brings me to the comment made by TiP - "We only have comps here in Hampshire". Are they all truly comprehensive, though? Because I know for a fact that the catchment for the grammars in our area includes parts of Hampshire, as a not inconsiderable number of pupils come from there. So why are they any more truly comprehensive than those in our area?

Add message | Report | Message poster soul2000 Sat 26-Oct-13 22:16:19

My family and i have made our living from "The Great Unwashed".
I havemore empathy and understanding for under educated or those from socially deprived backgrounds than most on here. Unlike most people on here i have not been educated to Degree level or even A level, therefore i am not in a ivory tower or an idealist like most on here.

One thing that is clear, is that most of the "Anti Selective" people have
benefited from either grammar schools/or private education.

Most under educated or socially deprived people i meet , would give anything for their DCs to have a chance of a school away from the problems they encounter every day, these problems are not just academic but also the ambitions they have.

Its ok for people on this site to say my Dc going to get 10 As at his or her middle class comprehensive in the home counties. What about the Potentially able children from places like Salford who are forced to go to terrible schools offering very little in terms of future development.

I am about as unwashed as it gets, yes we have a great life now but I have had to fight tooth and nail for everything that we have and feel quite insulted to be told that I am living in some middle class ivory tower. I got into Oxbridge from a crap underclass existence? I would never have been given the chance to get into a grammar, if I had been sent to a secondary modern , as they were I would never have made it to university and I would have raised my children in the shit existence I had - if I had lived long enough to have children. I am against grammar schools because I know they are there to keep the unwashed dirty and distant .

I went to a GS, because where I lived, you either passed the 11+ or didn't & went to the according school. It remains the same system in those villages now, it's not about tutoring, affluence or anything else - there are just those 2 secondary schools in that catchment area so that's how it works; how you perform on the 11+ day. They tried to instill their inherent snobbery into us and taught us to look down on the kids that went to the secondary modern, who in turn regarded us as snobs. I hated school and coasted and did as little as possible, scraping a handful of O Levels, way below my actual capacity. I kicked and rebelled at everything they tried to push me into. I left at 16. Later took A levels. Even later took a degree, and got a first, yet I now deliver pizzas for a living because the job situation round here is dire, especially for a single parent with childcare needs. My DS1 & 2 went to one of the the local comps (we live in a different area, slightly, with no GS, though do have one 'selective' secondary school here that likes to pretend it's a grammar, with an entrance exam, even though it's just a comp) and have both done absolutely fine academically (DS1 just got a first in his degree too), and have no deep-rooted disdain for children either more or less academically able than themselves because they were never taught that that small aspect of your personality is what defines your worth as a person.

My stating point is inclusion unless it is shown to be harmful . Find it rather odd to have a starting point of wanting to keep your children away from other children of different intelligence, particulary when it can cause so much harm to the children who go either side of the fence,

Yes, I know children who are desperately miserable at a grammar school, made to feel completely worthless if they are not A* material . Bullying is rife in the girl's grammars in particular. My stepson's girlfriend was bullied to the point off an eating disorder and suicide, it has crushed her spirit .

Stepson's girlfriend thinks that not only is she far and ugly , but also thick. She left school with straight Bs at GCSE and lucky for her managed to escape to take a place up at our comp for a Level. she is far from thick, but was made to feel useless at her grammar.

Fat and ugly

My varying children's educational needs are met in the comprehensive system. I see the needs of many other children met every day in the comprehensive system. With no need for expensive tutors, no need to make anyone feel like a failure or to divide communities and blight futures.

ironically the child that has had the worst education has been my son that went to the grammar, luckily I had contacts in the comprehensive schools and could arrange tuition. My son never needed tuition until he entered the grammar system. As soon as the grammar thought that he was not going to get an A in English Lit they started to sideline him and his grades started to fall.

Children feeling like failures is a side effect of a selective education system. Childrn put under so much pressure that they turn on each other is side effect of a selective education.

Arisbottle "I am against grammar schools because I know they are there to keep the unwashed dirty and distant."
They weren't designed to do that - quite the reverse. They were designed to make sure that bright children had the chance to access a free academic education, regardless of background.

I think the main reason why this is no longer the case is that state primary schools don't now regard it as within their remit to encourage or prepare children to take the 11+. They do not make it their business to ensure that all the relevant parts of the syllabus have been covered, bearing in mind that where the 11+ includes maths and english papers, children taking the exam (start of Yr. 6) need to be familiar with the whole KS2 syllabus (end of Yr. 6 in most state primaries).

That is where the rich/poor split comes in. It is not that the poor have less interest in, or aspirations concerning the education of their children, but that they cannot access private schools, which will teach to the 11+, or tutoring, which will plug the gaps that the state schools leave.

When I took the 11+, everyone sat the exam, in their own school, and it was a raw I.Q. test - I'm assuming verbal and non-verbal reasoning. We had done a couple of practice papers - everyone - rich, poor, bright, average. Tuition was unheard of. Whether you approve of selection or not, at least that was a system of selection that was open to all.

The problem with grammars nowadays is that they are essentially out on a limb within a largely comprehensive system. State primaries have distanced themselves from the whole process, even where they are the feeder schools, thus preventing many poorer children from accessing the help and encouragement afforded to those who can pay.

Obviously I have not attended a grammar and have outed myself as a member of the great unwashed , so maybe I do not understand. But why do bright children need to be educated in a different building? Do they need a special type of air conditioning to keep their brains functioning? Do they need to wear a uniform consisting of a staw boater and pantaloons and would be damaged by the sight of a polyester non iron pleat skirt or heaven forbid a fleece.

I understand they have different learning needs, why that can't happen in the same building baffles me.

Your children must be infinitely more clever than my children then zzzz.

Flatiron, I would have been furious if I had found out that my children were being prepared for a grammar test. I want them experiencing a rich learning environment not cramming for a test so they can be kept away from the less bright.

But surely the starting point would be keeping them together and asking do we need to separate the children? I find it a very odd attitude to want to start from a position of segregation.