Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Genuine question - why do some people have a problem with the grammar school system

1000 replies

englishteacher78 · 24/10/2013 07:24

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.

OP posts:
zzzzz · 27/10/2013 09:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Retropear · 27/10/2013 09:42

Curlew as I said yes my dad want to a super selective,my mother didn't.I've seen it from both sides and also from the side of a child at a one size fits all sausage factory comp.

Grammar or not my dc will have a far better secondary experience due to choice.We need far more of it.

curlew · 27/10/2013 09:48

Flatiron- yes, primary schools administer the tests in Kent. There are selective schools and non selective schools- no comprehensives at all. 23% pass the test and without exception (as far as I am aware- there may be someone somewhere who didn't) go to the grammar schools. The rest go to high schools.

The tests for superselectives, in areas which have them take place, I think, in the schools concerned (I might be wrong about that- I don't live in a super selective area)

Primary schools are not allowed (although many do) to prepare the children for the test apart from a practise run the day before (which is shredded unmarked).

Th number who take the test varies from primary to primary- anything from 50 to 100% of year 6.

And yes, it is like the old fashioned 11+.

curlew · 27/10/2013 09:50

"Curlew as I said yes my dad want to a super selective,my mother didn't.I've seen it from both sides and also from the side of a child at a one size fits all sausage factory comp."

So no, you don't actually have any experience of a fully selective system.

An you still haven't said what you mean by a "one size fits all" comprehensive.

Retropear · 27/10/2013 09:59

So being raised by and talking with parents who have experienced it in very different ways isn't experiencing it.Confused

And I have explained what I men by one size fits all.It is zero choice.All kids being forced through one school.Don't want it thanks.

You seem to have major issues re grammar,that is your problem.Children,parents and schools differ.I'm sorry you clearly had a bad experience(just about everybody I know had a bad comp experience)but don't try and shove your issues on my shoulders.

I will do what suits my kids best thanks.

PatoBanton · 27/10/2013 10:05

I live in a super-selective area

it isn't a separate test

it all depends on your score, so this year, you had to score 360 to pass for grammar (no guarantee of a grammar place but very probable) and 385 for the super-selective school.

curlew · 27/10/2013 10:05

Retro- I'm sorry- but what your parents experienced is not what happens now.

And I am a little surprised at your aggressive tone- but if you don't want to join in the discussion, that's fine. Just try not to make dogmatic statements based on zero knowledge!

Retropear · 27/10/2013 10:09

Ditto Curlew

You have no experience of my children,my area or my parenting.

So quit with your anti grammar dogmatic tone- on every single thread even slightly grammar related.

curlew · 27/10/2013 10:13

"You have no experience of my children,my area or my parenting."

No. And I haven't commented on them, except to point out that you can't make informed comments on what it feels like to be in a fully selective area unless you have actually experienced it, either as a parent, a child or a teacher. How it felt for your parents- presumably at least 40 years ago- just isn't the same.

Oh, and I'm not specifically anti- grammar. I am anti-selection at 10.

Retropear · 27/10/2013 10:22

Tosh!

Going by that stance half the threads on MN would be empty.Posters can and do comment on what they've observed,read and experienced second hand daily.

Discounting posters opinions because they haven't actually lived something is weak arguing.

Many posters on here are commenting re grammar in a neg way and haven't actually gone through it now with their own dc or in the past- but that's ok because it backs up your chip.Confused

Anyhoo I have kids to play with,cakes to bake and VR to attack so I'll leave you to your crusade.Will see you on the next grammar thread no doubt.

curlew · 27/10/2013 10:35

"Discounting posters opinions because they haven't actually lived something is weak arguing."

I'm not discounting your opinions. I am questioning your ability to say to me that something I know happens actually doesn't.

What is it they say? You can have your own opinions- you just can't have your own facts!

CecilyP · 27/10/2013 10:44

So being raised by and talking with parents who have experienced it in very different ways isn't experiencing it.

No, it absolutely isn't. You have been told about the experiences of 2 people, that is all.

zzzzz · 27/10/2013 11:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

curlew · 27/10/2013 11:19

"Fully selective" means there are no schools which are not either grammar or "secondary modern". No comprehensive option at all. There are, I think, 5 LEAs like this- including Kent- the biggest LEA.

I did say down thread that I can see the argument for super selectives. I instinctively think they are a bad idea, because I don't believe in segregating children, but I know there are parents who think they are essential for their child, and as they have very little if any impact on the surrounding schools, I am ready to be convinced.

CecilyP · 27/10/2013 11:19

Surely if there's any selection then it's a selective area?

It's a question of degree, you can have a small number of selective schools which attract children from a wide geographical area, so no other secondary schools lose more than a handfull of children. And many children who could have taken the exam will have chosen not to. Or you can be in an area where nearly all children take, and 23% of children pass, the exam which means that the non-selective schools have the top 23% of the ability range missing. The latter is usually what is understood by a fully selective area.

Xoanon · 27/10/2013 11:26

Merry for the superselectives hundreds and hundreds of kids take the exam. Both times I have had kids taking the exams, there have been people they knew were definitely taking the test, who they didn't see at all on the day(s). It's only a matter of public record if you choose to parade every single thing of your life in public (or on the internet. Which is of course the same ting). Yes, when kids do the 'what school are you going to' thing they know the kids going to the superselective will have passed the test. But since it's voluntary and most kids in the region don't take it, you can't conclude anything about the kids who aren't going there.

Where we live, most people assume that going to the posh school means you are the brainiest.

zzzzz · 27/10/2013 11:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Xoanon · 27/10/2013 11:38

Pato You describe how it is done on your area. That is NOT how it is done by all superselectives. You are falling into the trap of assuming that everything is exactly the same as the way you have experienced things. Obviously you aren't the only person in this thread to do that.

curlew · 27/10/2013 11:44

Well, the socially divisive impact of selection would be damaging enough for me to think it should be stopped, particularly in the light of the fact that there is no proven benefit to anyone.

But, for example, a school without a "top set" means that there is nowhere to go for late developers......

PatoBanton · 27/10/2013 11:45

Xoanon, eh? Falling into a trap? All I did was explain how it works in our area.

I do not understand what you mean.

Bunbaker · 27/10/2013 11:52

Because of this thread I had a conversation with a friend of mine whose nieces went to a super selctiver school. She said that the pressure to be perfect was awful and her nieces both had pschological issues as a result, as did many other pupils.

In our area the schools really are comprehensive. As a governor of the local comprehensive I visited it recently to observe some lessons in core subjects. The difference in abilities between the sets was a real eye opener to me. The top performers end up with straight A* at GCSE and the lower ability students just do what they can. This results were 80% A-C including English and maths BTW.

zzzzz · 27/10/2013 11:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

zzzzz · 27/10/2013 12:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flatiron · 27/10/2013 12:06

"If the majority are SO badly educated at these "non-grammar hell holes" why is no one addressing the poor provision?"

You tell me. Who should be addressing it? Parents in my area are addressing it in the only way they know how - by trying to ensure their children have the best chance of passing the 11+, or by sending them to out of area schools in large numbers. The LEA must be aware of this.

curlew · 27/10/2013 12:15

"But there WILL still be a top set and I thought there was nothing to worry about for the very top because even if they don't have peers they could still be catered for? How is this different?"

Of course they can be. But why should they, when in a comprehensive school they could just move up? We're not talking a couple of outliers here.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.