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.

Ok. Please will someone explain to me what are the benefits of the grammar school system. Not the superselectives that take the top 1-2 % - I understand the argument for them- but the ordinary, bog standard old fashioned type so beloved by traditionalists.

The benefits are that those who would like a private education for their children, but can't afford it, can pay out a few hundred, or even thousands, and get it for free. Unfortunately the exams are not tutor free and a determined parent can 'buy' a place.

Is that it?

I keep on asking because I want someone to come on and explain some amazing advantage to getting 10 year olds to sit probably the only one off, no possibility of a resit exam they'll ever take, then deciding their education for the next 7 years on the basis of that test.

Is it really just to separate the Alicias from the Aleeshas?

^Erebus Sat 26-Oct-13 11:33:43
I'm horribly offended by the numbers of people who think educational segregation based on a single exam that it's tutorable for if you have committed parents or enough money is somehow acceptable in 21 Century Britain, that's all.^

Sorry, but I do not see how modern-day postcode segregation is better. I am not interested in some comprehensive principle that SHOULD work and looks ideal on paper. I am interested in real life options for my kids. So far, good comprehensives are very rare, the kind that people on here are advocating. They are mostly situated in white MC areas and it is nigh on impossible to get your child in if you live out of area ("the other side of the tracks", as the other poster remarked). It is possible on paper, but it is not doable in real life once the admissions accept all the siblings and get to measuring distances. We lived a 15-min walk away from a school and could not get in on distance. Do we have a chance with a school situated half-an-hour drive away? Not once chance in hell.

I would rather my DC have an opportunity to sit an exam and pass on their ability than be condemned to an atrocious local comp because that is where we can afford to live.

So. Tell me about the "atrocious local comp"

How do its results look if you break them down by low, middle and high achievers? What does Ofsted say about it?

I also agree with Retropear that moving between sets in a comprehensive is not so straightforward. As she rightfully remarked, the middle and bottom sets are taught different things, and the more time passes, the more improbable it is be for bottom students to be moved up into the top set. Because they will have not done half the stuff the top set will have done. So they cannot be on a par. They can move in principle, but will hardly ever be in practice.

Or it boils down again to an involved parent and home tuition to make such a transfer possible for your child. We come to where we have left.

Exactly Summer and more kids would simply end up in private schools.I don't want to be told where my kids go to school whilst the rich still get to enjoy choice.

Yes the entire system isn't 100% fair but it gives a lot more choice and benefits than it would do if everybody was pushed through the same old comp.Until the day there are no private schools and all primaries produce the same quality of education there will be unfairness re kids starting secondary.

Soooooo you do the bet you can with what you've got.

And whining about grammar schools which only a tiny fraction go to is bonkers when far more kids are leaving primaries disadvantaged before starting secondary.

Focus on a level playing field in the primary sector and all kids starting secondary fully literate and numerate.

"Yes the entire system isn't 100% fair but it gives a lot more choice and benefits than it would do if everybody was pushed through the same old comp"

What are the benefits?

Best

"And whining about grammar schools which only a tiny fraction go to is bonkers when far more kids are leaving primaries disadvantaged before starting secondary.

Focus on a level playing field in the primary sector and all kids starting secondary fully literate and numerate."

I agree. But this thread is about grammar schools!

The benefits of a system that separates up to 25% of children are minimal I'd have thought curlew. I can't argue in favour of those, but that isn't 'the grammar school system', it's one of the systems.

I also think it's inaccurate to say that the benefits are for parents that can afford to pay out hundreds or even thousands. If parents can give their children enough preparation at home and be successful for a test that does only pass the top 5%, then I really can't see that it can be that difficult to help your child through an exam that takes the top 25% for free if they are reasonably intelligent.

It's the nature of some 11+ exams that separates the 'Alicias from the Aleeshas',(!) not (arguably) the exam itself. The grammar schools as instituted under the 1944 education Act would surely have promoted social mobility, in that every child attending a state school, whatever their background, had access to the exam, and success in it provided a free academic education, that had previously been the sole preserve of the rich and privileged.

When I took it in the (late!) sixties, tutoring for the exam just didn't happen. There was no need. The primary schools themselves provided the practice. You didn't have to apply to take it, you just did. And in my day the 11+ was more of a raw I.Q. test, rather than an exam depending upon curriculum based knowledge, which many are now, and which will obviously favour children whose parents can afford tuition or private education.

It really was more of a net, in those days, to stop the brightest state school children from being denied an education suited to their ability, just because they were poor. Poor children did go to grammar school, if their parents wanted that for them.

As usual, the middle classes have latched on to something originally intended to help iron out wealth-based disparity, and run with it. (That includes me btw ). That's what happened with the Public Schools, some of which were originally established as charity schools for poor scholars!

I'm against selection in theory (would much rather see an excellent local comprehensive that every child could attend - life would be so much more angst-free!), but I'm ambivalent about grammar schools in RL, as in some areas they seem to be the only option if you want a decent education for your child, and two of my dc have attended one. Where they have been retained, however, I do feel very strongly that the exam should be accessible to all, and it definitely isn't, not where I live, anyway.

They see their poor opinion of the vast majority, including themselves, confirmed, and understand that aspiration is only for the elite.

25% of all children is hardly the elite, and aspiration is not limited to academic aspiration.

Although I don't have personal experience of a system like the one in Kent, I do know enough working class families that have children at the grammars there to feel that all this talk of 'elite' and Alisias and Aleeshas is extreme.

There are obvious benefits for the children in a system like that if they pass, my DH would say that the benefits to him of attending a secondary modern are that he didn't have to waste time doing subjects that he would probably never be that great at, and that he was given the chance to do well at something he was good at. He learned a trade, which he was very motivated to learn, and now earns very well.

I'm not saying the Kent system is one I would choose, because I wouldn't, but I don't think it's full of evil like some seem to believe.

It is actually an exciting exercise to compare Ofsted reports. It is not so much what Ofsted says, but what it chooses to omit. It can be quite enlightening, actually. Just for fun, put side buy side an Ofsted report from a good suburban MC school and an inner-city ghetto school and see what different things the two reports talk about. The first one will be detailed on the quality of teaching, curriculum, pupil behaviour, target and assessment, i.e. academic stuff. The latter will emphasise how well the school in doing educating their kids about healthy eating and lifestyle while skimming over the academic bits as quickly as possible. Because there ain't a lot to talk about.

I can see some posters on here clearly undertand what I mean, because they have experienced it. I would absolutely love to be in a situation where my local comp provides as good education as a grammar.

^WooWooOwl Mon 28-Oct-13 09:05:14
I also think it's inaccurate to say that the benefits are for parents that can afford to pay out hundreds or even thousands. If parents can give their children enough preparation at home and be successful for a test that does only pass the top 5%, then I really can't see that it can be that difficult to help your child through an exam that takes the top 25% for free if they are reasonably intelligent.^

I think the argument is that to start with, disadvantaged children need to have parents who would take interest and bother to do some prep at home (and have the knowledge to tutor their children). The truth is, deprived areas do not have many such parents. The opponents seem to believe that the school will identify the bright disadvantaged kids and do extra with them regardless of the situation at home. I believe it is wishful thinking. They may well be exceptions to the rule, but those are exactly that, exceptions.

I can see that, bit I think there the focus should be on the fact that children are disadvantaged because of the parents they were born to, not because of the school they might end up at.

If all schools did a good job, regardless of whether they were comps, grammars, or secondary moderns, then the disadvantage wouldn't actually be that big, because children don't have to succeed in academic subjects to be successful in life.

I'm a big supporter of grammar schools because I know that the existence of the one near us has benefited my child, but I can see why a system that separates children on such a big scale isn't ideal. However I think the starting point for education should be an assumption that anyone who chooses to have children is going to be supportive of them and their education, and those who aren't are the exception. We shouldn't be trying to plan entire education systems that compensate for or assume crap parenting, because the majority of parents are supportive, even if their children aren't academic enough to pass the 11+.

Once again: the 'sort of comprehensive I am advocating' is the sort my DD1, and Blu's DS (and they're at different schools) and other posters' kids go to. Which are emphatically not white MC ghettoes. They are rather grubby Sarf Lunnon schools. Which teach the kids rather well.

(If they were all-white MC schools they'd have kicked out Blu's and my kids anyway )

Talkinpeace Sat 26-Oct-13 17:36:56
In a comprehensive system, all children are (as far as possible) included and then sent to the best school for them.
In a selective system, those who fail whatever the test is get left with the least desirable.
Where is this land of hope and glory? Or are we talking hypothetically? As far as I am aware, chidren go to the comp which is LOCAL to them, not the one which is BEST for them.

sorry, the quote did not come out properly.

Exactly Summer!

Comps are held up as some kind of magical holy grail on grammar school threads, when actually, there are plenty of crap comps who in trying to do so much, don't do anything well.

I agree with Woo too.

I honestly believe you can do enough at home with a bright kid on very little £££££ to enable a kid to pass but it takes drive(I might even not have enough of), time(not easy with knackered kids after school)and information.Which is why I honestly think quality of primary will have a bigger impact re fairness.

They say our grandparents are better educated than kids today.Clearly if my dad the son of a gardener got enough from his primary to get into a top Kent school there is some truth in that.

Look at the elephant in the room- primary schools.

I think those of us that have actually experienced comps are those most sceptical.