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.

I'm not sure that it's crap primaries that are the elephant in the room, I think it's crap parents.

Even the much dreaded secondary moderns wouldn't be somewhere that so many want to avoid if all the children that attend them were engaged and supported in the education that's on offer there.

Many of the people extolling the virtues of comps did not in fact go to a comp themselves.

Er...I went to a comp. And from that comp to Oxford.

Nevermind. Oxford isn't a bad university. I also went to a comp and from that comp to Cambridge. That doesn't change the fact that many of the posters in this thread extolling the virtues of comps went to private schools or grammar schools. Some of them are also clearly very snobby. 'Alicias and Aleeshas'? Really? :( I've made it quite clear I don't support the system the way it's run in Kent but that doesn't make me blind to the quirks of some of the posts/posters in this thread.

The 'Alicias and Aleeshas' point was the reverse of snobby. It was an observation.

Incidentally my comp streamed, viciously. I do not think that was a good thing.

^WooWooOwl Mon 28-Oct-13 09:40:25
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.^

If all non-selective state schools were good or near good, then grammars would not be such a divisive topic. It is typically people who do not have access to a good comp education who want to see the grammar school option open to them (especially if they cannot readily turn to the private sector). But even good private schools often practise selection. And even good comps do some form of selection, setting etc. Academic selection is virtually everywhere in some shape or form. It is easier to teach effectively this way.

I get the argument that the 11+ will miss late developers. But those late developers have as much of a chance being missed if they have spend a number of years in a bottom set in a comprehensive, as sets have different content curriculums and moving between them is not all that easy.

If all non-selective state schools were good or near good, then grammars would not be such a divisive topic.

Completely agree. Which is why the argument should be focused on schools that are failing instead of the schools that are doing a good job, ie - the grammars!

Motherinferior it was snobby and it was rather a failure as an observation. Of course, it wasn't an observation at all because the poster who made it won't know many people of either name and certainly not any living outside Kent.

what i find amazing is the number of people who went to Oxford/Cambridge from Comprehensives on this site. I don't know anyone who went to comprehensive who attended oxbridge.... I don't actually no anyone my age from a comprehensive who actually went to university until
their were mature students... Most of my age group who stayed on at the comp i was forced to left wandered in to jobs at 17 or 18 ... the only ones
who have done well, are those that own their own business...

I don't know anyone who Went to a comprehensive who attended Oxford/Cambridge...

"Motherinferior it was snobby and it was rather a failure as an observation. Of course, it wasn't an observation at all because the poster who made it won't know many people of either name and certainly not any living outside Kent."

One of my objections to the Kent system is that success or failure in the test splits neatly along class lines. Alicia almost undoubtedly goes to the Grammar school with her friends Emma, Toby and James. Aleesha almost undoubtedly goes to the High School with her friends Kayleigh, Brandon and Jayden.(with apologies to anyone whose children have these names)

If we're talking elephants in rooms, this is the one that's rampaging about trumpeting.......

My dc's comp sends children to Oxbridge, and other well regarded universities, every year.

Yes of course some comprehensive school pupils will be offered places at Oxford/Cambridge. But privately educated young people are still vastly over-represented at Oxbridge.

^WooWooOwl Mon 28-Oct-13 10:40:50
the argument should be focused on schools that are failing instead of the schools that are doing a good job, ie - the grammars!^
Surprisingly this does not seem to be the accepted way to go about it. It is not politically correct to call a failure just that. We would rather keep the pretence that all comps are acceptable and there is no need for grammars (or moving to better areas with better comp schools).

Even the terms used: "needs improving" instead of "failing", or "low-achieving" as a nice way to say a school is lacking academic standards. It is not nice to the children who attend such schools to use those nasty terms. But I ask why is it nice for those children to have to attend such poor schools because they have not got access to better (via an exam, if not via parents' economic resources)?

This is more unfair than anything.

Soul- I suspect you haven't had much contact with comprehensive schools for a while.

That comes across as very snobbish curlew, and I strongly disagree that it's about class. It's to do with parental support.

There is likely be more unmotivated and educationally unsupportive parents in the lower classes, but there is nothing stopping them from parenting in a positive way if they want to. It doesn't take money to teach your children positive behaviour and the value of education, as evidenced by the many working class children that attend grammar school in areas where most do the 11+.

"We would rather keep the pretence that all comps are acceptable"

I don't think anyone is pretending that. I do find it a little odd that mumsnetters seem to be congregated around the bad ones though..........

curlew if there's no grammar school then Aleesha has no chance of a selective academic education, even if she'd have passed the 11 plus given the chance.

Meanwhile, there's a greater possibility that Alicia's parents may be able to afford private school and access a selective education via money, which isn't an opportunity available to Aleesha.

"That comes across as very snobbish curlew, and I strongly disagree that it's about class. It's to do with parental support."

Why is it snobbish? It's true. I am the one wanting to do something about it, rather than thinking "Wonderful, I will be able to keep my own particular Jesse out of sight and sound of the great unwashed" to quote an earlier poster.

Summer - to answer your question, I don't think anyone is saying it's nice for their children to attend failing schools because they haven't got access to better.

The question that needs to be asked is why are some schools failing in the first place?

As I've already said, I think the answer to that is the majority of intake and the parents of their intake.

One of the arguments against grammar schools is that by separating the families that are motivated and supportive away from the rest, then the rest are left with sub standard education. But it wouldn't be that way if there weren't unmotivated and unsupportive parents in the first place.

soul2000 Mon 28-Oct-13 10:58:13
what i find amazing is the number of people who went to Oxford/Cambridge from Comprehensives on this site. I don't know anyone who went to comprehensive who attended oxbridge....

There are ones and twos from state comprehensives and droves from private schools. No, it is not to say that your child won't go to Oxbridge if they went to a comp, all it says is how likely your child would be go on to Oxbridge if they went to a state comp.

"curlew if there's no grammar school then Aleesha has no chance of a selective academic education, even if she'd have passed the 11 plus given the chance."

Good. Then she'll have almost as good a chance of being in the top set of a comprehensive as Alicia does.

^Coupon Mon 28-Oct-13 11:15:22
curlew if there's no grammar school then Aleesha has no chance of a selective academic education, even if she'd have passed the 11 plus given the chance.

Meanwhile, there's a greater possibility that Alicia's parents may be able to afford private school and access a selective education via money, which isn't an opportunity available to Aleesha.^

Coupon, a point very well made.