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.

It comes across as snobbish because it assumes that parents who choose traditional names are guaranteed to be the ones with intelligent children, and it doesn't work like that. The Kayleighs and Jaydens have as much chance of being born with intelligence as the Tobys and the Emmas.

Alicia and Aleesha could probably be born with very similar levels of intelligence, and if they attend the same primary school then the only thing that makes a difference is the parental input that each receives.

I think you make my point. They have just as much chance of being born with intelligence. But a much much smaller chance of passing the 11+.

Yes, but their chance is reduced because of their parents, not because of a schools system.

So stop blaming the system, or the grammar schools for existing and doing a good job, when the real problem is with parents.

Curlew, I am afraid, what will happen is "Alicia" will go to a good selective private school rather than chancing it in a comprehensive. The point you seem to be missing is that people with advantageous economic background do have choices wrt their children's education, and they will retain that under your system - after all you are not suggesting to take their money off them.

The people who would lose out are the "Aleeshas" whose only chance of a decent education (at a grammar) you want to destroy by unavoidably sending them to the closest state school. And let us hope that school be good.

Actually. Aleesha parents are brilliant business people they have made a
very good living though being entrepreneurs. They are lending Aliclia's
parents the money to pay Alicia's fees . Aleesha and Alicia have been friends since primary school , Alicila's parents have fallen on hard times and can no longer afford the fees. Talk about using stereotypes...

By the way Aleesha scored 418 on her 11+ and went to the grammar school
Alicia also passed but scored 387 but her parents decided she would be
better off at a small private school.

Stop talking in stereotypes!...

Aleesha scored 387 .. Her parents decided she would be better off
at a small private school... This is a true story

Sorry about my poor grammar...... I blame the Comp didn't teach that....

I meant Alicia scored 387 Oops... Aleesha scored 418...

Ah, bring class into it and people get really touchy! That's because the argument for grammar schools that is always trotted out is that they aid social mobility. That a poor but honest son of toil can aspire to the dreaming spires by walking 10 miles a day to the grammar school and read as he follows the plough. Well, if that ever happened, it most certainly doesn't now. Now his place at the grammar school would be taken by the son of the Squire, who would gallop past him as he ploughed on his turbocharged thoroughbred.

Soul- sometimes stereotypes are just how it is. Look at the names on roll at a grammar and at a high school.

My argument for grammar schools isn't that they aid social mobility. My argument for grammar schools is that they are a very positive thing for those that attend them, and that shouldn't be taken away from those children just because some other parents don't support education enough.

I absolutely agree with WooWooOwl about the primary importance of parental input. Unfortunately, the current system only reflects and reinfroces the differences in parenting. It is no secret that white MC areas have a greater proportion of engaged parents, so the local school would have a better prepared and motivated intake which in turn will attract better teachers and ensure higher results. I cannot see how comprehensive system will solve that given that parents cannot really choose which comprehensive their child goes to. They are limited to the schooling available in their immediate area. So we return to the proportion of engaged parents in the area....

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

Where does this come from? Where is this 'fact' in evidence? I've seen it directly opposed a few times, but I've not seen it anywhere itself.

Curlew: a poor but honest son of toil can aspire to the dreaming spires by walking 10 miles a day to the grammar school and read as he follows the plough. Well, if that ever happened, it most certainly doesn't now. Now his place at the grammar school would be taken by the son of the Squire, who would gallop past him as he ploughed on his turbocharged thoroughbred.

This has happenned because so many grammar were closed and the quotas for disadvantaged students abolished (which were there originally). With the few places remaining, the competition is more fierce than ever and yes, it has become a lot more difficult for a working class child to get in. Which would tell me grammars need to expand and bring back the quotas for poorer children, not close down?

My argument for grammar schools is that they are a very positive thing for those that attend them, and that shouldn't be taken away from those children just because some other parents don't support education enough

My argument for ladders is that I'm alright, and they should be pulled up forthwith, you mean?

So there are two types of child: ones who go to grammar - which is a positive thing - and ones whose parents don't support education enough. What an incredibly reductive and binary reading of the world!

My argument for grammar schools is that they are a very positive thing for those that attend them"

But why is it more positive to be in a separate school rather than with the same group of people in the top set of a school where everyone else goes too?

TOSN, no, that's not what I mean, because my using a ladder doesn't automatically mean that I stopping anyone else from using it. Others are free to use it if they want to.

And I didn't say there were two types of child. That wouldn't make sense considering I've posted that I have one child in a grammar and one in a comp and I remain the same parent to both.

Curlew, in my experience, the grammar school has been more positive for my child than the comp would have been because it has given him the opportunity to study Latin and Classics instead of cookery and product design which I can either teach sufficiently at home, or he has no interest in. He also gets to do a lot more in depth maths, which (weirdly, in my mind!) he really enjoys.

It's not just about top sets, it's about subjects on offer.

^TheOriginalSteamingNit Mon 28-Oct-13 12:15:38
So there are two types of child: ones who go to grammar - which is a positive thing - and ones whose parents don't support education enough.^

No, there is also the third type of child who has got a choice of going to a good local comp, a grammar or a private school if so desired. These are the ones least affected. It does not matter to the well-off people so much what happens to grammars, they will have access to good education regardless.

I am also staggered by the number of people saying that they have gone to a comp and then gone onto Oxbridge as though its the norm!

It isnt. About 30-35% of pupils go to Oxbridge from private sector. The rest from the state system. However it doesnt divide up the grammars from the comps.

What would that leave 3-5% from comps.

I agree with Woo Woo. Why do we keep making excuses as to why the poor cannot aspire to education. Just because you dont have much money doesnt mean you then consider education a waste of time and teach your children accordingly. Surely it should make people see education as a way of earning more money.

Unless of course they are comfortable enough that they dont see the connection.

Stop hitting the schools with the good academic results and lets focus on the ones that dont!

How does the child get to choose between going to a good local comp or a grammar though? Either he lives in an 11+ area or not, surely? And even if he does, it's not choice, is it, it's how you do in the test. .

I'm not saying grammar schools are the same thing as ladders, woowoo but I am saying it's a weak argument to say that you support a system because the results for a minority are perceived to be better, and the rest must just have unsupportive parents and therefore need to be left to one side.

I can afford private school and live in a grammar school area. I would fight for grammars around the country. I do care about education for everyone. The worst thing that was done was abolish the grammars and allow them to become the preserve of the middle classes with tutors.

On what grounds would you fight for grammars everywhere? What benefit do you think they bring those who don't go to them?

^curlew Mon 28-Oct-13 12:18:19
But why is it more positive to be in a separate school rather than with the same group of people in the top set of a school where everyone else goes too?^
because it is more difficult to cater for a wide range of abilities and educational needs, I guess. It is easy for grammars to achieve excellence as they do not need to deal with disruptive students as much or the students lagging behind academically, like comprehensives do.

Either he lives in an 11+ area or not, surely? And even if he does, it's not choice, is it, it's how you do in the test.

Not really, there are grammar schools in areas that don't routinely administer the 11+. As I've already said, in our area, the 11+ is very much something you opt in to if you want to, and if not, or you don't make the grade, there is a choice of good comps or private schools.

I am saying it's a weak argument to say that you support a system because the results for a minority are perceived to be better, and the rest must just have unsupportive parents and therefore need to be left to one side.

I didn't say the results for a minority are perceived to be better. I'm saying that children at grammar schools generally do well. Better doesn't come into it, because I don't see it as a competition. As long as my dc are doing well in relation to their own ability, I don't care how they are doing in comparison to others, it's irrelevant.

I'm also not saying that those that don't go to grammars have unsupportive parents, or that if they do, they should be left to one side. I'm saying that if all parents were supportive then it's likely that all schools would be good, and the alternatives to grammar schools wouldn't be seen as something undesirable.

TheOriginalSteamingNit why should grammars be responsible for other students? It's up to the non-grammars to benefit their own students. If they're failing to do so, then they need to improve.

handcream- have you looked up the maths that you quoted about Oxbridge entrants? How can that possibly work when only 5% of children nationally attend a grammar school.

Can they really then make up 67% of the Oxbridge intake?

If you can find some stats to back this up then I'll accept but it just seems highly unlikely to me.

I posted much earlier down the thread about despite all the arguments about the selective 'system' some posters fail to realise or just discount the fact that large swathes of the country have no nearby grammar schools. There are 164 in the country, 33 in Kent as already established. Its a bit like the London-centric media argument, people are only really worried about what affects them and what happens in their area.