Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
SatinSandals · 28/10/2013 19:11

The figures are from the Cambridge School Classics project.

curlew · 28/10/2013 19:13

"Curlew, even as a generalisation, I think it's unfair. It comes across as critical of parents who are just doing their best for their children's education with no valid reason behind it."

I have said absolutely nothing which could possibly lead to this conclusion!

curlew · 28/10/2013 19:15

Anyway. Assuming that basing an entire system of education on whether or not a couple of children might want to do Latin is not a good idea, please can someone tell me why it's a good idea to take the top set and educate them in a completely different school from everyone else? Who benefits?

merrymouse · 28/10/2013 19:15

Because as discussed ad nauseam on this thread, its difficult to have a top set of 2 if the rest of your top set is at another school.

I don't get the impression that people on this thread are really that bothered about super selective grammar schools.

WooWooOwl · 28/10/2013 19:18

Why wouldn't a system where everyone had access to both a super selective and a good comp be the best option?

SatinSandals · 28/10/2013 19:23

I am quite happy with super selectives and a good comp. You would only expect one or 2 DCs from each primary school would get a place and it would be the best ,with no point in tutoring because they wouldn't be able to keep up. The 11+ is the start and not the end.

SatinSandals · 28/10/2013 19:25

With super selectives and good comps you find that many who might get a place just opt for the comp because they want to be with friends and not travel.

Talkinpeace · 28/10/2013 20:16

why should two per catchment go to a superselective
why not three
or ten
or 20
at which point why not keep that group in the local school
why not one from every other catchment
its arbitrary and that is my issue

the bigger issue is that the logistics of getting into and to superselctives actively excludes bright children of indigent parents

how many superselectives offer free buses / transport to kids from miles away?

PatTheHammer · 28/10/2013 20:20

Some do, but not all Talkin. Plus you have to question the logic of some parents in our rural areaTheir kids get a bus that means their commute is well over an hour either side of the day. Effectively this rather restricts their participation in the super-selectives 'excellent enrichment and extra-curricular' after school events......one of the reasons they pushed their child to take the test in the first place, alledgedly.

But its ok apparently, because they can do Rugby which is on a Saturday morning. That's fine then.

Talkinpeace · 28/10/2013 20:22

is that bus FREE though?
because the cost of petrol is a huge issue for parents on below median incomes

PatTheHammer · 28/10/2013 20:28

It's not free. Hugely subsidised but not free. The large Catholic school in the area does a free bus.

I totally get what you are saying. If for instance my DD was to take our local Girl's grammar test and got in then she would have to take a bus. There is no free bus and according to the school she would not qualify for subsidised travel as we do not live more than 3 miles away. We are about 2.99999 miles away, and DD has JIA. DH and I both leave too early in the morning to drop her off so bus it would be.....out of our pockets.

WooWooOwl · 28/10/2013 20:43

So because some people can't afford something, no one should have it?

I find that quite patronising. Our costs have gone up since ds started at a school slightly further away, but as parents, it's down to us to solve that problem. If it was so much of a problem that we really had no where to cut back to be able to afford school transport, then ds would have had to go to the local school, and would probably have struggled for at least the first year.

Why can't we just leave the choice, and the responsibility, up to individual parents instead of saying something is wrong if it can't be accessed 100% for free?

Why should 2% or whatever go to a SS? Well why shouldn't they if it will suit them and they can manage the work? It's not harming anyone else, it's not an advantage that can in any way compare to the advantage and disadvantage some children have because of their parents already. It's just a bit different, but it's still state education that every child has a right to.

Satin, that's how it works in our area. Plenty of children that have a good chance at getting a grammar place don't take the 11+, for lots of reasons. I didn't want it for my ds2. But I wouldn't begrudge others.

curlew · 28/10/2013 20:52

I can see the case for a superselective. I can't quite understand why you would want to isolate your child like that, but if that's what people want...... Not sure how it would work practically in any but the most densely populated area, and there would have to be a scheme to pay transport costs for people who couldn't afford it. But hey ho.

So we have unanimity on this thread? Grammar schools that take 25% bad- grammar schools that take 2% good- or at least neutral?

PatTheHammer · 28/10/2013 21:00

I'm only neutral on the super-selective because I can see no discernible effect on the local schools from the one in my area. Whether or not I agree with the principle of it is another thing. It does no harm is the best I can say (although my ex-pupil DH would say otherwise).

Research tells me that it would be £1000 per year to bus DD to the super-selective. Agree it's not a bank-breaking amount for most people, but could be for some along with the usual cost of uniform, games kit, lunch money etc.

PatTheHammer · 28/10/2013 21:02

Anyone else interested to see if this will reach 1000 posts? Grin

soul2000 · 28/10/2013 21:05

Curlew. I like grammar schools that take up to 30% .... 2% just creates
a sub "Elite", like the public schools. I think the reason people on here are not to fussed about the notion of 2% super selective's , is because quite a few think their DCs might have a chance to pass, and if they didn't pass, well
never mind nice try. I think its a game of "Double Jeopardy".

curlew · 28/10/2013 21:08

OK Soul you tell me.

What we the benefits of teaching the "top set" in a complete different school to everyone else. Who benefits, why and how much?

Talkinpeace · 28/10/2013 21:12

"I Like Secondary moderns that exclude the top 25% of pupils as they make our thick kids feel inferior"

Barnum all your statements and check that they still make sense

One simple argument against "super" segregated schools is their offensively high carbon footprint linked to the huge catchment

nothing I have seen convinces me in any way that the state should fund segregated leaning groups
by god, genitals or tutoring for a test

WooWooOwl · 28/10/2013 21:25

So we have unanimity on this thread? Grammar schools that take 25% bad- grammar schools that take 2% good- or at least neutral?

I can almost go with that! I don't think the schools themselves will be bad, but maybe the admissions process is bad enough that it's not a positive education system to have.

The super selectives don't create an elite. They are still just regular kids who turn into regular adults that can succeed in life or not. If every child is given a good education that is suited to their needs and interests, the GS children won't have any kind of an advantage.

MarinaResurgens · 28/10/2013 21:32

"You can also do the Cambridge Latin course on line at any point in your life".

Sure you can, but why shouldn't it be taught in a reasonable percentage of schools, like any other subject?

You can join a gym at any point in your life, you can do an evening class in history/biology/textiles at any point in your life.

511 comprehensives offering Latin is brilliant, none of those is anywhere near where we live.

flatiron · 28/10/2013 21:33

I wish posters wouldn't keep suggesting that tutoring somehow forces otherwise incapable children up to the 11+ pass mark just to get in to the grammar, where they will soon start to flounder. That is just not the case. I have never believed that you can tutor a child who is way off the mark, to pass the 11+. Tutors would never have any failures, if that were the case, There will always be a borderline, where, yes, maybe you can tweak a few marks with tutoring, but then you can tweak a few marks by being young in the year, too. (A useful tip for parents in areas with a grammar, when trying to conceive Smile).

Most parents of state school children in my area get tutoring because they know that the state primary schools are simply not going to have covered all the stuff the children need to know by the time they sit the exam. No matter how bright you are, you can't answer questions on aspects of the curriculum you haven't yet been taught.

Talkinpeace · 28/10/2013 21:36

Most parents of state school children in my area get tutoring
Really?
Parents on benefits or earning under £18000 per year per adult are spending (what) money on £30 per hour tutors - when they earn £7 per hour?
the parents you know may do tutoring,
but that will be a small minority of the parents in the area

PatTheHammer · 28/10/2013 21:41

Hmmm, now flatiron I agree with the logic in your posts. However, for the past few years such children that have been 'tutored to get into grammars and then floundered' have been a mainstay of my supplemental income as a GCSE tutor. It is clear that they would not have got in had it been a level playing field and their parents hadn't thrown lots of money at it. They would have comfortably slotted into probably my set 2 in my comp, or something like that.
I have one or two of these pupils each year for the past 6 years since I went part-time.

I have also worked in a grammar and there are a number of pupils in each year group where it is very apparent that they have only really got in because of excellent coaching. This sometimes does not become immediately apparent, its not a huge number of pupils but there definitely are some.

flatiron · 28/10/2013 21:45

TiP, I could think you are disingenuously misinterpreting what I said.

Most parents in my area who get tutoring, (if you want to be pedantic, though I think my meaning was clear), get it for the reasons I stated. Obviously only the parents who can afford it will do this, and if you have noticed at all what I have said in previous posts, you will know how unfair I think this is.

WooWooOwl · 28/10/2013 21:49

I sort of agree with you flatiron. Where there is huge competition over school places, tuition doesn't lead to children getting a place who don't deserve one. If they've done the extra work and have gained a high enough score, then they are highly likely to be able to keep up with the work.

If anything, there will be lots more children that deserve a place than there are places, and that's the downside to super selectives. Those children will go on to be in top sets elsewhere.

Parents who are sensible over their expectations of a grammar school place aren't really tutoring to get their kid to pass the exam. They're doing it to get a high enough pass to secure a place, which can be way above the actual pass mark.

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.
Swipe left for the next trending thread