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.

. Grammar schools may be a different animal from 1944.
However comprehensives unless located in socially affluent areas fail
many pupils not just in education terms, but in social terms.

A top set of a comprehensive, unless located in a advantaged area. lets
say Winchester with loads of university educated parents can not offer the same standard of
academic education a grammar school can to those of the same level who would be in the 2nd or 3rd set at the grammar.

I think a lot of you on here have benefited from educations that have enabled you to go on and have careers.You have developed altruistic ideas of learning for
everybody with no winners or losers.

Obviously i am not able to take about the dynamics of teaching because
i am not a teacher ....

I think away from this small site a large number of people from different
sides of the political system not just "Right Wing Nutters" would like
an expansion in some sort of selective education be that vocational or schools for sporting excellence. These could be, alongside grammar schools the notion of a 1960s style secondary modern school just churning out factory fodder does not have to be true.

At present there are plenty of Comprehensives churning out not even
factory fodder, but totally unemployable youths who have very little
future in this country.

I expect i will be called a "DAILY MAIL" reader because i dared go against
the official verdict of the Mumsnet Jury in deciding that Super Selective's
are just about acceptable but full blown grammar schools are the work of
the "DEVIL".

^WooWooOwl Mon 28-Oct-13 19:18:41
Why wouldn't a system where everyone had access to both a super selective and a good comp be the best option?^
It would. That would be ideal.

But the opponents will say that a comp will not be such if the top slice of students have been whisked to the grammar. It will be effectively a secondary modern with a few bright pupils who did not get into a grammar for one reason or another.

I do believe that it will do bright children a world of good to be educated in a motivated competitive (grammar) setting where they will be pushed to the limit, not growing complacent of how great they are compared to the vast majority of their (comp) school mates.

I understand grammar culture is not for everyone, but it is a valuable option on the table. I would rather have it than not.

Soul- do you have any evidence to back up all those categorical statements?

people in favour of selective education always assume that their kids will be on the right sideof the cut .....

and every year after school places are allocated you'll see the howls of anguish and appeals when people find themselves on the wrong side

surely better not to have the cut at all
and just give every school a kick up the arse

PS employers are effing lazy

in the 50's and 60's they knew that they took in kids with basic reading and writing skills and trained and moulded them

nowadays companies are too busy stashing their profits offshore to be willing to pay for training - they want it done by schools funded out of the taxes the corporates avoid paying

Your bolded use of the word 'always' is wrong.

^Talkinpeace Mon 28-Oct-13 20:16:26
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?^
surprisingly, grammars sometimes take travelling distance into account when admitting. My friend's DS passed his 11+ with good marks but the school still refused to give him a place stating that they did not believe the travelling distance was sustainable, so the school admitted somebody who lived closer and did not have such a long commute. But admission rules do vary.

It astounds me that anyone in this day and age thinks that comprehensive 'churn out' any pupils of any sort. Clearly all the many teachers that I have ever met are completely the opposite of all these comprehensive teachers everywhere else in the country.

The heartbreak, blood, sweat, tears and effort of getting each pupil the best possible grade they can.......even if it is a grade E and its an achievement for them at all to get a GCSE, his just totally rubbished by statements like that.

is not 'his'.......sorry, don't know who he is!

I have certainly seen children tutored to the test who then pass the exam and should not be in a grammar school.

There is certainly a call for more Vocational options....

Talkin Peace will back me up here....

Vocational could mean schools like the Brit School...

We could have schools linked by more than association
to premier league clubs in fact i think Man City are very
proactive in this type of idea. This is how Free schools could
work if Gove had not Fucked up a what could have been a
great idea, if Gove had actually worked with the idea instead
of destroying it with reducing standards of teaching and letting
anybody run them.

Vocational (selection from near me):
Sparsholt college - pretty much all of their courses
Southampton City College - maritime and boat building skills
Totton College - mechanics and vehicle maintenance
Fareham College - hairdressing and beauty treatments
Eastleigh College - building trades

all the things that need doing and with decent UK based training there would be less need for importing people from other countries

but please, stop slagging off 2rote learning" and "teach to the test" until you've dealt with people who struggle to do that little

but be VERY thankful that they are to hand when the gas pipe needs repairing after a tree blows over

all those kids are irrelevant to the grammar school system
BUT
their kids need open opportunities and they will be wary of a grammar but happy to send their kids to a comp that might let them excel

^soul2000 Mon 28-Oct-13 21:49:50
Grammar schools may be a different animal from 1944. However comprehensives unless located in socially affluent areas fail
many pupils not just in education terms, but in social terms.

A top set of a comprehensive, unless located in a advantaged area. lets
say Winchester with loads of university educated parents can not offer the same standard of academic education a grammar school can to those of the same level who would be in the 2nd or 3rd set at the grammar.

At present there are plenty of Comprehensives churning out not even
factory fodder, but totally unemployable youths who have very little
future in this country.^

soul, I agree with a lot of your posts. I think we are coming from a similar sort of background and have seen things at an angle available only from that place in the society. Sadly, I had the pleasure (not) to live next to such a comp which churned totally unemployable youths who could barely read and write. Let me omit all the lovely detail of those students' general deportment. This is the comp my DC would be destined to go to if we did not exhibit true ingenuity and got us all out of that blessed area.

I believe that there are comps somewhere which teach Latin and give a grammar standard education to their top set pupils. There are certainly uplifting encouraging posts on this thread to support this. However, it is no comfort to me if my DC do not have an option of such a wonderful comp. The only real alternative to a private education where I am is only grammar education. If grammars go, that's it. I have not got enough money to buy my child a decent education at a private school. In fairness, the minority of parents are. This is probably why GS threads seem such a hot topic.

To reply to one of the earlier posters, GSs did use to have scholarships (quotas) for bright disadvantaged kids. In the programme cited earlier on this thread, Edwina Curry talks of herself as a "scholarship girl". She was subsidised, like many others, to attend GS, provided she had the ability and passed the test. She did very well indeed out of GS.

^Talkinpeace Mon 28-Oct-13 22:23:54
but please, stop slagging off 2rote learning" and "teach to the test" until you've dealt with people who struggle to do that little

but be VERY thankful that they are to hand when the gas pipe needs repairing after a tree blows over

all those kids are irrelevant to the grammar school system
BUT
their kids need open opportunities and they will be wary of a grammar but happy to send their kids to a comp that might let them excel^

I see nothing wrong with good vocational training or having a trade. My DH is a successful example of a non-academic person doing well in life, as he does what he enjoys and what he is good at.

However, I fail to see why we must disadvantage academically minded children in order to let non-academic children succeed. They are different people with different strong points. What is good for one, is not so good for the other. Hence the crude GS/SM system. A good comp is miles better than any SM. But why get rid of grammars if they provide excellent outcomes for those who attend them?
Improve the comps, let grammars be.

"However, I fail to see why we must disadvantage academically minded children in order to let non-academic children succeed"

Why would anyone want to do that??????

soul- I see you're not coming up with your sources.......

^curlew Mon 28-Oct-13 22:51:21
"However, I fail to see why we must disadvantage academically minded children in order to let non-academic children succeed"

Why would anyone want to do that??????^

well, quite a few posters insist that no matter what children are best kept in the same comp. It is just not all comps happen to be good or excellent. The comp I talked of earlier would be likely to ruin any academic-minded child who walked through its doors. Say, if an academic child did not have a chance to sit the universal 11+ like in the olden days and simply had to go to the LOCAL school like many children are forced to now. Too many bright kids' potential is wasted in substandard comps. I appreciate teachers do their best, but there are other powerful factors at play apart from teaching. If all comps were brilliant, GS would become pretty much redundant (albeit for a very small number of students).

I have not mentioned any numbers .... I have just said "large" that could
mean my two friends, my dog and my therapist....

I have got to come clean, my nephew was worried he may not have got the requisite 4A s to get in his grammar's 6th form and he was having sleepless nights about having to go to "THE COMP" or the "6th FORM COLLEGE" .....for his A levels..... DOOMSDAY DID NOT HAPPEN.
His elder sister told him to pull his finger out or he might be going to college with the "SHELL SUITS" not with a Business suit and tie.

"Too many bright kids' potential is wasted in substandard comps."

People keep making statements like this. For all I know they are true. But they have nothing backing them up. In a thread like this you really need evidence.

"I have got to come clean, my nephew was worried he may not have got the requisite 4A s to get in his grammar's 6th form and he was having sleepless nights about having to go to "THE COMP" or the "6th FORM COLLEGE" .....for his A levels..... DOOMSDAY DID NOT HAPPEN.
His elder sister told him to pull his finger out or he might be going to college with the "SHELL SUITS" not with a Business suit and tie."

Bloody hell, and somebody called me a snob!

"However, I fail to see why we must disadvantage academically minded children in order to let non-academic children succeed"

or,alternatively "I fail to see why we must disadvantage non-academic children in order to let academically minded children succeed"

The underlying assumption on many of these grammar school threads is that it is more important for academically able children to fulfil their potential than for other less academic children to do so.

"but be VERY thankful that they are to hand when the gas pipe needs repairing after a tree blows over"
...and this. The population is not divided into those destined for PhDs in Physics/Classics/whatever and those who will dig up pipes and cut down trees.Amazingly there is quite a spread of ability and talent,and education should cater to all.

Grammar schools provide a good education on the whole,and so they should considering their intake.In our county this removes the most able 25% and skews the composition of all the other schools to a greater or lesser extent.This has an impact on the education of all children.

Kent has had a selective system since I was at school,while comprehensive education was introduced elsewhere.If this system provides a better education for all children I have always thought the statistics should be readily available,to show that in Kent children do in fact do better.So if anyone can find them,please let me know!

Curlew Maybe that should be 'too many kids' potential is wasted in substandard comps.' And isn't that just self-evident?

And if you have a substandard comp. (or non-selective school) as the alternative, and you believe your kid has a chance of going to the grammar, wouldn't you try and grab it for them?

Zzzzz you made a lot of comments about the robustness of children and therefore I wondered if your own child(ren) were as robust as you think other people's children are.

Sorry not to have kept track of the he/she end of things but I think you get my gist anyway.

Sending her through the exam and on to the grammar just to develop a tough hide seems a bit of an unnecessary effort when she could do exactly the same thing by doing a sport or some other activity she sucked at outside of school hours.

A substandard comprehensive is a reasonable argument for your own decision to send your child to a grammar school, in the absence of any real alternative, however, it is not an argument for the grammar school system.

Substandard schools are a waste of all our money, both in the money spent on them and the money spent trying to support their ex-pupils post school. Clearly in that situation parents with resources will try to escape the substandard school using the means available to them. The solution, however is not to have substandard schools. Creating more escape routes does not solve the problem.

However, sometimes, schools are 'substandard' in reputation only.

Bemused at the idea that the only choice for sixth form would be shell suits or business suits. What a truly awful choice. As I have never come across a sixth form college where every body actually does wear shell suits, I think I'd be inclined to throw my lot in with them.

"However, I fail to see why we must disadvantage academically minded children in order to let non-academic children succeed"

My DS and a previous poster's DS ARE academically minded - IQ top 1% (which is therefore apparently Oxbridge potential) BUT they did not/would not pass their 11+. It is they who would be disadvantaged by going to a secondary modern, rather than a true comp with their intellectual peers.

Is the GS system best for ALL children? Is there anyone out there whose children have failed the 11+ and yet still feel it is the best system?

A good comp is miles better than any SM. But why get rid of grammars if they provide excellent outcomes for those who attend them?

To be a comprehensive a school must have a comprehensive intake. I am paying the government to provide a system that provides an excellent outcome not just for those who attend grammar schools, but all pupils. There is no evidence that grammar schools provide a better system of education, as opposed to a better education for a particular child attending a grammar school.

I am not paying taxes to support a child, I am paying taxes to support all of them.