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's fine if you live in an area where you can afford the inflated house prices which conveniently reduces the,er, more disaffected cohort, so you end up with a mono-cultural intake which isn't exactly comprehensive but whatever.

Please, please, give this one a rest. Please. Or come and see my DD1's distinctly non-leafy comp, where large numbers of her friends are on FSM and whose multicultiness reflects its rather shabby Sarf Lunnon surroundings (and DD1's, come to that).

However the most confusing thing about this thread is why the OP wouldn't have heard/thought of all the anti-grammar school arguments before.

I know it's lovely and convenient to diss all good comps as obviously far more selective both economically and ethnically than any other form of education, but it's just not accurate.

I thought secondary moderns didn't exist any more. DD goes to the local comprehensive. They are set for the core subjects and PE from year 7 and there is a lot of movement between the sets to cater for underperforming students and students who excel.

After languishing for years as satisfactory they have just received a Good rating from ofsted. This year's GCSE results were 80% A - C grades including maths and English, The A level and AS level results were also up. I am happy with the school and so are most of the parents.

They don't have secondary moderns, but if the top set is at a different school, then you aren't providing a comprehensive education either.

I thought secondary moderns didn't exist any more.

You can't live in Kent or Bucks then. Grammar schools and Sec Mods are the system there - although Bucks tries to dress the Sec Mods up under a different name.

One of the reasons we moved country when I was small was because my big sis had failed the 11+. DM was not prepared (as a teacher) to see her daughter fail.

DSIS is now eye-wateringly successful.

I live in South Yorkshire. The only grammar schools round here are independent fee paying schools. I think Heckmondwike Grammer is a state school, but the competition to get in is extremely fierce, and it is too far for us anyway. So the non grammar schools round here are proper comprehensive schools.

I thought secondary moderns didn't exist any more.

Not in name. But in areas where the top 25% are whisked off to grammar land the school that remains is a secondary modern whatever it's actually called.

Not in counties that aren't Kent, Essex or Bucks.

I have got conflicting feelings about grammar schools. On one hand, they provide a superior first-class education, completely free (to those who can get in). While passable or good comprehensives are a very rare commodity. And personally, I do not believe even good comprehensives come close to the calibre of education grammars provide. Granted, these schools are not called secondary moderns any more, but are they much better in real terms?

On the other hand, I see the argument of the opponents and that it is wrong that one day at the age of 10 can define somebody's whole life "without the right of appeal". This is wrong.

The system was wrong then and it is no better now, when lets be honest, the majority of population do not have the option to send their child to a good secondary. Primarily because these are typically found in prohibitively expensive areas where very few families with children can afford to live. So it is not fair either, is it?

At least grammars do not have the postcode element coming into it as much. A bright (and prepared) child can get in even if they do not live across the road from the said grammar.

Because sadly so many grammar have closed, we have ended up with the situation when a child now has to be tutored to get in. The kind of tests grammars put on are not passable if someone has not spent hours (or days, or weeks!) doing similar tests. Being bright is no longer sufficient.

With the closure of grammars, people from humbler backgrounds no longer have a chance for a decent education (a chance it was in those days!). They are unable to move into an expensive area with good schools. Neither are they able to pay for the tutoring to get their bright child into a grammar. So, on the balance, I think we have ended up with a worse system than there ever used to be...

Summerworld The kind of tests grammars put on are not passable if someone has not spent hours (or days, or weeks!) doing similar tests. Being bright is no longer sufficient.

That's not actually true (in all cases).

"While passable or good comprehensives are a very rare commodity. And personally, I do not believe even good comprehensives come close to the calibre of education grammars provide."

Why do you think either of these things?

curlew The poster is possibly reflecting their own experience? My experience is that the comp I went to, back in the day, was a better school then than the SSGS my DD1 goes to is today. However my old school while utterly superb, still, probably isn't a better school except in a couple of somewhat significant ways now. But it's still amazing (I have friends with kids there) and if I still lived where I belong I'd be deliriously happy for my girls to go there. I am aware though that it isn't like all comps. The ones available where I live are a decidedly mixed bunch and even the best one isn't in the same league as my old school let alone the same division.

Xoanon- she could only be reflecting her own experience in that statement if she had experienced all comprehensives and all grammars!

"It is perfectly possible to get into grammar school having done very minimal preperation."

Not for most children it isn't.

While passable or good comprehensives are a very rare commodity.
This depends where you live. I certainly think that in the UK as a whole good comprehensives are far from rare.

And personally, I do not believe even good comprehensives come close to the calibre of education grammars provide. Granted, these schools are not called secondary moderns any more, but are they much better in real terms?

Some of these good comprehensives were never secondary moderns but were an amalgam of a secondary modern and a grammar school.

However, some which were secondary moderns and not an amalgam, e.g. some of the ones in Oxfordshire, have a very good reputation as comprehensives.

passable or good comprehensives are a very rare commodity

Please explain, with examples, precisely why you feel this generalisation is justified.

yy mother inferior. what a silly comment.

Overall effectiveness of schools
Overall effectiveness judgement (percentage of schools)
Type of school
Outstanding
Good
Satisfactory
Inadequate
Nursery schools
46
46
8
0
Primary schools
8
47
40
5
Secondary schools
14
38
40
8
Special schools
28
48
20
4
Pupil referral units
15
50
29
5
All schools
11
46
38
6
New school inspection arrangements have been introduced from 1 January 2012. This means that inspectors make judgements that were not made previously.
The data in the table above are for the period 1 September 2010 to 31 August 2011 and represent judgements that were made under the school inspection arrangements that were introduced on 1 September 2009. These data are consistent with the latest published official statistics about maintained school inspection outcomes (see www.ofsted.gov.uk).
The sample of schools inspected during 2010/11 was not representative of all schools nationally, as weaker schools are inspected more frequently than good or outstanding schools.
Primary schools include primary academy converters. Secondary schools include secondary academy converters, sponsor-led academies and city technology colleges. Special schools include special academy converters and non-maintained special schools.
Percentages are rounded and do not always add exactly to 100.

This table, published by Ofsted in 2012 attached to my ds school report shows that on 8% of secondaries in the UK are considered by Osted to be inadequate.

Therefore 92% are considered to be satisfactory and above, 42% are considered to be satisfactory, 40% are considered to be good and 14% are considered to be outstanding.

If passable equates to satisfactory then I think we can safely assert that the majority of the secondary schools in this country are not only passable, but pretty good overall.

But lets not let the fact get in the way of a good prejudice.