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.

Incidentally, it's fairly obvious that in comprehensive areas (proper ones) some of the schools which are now comps will have started as secondary moderns; others as grammars; and some will have been purpose-built. My daughter's non-leafy comp started as a grammar, I note, but since it has been comprehensive since 1956 I can't see what that'll have to do with it.

Grammar schools have a very narrow definition of excellence.
The 11+ does not test for sport, art, music, languages - all the things that make school more interesting.
So in a comp you get the academically slow fantastic athlete
in the same room as the academically brilliant two left foot person
in the same room as the kid with no real skills at all
that breadth and diversity is what any selective school lacks
and is part of the reason why our current political "class" are such twerps.

With setting and ambition, every child in a comp can reach their potential - be that at Imperial College as a lecturer or working in the canteen

(nc)

I'll tell you why most parents in my area pay for tuition to give their dc a fighting chance of passing the 11+:

A) If they didn't have tuition, most of the state school candidates would find that they were unable to answer a lot of the questions, as the material would not have been covered by the end of year 5.

B) The Comprehensives in this area are shit.

Do people think things are going to get even more competitive? I imagine that Grammars will move towards 'untutorable' IQ tests in time. Totally mixing things up from year to year and throwing a few curve balls? I don't think the system will continue as it is, it doesn't seem sustainable or sensible. Also it seems to be that more (rather than less) are opting for selective independents these days despite the recession especially the top ones?? Does all this competition (especially if times get harder and alternative choices get worse) mean we'll move towards a culture that begins to prize education more highly in time?

seennotheard - are they comprehensives though, if you have the 11+?

It took me a longish time reading threads on MN to realise that my idea of a comprehensive i.e. one which took virtually all abilities (didn't take the ones in PRUs), wasn't the same as say Kent MNetters, for whom 'comprehensive' was another name for Secondary Modern.

I know, LV, I mentioned to a boyfriend of mine a few years back that I'd been to a comp and he asked me if I'd failed the 11+.

DS goes to a comp which is as unleafy as MI's DD's, and with a demography that I have often seen described on MN as to be avoided. (high ratio of FSM, EAL, etc) and the surrounding housing is predominantly social - not private with high rents or mortgages. It is an are which is considerably more 'affordable' than surrounding S London areas.

The top ability students have a higher A-C inc Maths and Eng % pass rate tat GCSE han the lowest performing Kent selectives. It has a higher value added score than most of the Kent selectives. The highest value added scores (i.e those which reflect the impact of the education that the students receive) amongst the Kent secondaries are not by any means focussed on the selective schools. In fact 4 selective schools don't even make it to the baseline 100 value added score - so are actually failing their pupils!

People go on about comprehensives and selective education all the time.

I am just wondering what percentage of Gcse 5A* to C does a "SECONDARY MODERN" need to lose that classification.

I think "THORNHILL" in educating Yorkshire is more of what a "SECONDARY
MODERN" is than many high schools in selective areas.

I have no idea who does the classification. Kingston, with 17% selective places open to all-comers refers to its non-selective schools as Secondary Moderns, while neighbouring Sutton, with 30% selective places, also open to all-comers, refers to its non-selectives as comprehensives, but I don't know who decides this and on what basis.

Well, LV, i suppose they are comprehensive by definition, in that they don't select their intake on the basis of academic achievement.

When the selective system prevailed, the 11+ exam was universal. The default was that all children took the exam in their primary schools. It was just a fact of life, rather than a choice. There was, therefore, a much stricter demarcation between the Grammars = those who had passed the 11+, and Secondary Moderns = those who had failed.

Nowadays, I think the remaining Grammars are regarded as a bit of an aberration. The primary schools are not involved in the 11+ process at all. The onus is on parents to apply for their children to take the exam, which is held in the Grammar school itself. Many state primary schools which have a Grammar in their area, choose to largely ignore the fact, and act as though they are working within a truly comprehensive system. This is probably, and justifiably, in order to downplay the awful pass/fail stigma of the 11+ of years ago.

It's such an old-fashioned system that can divide families. So glad we live in an area with outstanding secondary schools that are no longer grammar.

MadameDefarge, personally, I would not call an "Ofsted Satisfactory" school a good school. Are you serious?

And I have a big problem with the criteria used until very recently to assess schools. Michael Gove made a lot of noise trying to introduce "proper" assessment criteria which is academic subjects like English, Maths and Sciences. Whilst before vocational subjects conveniently pushed some schools up the League Tables. Maybe it is how some comps got to be classed satisfactory or even good? Grammar do not subscribe to that, as it is totally against their ethos of academic achievement. They are simply not interested in enrolling their students onto a "cooking" class instead of another academic subject in order to get a better "average" result for the school.

A lot of the stats is what you choose to believe IMO.

Ah, yes, another convenient one, along with the leafy catchment areas! Yes, that's right, our kids are getting As in maths and English but the other three GCSEs are all cooking and textiles, you know.

zzzzz But in areas where the 11+ is curriculum-based, with Maths and English papers, even those children it is aimed at, are going to be pretty hard pushed to pass without tutoring, if they have not yet covered all the relevant material.

In our area, children need to be confident in all aspects of the KS2 curriculum for Maths and English (i.e. end of year 6) by the end of year 5. In most state primaries, this just isn't going to happen.

I really don't know why it's so threatening to accept that a lot of comps are delivering perfectly good education. It seems to be a point of fierce debate - 'oh well you live in a posh area' 'oh well they're all cramming the results with cookery and textiles' etc....Quite a lot of comprehensives are educating our lovely kids just fine. Get over it.

Cooking class. Of course.

Look at the OP. why don't people like the grammar system? My dad went to a grammar school and it was great!

How obtuse can you get!

Well, LV, i suppose they are comprehensive by definition, in that they don't select their intake on the basis of academic achievement.

But the old secondary moderns didn't select either, but it didn't make them comprehensive. Some of them would certainly have had children who were of grammar school standard.

Yes, they did select! They took the kids who'd failed the exam, by definition. Some of those kids turned out to be pretty bright...but they also took all the kids who wouldn't have had a hope in hell of ever passing.

Which bit of 'entrance exam' means 'non-selective'?

and no, this is not prejudice. In the area where we could afford to buy and where we used to live, my DCs had ZERO chance of a good education, either primary or even more so, secondary. The schools there are not great (althoughsome are "satisfactory" or "good" on paper).

But jumping through a few hoops and moving 40 minutes away to an area where we will never afford to buy, my DCs now go to a good primary and they have a fair chance of getting into a good secondary. Are those schools accessible? Oh no. They are very very difficult to get into. At least with a grammar you get some sort of chance if you are bright. With the current system if you have not got a fat wad to buy a house next door to a good school, your children got no chance whatsoever, however bright. I do not think it is any fairer.

You passed, you went to the grammar. You failed, you went to the secondary modern.

It's really easy to understand.

I do not have a fat wad

My wad is in fact of quite small proportions. A wad of slender insufficiency.

I'm not being obtuse. I benefitted from the grammar system. I have spent the last 11 years teaching in grammar schools. I have seen a lot of strident comments (from both sides) and wanted an alternative view. It seems it's one of those areas where we can't discuss properly as people make it too personal.

Quite a lot of comprehensives are educating our lovely kids just fine. Get over it.

Yep, a lot are doing a good job and the parents and children are happy with the system.

I suspect that it is partly to do with the catchment area e.g. my old school is in a rural area, and its intake covers a wide spectrum of income and social class, except the real extremes of sink estates and the phenomenally wealthy are absent. The phenomenally wealthy wouldn't send their children to any state school anyway.

And yes, it's leafy because it's rural, but don't forget that rural areas can have lots of hidden poverty.