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.

I am not pro-selection, btw. I think it is divisive and, imo, militates against breadth of choice, and diversity in the range of subjects offered by both types of school in a selective system.....But if you have to choose between one of the best schools in the country and a sink poorly performing 'comprehensive', I think most parents would try their damnedest to give their dc a fighting chance in the 11+.

I could link to lots of houses of much cheapness in catchment for schools with Ofsted outstanding, but I'm smart these days and I know that then someone can just say 'oh well, a so-called outstanding so-called school is meaningless these days' . Then I could link to GCSE results, and they could say 'ah but they are probably all in GCSE Cookery Class.' then I could say no they aren't, and they could say, 'ah but so-called GCSEs are so easy these days that any state school oaf can get 15 a*s'.

I may have been on too many of these threads

motherinferior Thu 24-Oct-13 16:59:43
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.

It is not a convenient argument, it is a fact of life. This is precisely why there has been such an uproar against Mr Gove's suggestions. A lot of schools would be exposed for what they really are! Secondary moderns with a vocational slant. If a school was doing well in academic subjects why would it protest against the Baccalaureat? Because very few state comps do.

I agree with selection by ability. At the moment, the main method of selection is by money.

englishteacher. you went to grammar school. You think it's a good thing you did because, even being the exact same 11 year old you were, you know you would have coasted had you not gone to grammar school.

So because you didn't happen to just miss the mark, as you easily could have, and thus condemn yourself to coasting and underachievement, you think more people should get to go to grammar school. Do you understand my issue here?

We've had students who wouldn't have got the Ebacc as they didn't do Geography or History instead choosing Ancient Greek and Latin. But that's a story for another thread.

Yes, they [Sec Mods] did select!

Well, not really - you were never asked about your woodworking or sewing or running skills, but you were supposed to be more vocationally orientated. As you say, some children were pretty bright (and would easily have held their own in the grammar school) and others had no hope whatever of passing. It must have been pretty shitty for those others. I went to a couple of junior schools - they streamed rigidly and no-one in the B stream passed. It was worse than 11+ really: if you got into the B stream at 7, the chances were that there you stayed.

I don't like grammar schools either. Agree with the poster who said to have somebody's life decided at the age of 11 from one exam is beyond mad. Not to mention all the coaching that people have to get their DC's into the grammar school. And divisive if one sibling gets in and the other doesn't. Give me a good comprehensive any day.

I don't see why people seem to be, in a more general way as well, against elitism in academia when it's accepted in other areas. But I'm willing to agree to disagree.

I have nothing against excellence in academia (I have, for the record, a perfectly good degree from a posh university). I object to picking out kids at 11 and telling one bunch they're clever and the other bunch they're better at vocational subjects, ie thick.

may i just add that i do get the 'non-academic person' argument. My DH is not academic, not at all. But it does not prevent him having and running a successful business. He was not interested in a grammar education, he would have failed the 11- if he took it.

But being non-academic does not presclude someone from being successful in life. It is doing something which suits. At the moment, too many comps are failing bright kids who are grammar material due to the reasons cited above by several posters. This is a terrible waste. Anybody should be able to sit the 11+ and at least get that chance of a good education because of ability and not parenal socio-economic background.

LV The old Secondary Moderns didn't select as such, but the selection was done for them, in effect, in that every child took the 11+, and only those that failed went to the Sec. Mods. The same doesn't apply nowadays, even in areas where the Grammars survive, it is much more a matter of individual choice than it used to be. Some people opt for good comprehensives, even in an area which retains selection, as a matter of principle, or suitability for their child, regardless of academic ability. I wish we had that choice in our area.

Not quite true seennot - people could and did turn down GS places, usually because they couldn't afford the silly expensive uniform, or a parent who didn't hold with book learning. I'll grant that it didn't happen much, I only knew one such case in my year, but then the Sec Mod took them.

zzzz But surely it is not so much their age, as that they are expected to be at a certain standard, which the private schools will ensure, as most of them teach to the 11+. Those at state schools will not have reached that standard, mainly because they will not have covered the necessary topics. I doubt many state schools will be ensuring that their Yr 5s are familiar with Yr 6 work, which is essential in our area. State schools barely acknowledge the 11+. I can guarantee that a vast majority of the state school children in our area who pass the 11+ will have had tuition.

OP - what on this thread leads you to suggest that anyone is against academic elitism? (if by that you mean supporting an academic elite to do well)?

"DC1 is at a superselective. DS didn't want to even try to do the exam for the superselective, he wanted to go to the comp for which their primary school was/is a feeder school".

I think that is a completely different scenario from the one I was talking about. What if both of your children wanted to go to the superselective but one of them didn't get in. How would they feel then? My mum and her sister both took the 11 plus and both were expected to pass. My mum didn't and effectively felt written off academically from the age of 11.

I think you'll find there is no GCSE in Cookery,SteamingNit and others

I am also a fan of excellence in academia. I'm an academic in a Russell Group uni. We're quite keen on high academic standards. But I consider that very different in post-18 education. By 18 children have had lots of time to develop, change, discover for themselves what their relative skills and interests are. Post-18 educational choices are a mixture of interest and ability, and generally student-driven, which is very different, IMO, to being selected or not at 10.

Various people have described the comprehensives in their 11+ area as being bad.
Rather a poor grasp of the statistics by those posters.

And blaming good comps on just being in leafy areas smacks of pure jealousy to me.
The multimillionaires at DCs school see it as just a really good school.

I absolutely love excellence!

You can't judge how well a school does on it's overall average GCSE pass rate. You can only judge it (if at all) in respect of the achievements of individual kids in relation to their potential, and maybe whether Ofsted reports that the quality of teaching is good and that the kids are happy and safe.

A school with a 42% pass rate may be an excellent schol in terms of the way it supports a large ratio of low ability children to meet their potential and more, while also challenging a small group of high ability kids to get wall to wall A*. Meanwhile a selective school, or one in an area of high achieving pupils may actually merely reflect the intake and not be offering a value added quality in the education at all. But you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone wil flock to the second school.

DS is in a school with excellent educational achievement in a grimy, non-glamorous, non expensive area, with a v high ratio of FSM. The school does well by a very wide range of kids - including an academic elite, kids with SEN, middle ability. They can do EBac, BTecs, various 'tecnologies', 2 MFL, triple science, and play in a brilliant orchestra.