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.

Seennotheard ... There are no comprehensives in Bucks. It is grammar or secondary modern. To suggest that the majority of secondary moderns are anything like the grammars is nonsense. The majority of secondary schools here have at least one failed Ofsted and it is not just that the curriculum is taken more slowly. Although this should not be the case as the top secondary children are better than the bottom tier at the grammar schools in many cases. The problem is lack of extra opportunities at many secondary with few sports teams because Saturday morning sports matches are not organised, no school orchestra, few learning instruments, no school play, no decent school trips, the local MP being too busy to turn up on speech day (again), lack of parental income from the PTA, crumbling buildings, less outstanding teaching (sometimes virtually none) etc etc etc. there are some notable exceptions but no wonder there is such a parental frenzy to avoid some schools. Grammar schools are great, so long as you get to one!

"If you are a very academic top percentiles child it is infinitely more interesting, rewarding and challengeing to be educated with other children of a similar bent"

I agree. That's why you should be in the top set of a comprehensive school.

What about the dcs in the "bottom" set at grammar school who are really average - the grammar school experience isn't great for them? Perhaps these dcs would have done better being in a "middle" set at a comprehensive.
If grammar schools are that great then why aren't areas like Kent at the top of the league tables for GCSEs?
What's wrong with vocational GCSEs if it gives students a chance to show what they are good at. Surely GCSEs in subjects such as Catering, Engineering and childcare are very useful for everyday life?

While I do not agree that all comps are poor - far from it - I do not understand why it is so threatening to accept that some kids from state primaries are working at level 6 at the end of Y5. My DD2 was. And her primary is currently (unfairly in my view) in special measures. OFSTED is very far from being infallible.

I get a distinct impression that people in favour of scrapping grammars and going comprehensive all the way live in those rare places where there are good comprehensives and their child has a reasonable alternative to a grammar-style education.

If they were in the position like our family (and a lot of others) where my bright DC had a fate of going to a dump primary and then a dump secondary thanks to the postcode we lived in, they might have a very different view on the matter?

Try and get your child into a good school if you live out of area. We failed spectacularly and had to move. These days you might end up with the same outcome even if you live a few streets away from the said school. Sometimes I wonder if the opponents of grammar schools have really seen the "alternative" available to a lot of parents, those of us who cannot afford to send a child to an independent school. Short of winning the lottery to buy in the "right area", grammar school is the only plausible chance for my DC to get a good education and therefore, a head start in life.

Little Sio. Why are there no sport matches, orchestra's and poor buildings.
Why do all the Upper schools have terrible inspection reports.
All the secondary (Non Grammar schools ) in Trafford are good or outstanding , they all have quality 6th forms .. They are even some pupils
from these schools getting to RG Unis. The secondary schools have brand new buildings (BETTER FACILITIES) than the grammar schools.

Can someone explain why one fully selective area can and one otherarea
cant give a relevant and quality education.

TRAFFORD IS...

Constantly amazed at how many mumsnetters live next to failing/shit/rubbish/useless comprehensive schools. Considering that there aren't that many in that category, it's quite a coincidence...........

My dad - poor South London boy- failed his 11+. Little wonder - no preparation, no expectation any of the working class kids in his school would pass, not even an explanation of what the stakes were. They just plonked the test down one day with no explanation then everyone forgot about it. He's one of the brightest people I know. Had he been born in a different class he'd have been off to Oxbridge.

That's why grammar schools are a disgrace. Some working class kids might find a way out through them, but many many of the brightest don't.

I think in some cases it's because the independent sector is out of reach for them, so if they're not in a grammar area or they are and their DC don't get in, they feel angry that their DC aren't getting an academic education that they think they would benefit from and yet they can't afford to pay either.

The whole system is terribly unfair but grammar schools are hardly the unfairest part, seeing as they are free(ish).

My working class FIL declined his place at a grammar school, although he passed the 11+. He is very bright and went on to have a middle class occupation and all that comes with it. I still cannot get my head round how his parents chose to send him to a local state school instead of the grammar (which is no longer here today BTW). Maybe in those days state schools were not what they are today, maybe the expense of the uniform, maybe they could not see beyond the usual "leave school at 16 and start bringing money in" mentality. I just think what a waste. He could have done so much better if he had gone to the grammar. In those days everybody took the 11+, he did not have any coaching coming from a working class background, but he passed and threw it away, or rather his parents did...

In my case your distinct impression is wrong, summerworld, as while I wouldn't be so rude as to refer to DS's secondary as a dump, it was a low achieving school that many people (particularly those who read league tables like gambing odds) would seek to avoid. While I think DS, now grown, is bright, I don't think he is in the top 25% of the ability range so his school would have been even less attractive with those brighter children taken out. And even in schools like this that don't look all that great on paper, some of the ablest children do do amazingly well. I would love for there to be a way that every school's intake to be more representative, but it is a fact of life that schools are likely to reflect their location.

As for DS, he seems to have done better that Downstair's DH in his grammar school (though with a similarly poor showing for French!).

^Can someone explain why one fully selective area can and one otherarea
cant give a relevant and quality education.^

Is it because the people of TRAFFORD are pure dead brilliant? If so, it rather begs the question why they need to separate one lot of brilliant kids from all the other brilliant kids at the age of 11.

I must be saying something right, because it has taken 6 hours for p*
Taking to start......

LittleSiouxieSue I didn't suggest that the majority of secondary moderns are anything like the grammars.

Oo oops.... Misread thread. It was zzzzzz I should have flagged up! Apologies.

i know there's no GCSE in cookery. Perhaps it helps that I have any experience of actual comprehensives.

Fee paying parents hate schools like Thornden, Kings Winchester and Bohunt

nearly as much as parents who have spent shed loads on tuition to get into Grammar schools

I was sent to private
my kids are gettimg much better than I had
even my boarding school sister is wavering because she can see how high the comps aim with bright kids

maybe thats why so many parents pull their kids out of fee paying and selective schools to send them to Peter Symonds
and "leaves" are not the excuse once you look at the bus routes BTW

inclusive education done well beats the rest into a cocked hat

I am in favour of a system in which the vast majority - possibly 98% or so - of children are taught in comprehensive schools, and Special Schools exist for the very tiny percentage at BOTH ENDS of the spectrum who cannot be efficiently or effectively educated in mainstream.

In this vision, a small number of state-funded special schools, for those so able that they need a totally different type and level of curriculum, would exist - possibly in exisiting school buildings, perhaps in units attached to mainstream schools (as is common for 'other end of the spectrum' special schools, especially as it aids integration for some lessons for those who are exceptionally able or disabled in a limited range of areas).

Assessment would be in the same way as for existing 'SEN' special schools - ed psych report and a battery of specialised tests.

There ARE some children who are so exceptionally able that a comprehensive is an unsuitable educational envrionment - if you think of a bell curve, the 'tails' at both ends are very long and the top o.5% covers a big range of very high abilities [the range over these top fractions of 1% is as big as that covering 80-90% of other children]. But they are VERY rare. I do know a child who would fit into that category - and their equally able parent - and know that they totally different from my 'normally able' DCs. My 'normally able' DCs - both grammar school passers, though not grammar school attenders - thrive in a good comprehensive. The child in the top fraction of 1% needed university level maths at 9.

So I am not against 'selective education' - just I mean something different by it. I mean 'selection for unsuitability for mainstream', by means of full ed psych assessment.

(I should also say, btw, that the 98% of so in 'mainstream comprehensives' is a guess. The number in exisitng special schools is, as far as I can remember around 2-3ish %, but that will include schools which cater for disabilities or difficulties that are not directly to do with academic ability: children with EBD, for example, can be from any ability group. Which is why I think that the % of children for whom mainstream comprehensive is actively impossible / totally unsuitable as an educational setting due to their exceptional ability is significantly less than 1%.)

I'm quite surprised by this thread. Honestly, OP it seems to me that you didn't really ask the question out of a desire think about the responses. Your suggestion that people are simply against elitism in education totally goes against the basic point which is that the selection processes, particularly at the age of 11, are at best divisive and at worst damaging. I have a very mixed view of comprehensives. I went to one which did not stream. It was all taught as mixed ability. It didn't work for me or any of my high ability friends. But it didn't work for me because I was dyslexic, and 25 years ago I'm not sure anything would have worked. BUT I would not have got into a grammar school. And I cannot imagine how destructive it would have been for me to be in a secondary school if all my friends (who would have gotten in) had been in a different school. Now, with my PhD and my lectureship, I count as one of the academic elite. I would have been an 11+ failure. I think if I had been an 11+ failure my life might have been very very different. But, I think I am happy with the notion of the super-selectives. They feel like they take those few children who are hyper academic (which isn't necessarily hyper intelligent). If my children don't get into one of those, then there are still very good schools. But I am very glad we are not deep into the Kent system.