Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Grammar Schools : the debate is about what happens NOW

519 replies

TalkinPeace · 15/12/2013 16:09

In the 20 years after WW2, when the baby boomers were kids, grammar schools did amazing things for social mobility.

But then, self preservation kicked back in
and since 1970, selective state schools have become progressively less inclusive
to the extent today where the (grammar school educated head of OFSTED) says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

the death knell has been rung
as it has for DB pensions (another great Baby Boomer nest lining idea)

so lets bite the bullet and put equal resources into all schools and reduce the carbon footprint of the grammar school madness.

OP posts:
OddSins · 18/12/2013 07:35

Talkinpeace

Can I suggest a new thread? Take your pick

Comprehensives: the debate is about what happens NOW
or
Secondary Moderns: the debate is about what happens NOW
or
Vocational Training: the debate is about what happens NOW
or
UK educational crisis: the debate is about what happens NOW
or
Lack of educational choice: the debate is about what happens NOW

deliverance · 18/12/2013 07:56

Another topic

Demonising grammar schools: the debate is about what happens NOW

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 08:15

Curlew - you know full well that many grammar school parents have kids at comps or sec mods. Yu do yourself, so do I. My DS is just as 'bright' as my DDs, top 1% in IQ according to the battery of tests and evaluations he has had to have due to his SEN issues, but crucially, he is neither able to work at the pace they go at the grammar, nor does he want to. They don't teach any additional subjects at the grammar other than extra maths (which would suit him better than the girls but hey ho) and they teach a much smaller range of tech subjects - no cookery for example (thank fuck). The diffence is they go faster, do the exams a year earlier (and more of them) and they have a sixth form. There is no suggestion that the kids at the comps where we live are being forced into having a vocational education, the outliers from not just this county but others have just been scooped up and are being taught at their own pace in one school so that they don't die (alone) of boredom in 90 schools.

curlew · 18/12/2013 08:16

I don't think anyone is demonising grammar schools. The problem is not grammar schools or secondary modern schools as individual schools. Some are good, some are bad- just like all other sectors. The problem is the system that creates both types of school. It is inherently problematic to make a life changing decision about a child's education at the age of 10.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 08:18

kitchendiner the Kent system doesn't seem to help most people. 25% is far too big of a range for an effective grammar school.

curlew · 18/12/2013 08:23

Metebilis (sorry I spelled your name wrong before). I think you are talking about superselectives. I wish there was a tag of some sort which you could attach to a post which meant "I understand that there is an argument for superselectives- I personally don't agree with them either but for different reasons to the reasons I don't agree with wholly selective LEAs but no, I don't think they are damaging to the community as a whole in the way the 25:75 system is"

I think when most people talk about grammar schools they mean the 25:75 system that was universal before Thatcher's "reforms"

curlew · 18/12/2013 08:24

And actually, I do think I am the only person with a child in a grammar school and another in a secondary modern.

curlew · 18/12/2013 08:25

Not the only person in the world, obviously- but the only regular poster on the topic on here.

wordfactory · 18/12/2013 08:26

It seems to me that the Kent system is riven with problems...

However, it's one small place. There are far more places that are wholly copmprehensive, and yes, some of them are also riven with problems.

Neither the grammar system nor the comprehensive system work well for all individuals. That's the sad truth.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 08:28

curlew what we come back to time and again is that you, having deep pockets and having had a deep pocketed childhood yourself are perfectly happy making a decision about what happens to a child based on parental wealth when that child is 10. Wile you are unhappy about making a decision based n merit because one of your children didn't pass (and I know you will say that you were opposed to the system before he didn't pass but I don't believe you didn't have suspicions as to which way things would go). I on the other hand coming from an essentially pocket-free childhood and living so far from the tracks you couldn't even see them am less happy about the idea of consigning kids to schools based on their parents' wealth (or lack thereof).

That is the real issue. You love the idea of social exclusion based on wealth and abhor the possibility that kids who aren't naice are going to school with your son right now (and I bet there are plenty of naice kids there too). You strike me as being no different from the parents in the posh bit of the borough in which I grew up who campaigned for the school I would go to to stop being a grammar so that kids from my estate would stop bussing across the borough to go there and their rich but less bright kids would be able to take up those places instead.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 08:28

aarghh typo While.

Retropear · 18/12/2013 08:31

Article on the BBC re purchase power and the need to concentrate on the poorer schools instead of berating those who try to do their best for their kids.

Utter waste of time berating grammar schools.

Retropear · 18/12/2013 08:32

I hopefully will be one of those parents with kids in both too.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 08:38

Curlew you might be the only Kent person here. I have a close friend who lives in Bucks and she has 5 children, two of whom went to grammar schools and 3 of whom went to non grammar schools. She didn't stop supporting grammar schools after the first one who went to the non grammar ended up there. She is very strongly supportive of all her kids and she recognises that they have different strengths. I don't know if you would describe the bucks non grammars as sec mods though. And IME everyone in bucks is naice and well off! Compared to where I grew up and where I now live anyway. SIL lives there and the poshness of it all is almost tangible. SIL - who is poorly educated and has never had a full time job - clearly has a superiority complex purely on account of living there. And I don't blame her - it's lovely!

curlew · 18/12/2013 08:41

Metebilis-I think you must have me mixed up with somebody else. I do not have deep pockets. I do not believe in selection by wealth (which is one of the reasons I do not believe in wholly selective education- there is no more overt selection by wealth in the state system than the grammar school selection process).

And I would be very grateful if you would retract this. "You love the idea of social exclusion based on wealth and abhor the possibility that kids who aren't naice are going to school with your son right now (and I bet there are plenty of naice kids there too)" It is deeply offensive, and wholly untrue.

wordfactory · 18/12/2013 08:49

curlew you are so Kent-centric that you have convinced yourself that the grammar system is the most unfair one we have in the UK.

Yet the reality, if only you would open your eyes to a few miles away, is that wealth is a huge driver in comprehensive education. House prices and rents in the catchment of a good school can become insane.

Then there are those like the OP, who transport her DC to a good school (oh the deliciouys irony). That is not an option for many many parents.

curlew · 18/12/2013 08:53

This is a thread about grammar schools. If it was a thread about comprehensive catchments, I would be happy to talk about that. Start one, and I'll pile in with the best of them.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 08:55

The grammar school selection process is not selection by wealth, it doesn't compare even slightly to the catchment system. I didn't pay for my kids to be tutored, although I did do a bit of 'do that 10 minute test' so I paid for a few books - but even those who did pay for tutoring won't have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on it, yet that is frequently what families who move to get into the 'right' catchment do. Live in denial if you want but that doesn't change the reality. The reason the Tories were so keen to abolish selection in most counties was that they had a better chance of keeping people like me out of 'their' schools by using catchment areas. In Kent that wasn't the case, obviously.

Anyone who is in favour of catchment selection is in favour of selection by wealth, and social exclusion by postcode. That's the bottom line.

There are of course other ways to allocate pupils to comps and some of them are probably really good, but most people, when they say 'the comp system' mean the catchment system. And they support it because they either know or assume that they will be fine under that system. Just like the Tories who abolished the grammar schools.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 18/12/2013 09:01

Anyone who is in favour of catchment selection is in favour of selection by wealth, and social exclusion by postcode. That's the bottom line.

Absolute bollocks, I'm afraid. I'm in favour, primarily, of schools which serve their local community. Which means, in the very vast majority of cases and certainly would mean here, if nobody who lived in the catchment of a school which had a big council estate in its catchment opted out and went for private, a mix of every kind, since it's much more likely than not that a local area will contain a mix.

Where there is a significant issue with catchments, like if you had a city where the divide was very clear and problematic in terms of catchment, I'd be in favour of a local lottery - but in the vast majority of cases, you wouldn't actually need to do that if everybody sent their children to their local school.

Metebelis3 · 18/12/2013 09:05

Curlew I don't believe it is untrue you have posted time and again that you abhor selection based on merit or ability and time and again that you support selection on catchment. You have also posted many many times about how your son's school has had it's top set 'taken away' (as if the school owned the kids at the grammar).

If you are adamant that the reason you are so distraught still about your son not being at the grammar is not that you think he isn't with the naice kids then I am happy to withdraw that bit (although what then is the problem with it if the kids are fine?) I will not withdraw the rest because you do love the idea of social exclusion based in wealth, that's what a catchment system IS. You feel very comfortable claiming that every single person who supports any kind of grammar system also supports dreadful secondary modern schools - you have to accept that your idee fixe also brings with it seriously negative implications.

Retropear · 18/12/2013 09:09

You can't discuss grammar without the other however convenient,they are all part of a mix.

Said article mentions the unfair advantages of music lessons and extra curricular activities.So are we anti those along with grammars and tuition or are buying places in expensive attachments and music/other extra curricular lessons ok?

I spend a small fortune on books for my dc instead of pub trips/ gadgets/ Sky etc I guess that is unfair too.Hmm

LaVolcan · 18/12/2013 09:11

Metebelis - the non-grammar schools in Bucks are most definitely Secondary Moderns. - although they used to have a middle school system until about 15 years ago, so they tended to be called Upper Schools.

A lot of posters are clearly city based, or in large urban areas. If you live in a rural area there is often only 1 school that you can realistically send your children to, so you want that to be a good one.

curlew · 18/12/2013 09:12

Metebilis. Your entire last post is utter bollocks. Both in your bizarre analysis of my personal situation (distraught-wtf?) and in your analysis of the education system in this country.

curlew · 18/12/2013 09:14

"I spend a small fortune on books for my dc instead of pub trips/ gadgets/ Sky etc I guess that is unfair too."

Love it when the snobbery sneaks out. It's like when the lizard people can't maintain their human form for a moment, and their eyes, just for a second, go all reptilian.....Grin

wordfactory · 18/12/2013 09:18

curlew I don't think you can talk about the proposed abolition of the (very) few grammar schools that are left, without talking about the comprehensive system in the rest of the UK.

It's is utterly foolish to eradicate one problem, only to replace it with another.

nit the UK is now so densly populated in some areas that school catchments are tiny and don't reflect any such community. They reflect the folk living in the surrounding streets.