Who saw BBC 2 Grammar schools - who will get in " last night?

[Foxy333]

Watched this last night with interest. We're not in Grammar school area and generally I think it was / is a bad system that works for the top abilities but not for the middle and lower ones. However I've seen my daughter suffer in years 7 to 9 or a comprehensive from not being stretched and teachers concentrating on the most demanding pupils who need lots of help and ignoring the quiet well- behaved pupils who going to pass GCSE's anyway. Often some pupils disrupt the class and the whole class gets punished.

They only set them for 2 subjects and I've heard that's changing in future to one. so I see why a Grammar would suit some. But why cant all schools be good. Is it stricter discipline that's needed?

Felt for the children in the program, so young to face this divisive test.

The system has always been unfair. I took my 11+ in 1975. For the whole of the final year of primary school , our class was split into halves, in two separate parts of a huge classroom, whenever we did something that might come up as a question in the 11+. All the children thought likely to pass were in front of the blackboard and teacher, whilst the rest were off to one side, with no clear view of the teacher or the blackboard. The teacher would hand out work books and assign them work, but he only ever really taught those directly in front of him, so assumptions were made about children even back then and they were treated accordingly.

It does seem that lower ability children are failed not only by the grammar system, but also by setting in schools.

www.tes.com/news/schools-are-harming-low-ability-pupils-chances-teaching-sets-academics-say

In my area, some of the local high schools around town have % passes of 5 GCSEs as low as 38%. So we have the grammars (all a long bus ride) and the good non-selectives (all in naice areas with more expensive housing) all ridiculously oversubscribed. With the average or below average schools left as the only choice for some children.

Totally unfair.

I was also the first person in my family to get a degree. I got to Cambridge just from a normal comp. In a grammar area, I probably would have fared less well.

My parents were disadvantaged by the grammar school system. Both poor families, living in London. My mum passed but didn't go as her family couldn't afford the uniform. My dad failed his. Both had crap educations and left school at 14/15. Both were easily capable of uni (my dad taught himself 3 languages) but never had the chance to get there.

I don't view grammars as the saviour of the poor. If you saw all the Porsche Cayennes and Audi Q7s waiting outside our local grammar at the end of the school day you'd understand why.

comprehensives don’t exist in selective boroughs. They have grammars and secondary moderns (often called high schools or upper schools). Comprehensives exist in boroughs where there are no grammars or super selective grammar(s).

I just wanted to re-iterate this because people still keep talking about 'the local comp' and comparing it to the grammar school.

I doubt I would have pursued a professional career without the push from being surrounded by clever, ambitious kids and pushy teachers.

My son was certainly amongst clever, ambitious children and teachers with high expectations at his comprehensive school - because they hadn't all been creamed off by grammar schools.

As I have sId before, show me a Reception class and I could, with one or two exceptions, show you the 11+ successes.

the head of the grammar really annoyed me. Of course people think they've failed - it has always been so. Also even the girl who wasn't tutored was working at home to practise and some kids won't do it at home so they have to go to a tutor.

I live in bucks and we have the grammar system, I dislike it immensely.

My daughter didn’t pass and felt a failure even though she’s a very bright child. She just wasn’t ready at 11 for the pressure of this test.

The grammars near to us have absolutely everything in terms of resources and are very well supported by many of the affluent parents. A huge proportion at grammars by us are ex private school pupils. The secondary schools are a different class of school, they seem to have much less in terms of resources and are massively underfunded. My son is currently at a secondary which requires improvement, so many of the secondary’s in bucks are rated less than good by Ofsted. He is happy at school but I worry he won’t leave school with great results.

My daughter attended our local secondary for nearly two years and then off her own back choose to move to an all girls comprehensive in Berkshire. She was very lucky to be offered a place. She has flown at this school, had so many opportunities, realised she is a super bright girl, excelled at music and gained 10 GCSEs all graded A or above. She was awarded a new level 9 in English language, proud moment.

She was an 11plus failure and it dented her confidence massively.

Why not have excellent comprehensive schools for all, where every student is expected to achieve their very best. I hate this division, it appears grammars have it all and secondaries come a poor second.

Foxy333 said:
I agree it seems very muddled . The whole UK had a government
rule that 11+ and grammar schools were to go....So how come
some areas kept theirs? Seems odd.

This happened because in some places the Local Education Authority would not allocate sufficient funding to convert to comprehensives (alterations and enlargements to buildings and so on).

The Council had other priorities. London Borough of Sutton is one example, and obviously there are others. The situation dragged on for decades, and then the government gave up putting pressure on these authorities.

I dont think there is anywhere in the country that has comprehensive schools. After you take out the privately selected, wealth selected and faith selected all you have left is secondary moderns. Where are the so called comprehensives?

Grammar schools are by far the most honest and fairest way to select, we need to open many more of them.

with one or two exceptions My DCs would have been the exception.

"Average" in reception (and all the way through infant school) DC scored very highly and is high ability across most subject areas at secondary. The "high performing" DC at reception has SEN (a number of years of fighting with the school to get them to recognise SEN) - Now performing highly but with support - a high score is very unlikely.

In a totally fair system, you shouldn't be able to select on wealth or faith either!

Grammar schools are by far the most honest and fairest way to select

Is that because Grammar schools don't select on faith or wealth?

Is that because Grammar schools don't select on faith or wealth?
Its because they try to select on the child's ability. Not the parents wealth, privilege or beliefs.

But almost all will have been tutored at a cost of at least £1500+ for 1 year. So grammars do discriminate against poorer families.

*Walkingdeadfangirl - Not the parents wealth, privilege or beliefs.

Really, so this isn't the admissions criteria for a Grammar school then?

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys who are designated ‘looked after children’ or all previously looked after children1.

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys who have a brother attending the school.

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys who live in a nominated Local Pastoral Areas.

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys.

1. Other Boys who are designated ‘looked after children’ or all previously looked after children.

1. Baptised Christian boys who have a brother attending the school.

1. Other Baptised Christian boys whose application is supported by a letter from a minister of Christian religion.

1. Other boys whose application is supported by a minister of Christian religion.

1. Other boys

Alijane, your experience is very like mine in Bexley. Whilst he wouldn't admit it, my eldest DS lost a lot of confidence from failing the 11plus. He was top of his class throughout primary according to his teachers. But he failed by 1 mark and lots of others didn' (all of whom were tutored for 3 years beforehand). He became disenchanted with school, and whilst he did ok at the crap school he ended up at (or well by their standards) he could have achieved more at a better school. Or without being told at 10 he was a failure.

I dont think there is anywhere in the country that has comprehensive schools. After you take out the privately selected, wealth selected and faith selected all you have left is secondary moderns. Where are the so called comprehensives?

Do you know there are some towns with only one secondary school and all the children from the town's primaries go on to that school.

Where I live, yes some children go to private school (not necessarily the most able), but the vast majority are state educated at the city's comprehensives, and the only faith secondary school is the school that those that miss out on their preferences get given, so is not selecting in any sense.

So grammars do discriminate against poorer families
A poor family can tutor their child for free (if it even helps pass the test). A poor family can not magic up a million pound mortgage, afford £15,000 a year fees or travel back in time and have their child baptised at birth.

A test of ability at 10 seems to be the least worst option in our current system.

A test of ability at 10 seems to be the least worst option in our current system.

Is this a test of ability then?:

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys who are designated ‘looked after children’ or all previously looked after children1.

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys who have a brother attending the school.

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys who live in a nominated Local Pastoral Areas.

1. Baptised Roman Catholic boys.

1. Other Boys who are designated ‘looked after children’ or all previously looked after children.

1. Baptised Christian boys who have a brother attending the school.

1. Other Baptised Christian boys whose application is supported by a letter from a minister of Christian religion.

1. Other boys whose application is supported by a minister of Christian religion.

1. Other boys

MumTryingHerBest The problem with that schools selection criteria is the religious test first.

Do you know there are some towns with only one secondary school
I am sure their are, and I imagine all the privileged families have moved house to somewhere with private, faith or selective comps.

A poor family can not magic up a million pound mortgage

It doesn't cost a million pound to rent a property. Ask the increasing number of families renting in the catchment of Grammar Schools. I doubt many of them paid even close to that amount.

The problem with that schools selection criteria is the religious test first.

But I though Grammar Schools "try to select on the child's ability. Not the parents wealth, privilege or beliefs." How can there be a problem with that Grammar schools selection criteria?

You might as well say private schools should be banned

What would be the problem with that then? We wouldn’t be the first country to do it.

It doesn't cost a million pound to rent a property.
Lets add privileged families with cheating sharp elbowed mums to that list then. Still leaves grammars as the best and fairest way to select.