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.

Where have I said they are? I have suggested some are.

And yep, you actually are agreeing with me, as the MC child with SN is far more likely to be a) diagnosed, and b) helped. The child from an impoverished, neglectful background not so much.

May I ask in what way your DC live in a very challenging background?

Is your home chaotic and unstructured? Do you drink? Is your ever changing partner violent? Are there far more kids than you can cope with? Are you in an Emergency hostel? Are you up to your eyes in pay-day loans? These are some of the factors that decrease a child's chances in life, which I would have thought were pretty obvious.

Actually, greengardenchairs, I now see that you were one of the posters with an apparently 'screw you/I'm alright, Jack' attitude to anyone whose kids didn't get supported into GS, and who hadn't countenanced the existence of SMs, so I may leave it there.

Not mentioned in the programme is Bexley borough reserves about 80 places for the highest scoring children from outside the borough so introducing an element of the super selective.

And very often the chair chucker is dealing with inadequately supported SN

Seriously?

Children from very challenging backgrounds are not fucking chair chuckers but DCs with SEN are?

"don't the children in the C stream or below (or whatever it's called these days) feel stigmatised and thick? "
They might. But less likely to if they have not been very publicly told that they are thick at the age of 10. And if they do sport, drama, music, art and tec subjects with the rest of their peer group.

I had no partner for 11 years and was on my own with my children for all of that time.

So this all happened before you 10/11 year old was born?

My DCs go to a comp where it’s rigorously streamed but at the end of each academic year the performance of all dcs are reviewed throughout the year and some are moved up and some are moved down. I much prefer this system to GS.

Any system which divides children into sheep and goats at 10 is by definition invidious.

greengardenchairs were there a lot of DCs at the Grammar school who had gone through what your DCs had experienced?

“greengardenchairs were there a lot of DCs at the Grammar school who had gone through what your DCs had experienced?”

I can answer that one..........

"I don't really see why a comp with a rigorous streaming system is so very different to grammar/SM's - don't the children in the C stream or below (or whatever it's called these days) feel stigmatised and thick?"

Nope, in a properly run comprehensive, the DC in the more average streams should be assured they're getting an education suited to their abilities, hopefully balanced by being in more academic sets for the subjects they're good at, be it Art, Sport, Maths. All classes should be purposeful, focused, stimulating etc etc. But it's way easier to provide that if your pupils start that school already 'school-ready'; the parents are on board and the school is properly financed. Oh, and if you live in a society that places similar value on the DC who are good at technical subjects, mechanics, sport, art, graphics, cookery; rather than England where all we care about is, primarily, passing GCSEs in Maths and English, 2 subjects that now overwhelm the curriculum; thence A levels.

My DSs' 'leafy comp' does not call sets A, B or C. They will put a more able DC in a 'lower' set if they have discerned that that DC performs better at the top of that set as opposed to the bottom of the 'higher' set, so it is a fluid thing.There is none of this Pass/Fail at 11 years old bollocks.

I sent my DC there because it is 'leafy'. As I have already stated, I did it because The System allows me to. But I am more than aware that because of the way this system works, my DC's privilege is quite likely under-privileging other DC; the only saving grace being that you could (legally!) rent in the catchment for the required time to get your child into this bastion of MC achievement, but there are no guarantees for GS entry.

I agree with Haribols that Summer seemed brighter than Joanita, who was nevertheless a lovely girl with a strong work ethic. When Joanita came out of the exam she seemed to think she’d done well, yet her result was a quite long way below the required level, and when her mother told her she hadn’t got in, she seemed surprised and disbelieving at first. I thought her blind belief that hard work and masses of tutoring would be enough was very sad.

I’m sure the teacher at her primary school was right in saying that she will do well in life because of her hard-working attitude.

"don't the children in the C stream or below (or whatever it's called these days) feel stigmatised and thick? "
They might. But less likely to if they have not been very publicly told that they are thick at the age of 10. And if they do sport, drama, music, art and tec subjects with the rest of their peer group.

I went to a very good comp (rural area so just about everyone went to the nearest school, very few families sent children to private school) and although we were streamed for academic subjects, we were mixed for most of the others. Someone who wasn't academic may well have been above average at sports, or art, or technology. There were lots of ways to be recognised as being good at something.

Also, when it's done well, there is some flexibility in the academic stream for someone whose strengths are in maths/science and not modern languages (or vice versa) to have that reflected by different sets for different subject areas. In practice the year was split into two, so half the year would do e.g. maths while the other half was doing French. So you were set within the half of the year that shared the same timetable.

And a school ethos of being the best you can, rather than your worth coming from being better than someone else.

(and plenty of us who were in the top stream academically and one of the last to be picked for sports teams... a great leveller...)

"So was I supposed to conform to the stereotype and just not bother with my kids and let them fail just to please a handful of online left leaning liberals who have no idea what it was like less clue how hard it was and sneer at me?"

No of course not. But some acknowledgement that you are the exception that proves the rule and a slightly less fuck off attitude to the children of parents who can't or won't do what you did would be gracious.......

What do people mean when they say 'the grammar system doesn't have comprehensives'?

What's the difference between a comp and a secondary modern?

I live within catchment of 2 boroughs with super-selective grammars and I'm sure the other state schools are called comprehensives.

I didn't go to a grammar (they don't exist in Scotland) but my DH and I both managed to get postgrad level qualifications (PGCE for me, Physics PhD for him). The comprehensive system is brilliant when it works well.

I also taught in a comp with the whole gamut of backgrounds, TAG, SENCo, you name it but every child was (I believe) supported to be the best version of themselves. Some went to Cambridge, some went on to apprenticeships, most to Russell Group unis. Teaching 33 to a class wasn't easy though and more resources did have to be put to those with additional needs, as is proper.

When we were in London, my DS was in the local (outstanding) comp and ended up self-harming due to the 1/2 termly assessment pressure to keep in the top or second top sets (this was in Y8 & 9). So that comp didn't work well for him and we moved out of the city.

Now we are in Kent, he attends a grammar school and feels less pressure, more supported and better taught than in his London school. There are other grammars here that have high % CAHMS referrals due to stress and pressure but not the one he attends. There are students with autism, Irlen, dyslexia, and mental health issues. My DS's friends come from a wide range of backgrounds, from city council flats to large country houses. It doesn't matter.

My point is that each one of us is doing what we believe to be best for our children in the area where we live: there is a great difference between schools and each area in the UK is not the same. I don't think it is helpful to berate other people for their choices - each of us live in different areas with different schools and each of our children are different.

Yes, I don't think the grammar system should exist but it does and, where I live, it is the best educational choice for my children based on their character, abilities and aspirations. If they had expressed an interest to go to the local comp, we would have supported them.

Let's please not slander others or dismiss other's choices. I don't believe that's kind or helpful. We're all doing our best!

@walkingdeadfangirl I imagine all the privileged families have moved house to somewhere with private, faith or selective comps.

Name a town in England with only one secondary school which is not selective or faith based which has no privileged families.

Where I used to live there is one comprehensive school and no selective state schools within the county. There are also no private schools.

A quick search of houses for sale shows 7 houses over $1m, you can choose from a 7 bedroom listed 'cottage' with outbuildings and 5 acres of land, a 10 bedroom country house, a 7 bedroom Elizabethan country house, a couple more 7 bedroomed 'cottages' with farmland and a bargain bucket house with only 4 bedrooms but 30 acres of land and stables. None of these families can be privileged of course since there aren't the right schools.

BaylisBaylis:
“What do people mean when they say 'the grammar system doesn't have comprehensives'?
What's the difference between a comp and a secondary modern?
I live within catchment of 2 boroughs with super-selective grammars and I'm sure the other state schools are called comprehensives.”

It has been explained upthread that, while they might be called comprehensives in super-selective grammar areas, they won’t in fully grammar areas (like Bexley) where 20-25% of children get into grammar.

Thanks for the reply....

So it has nothing to do with the actual school but with the schools it's surrounded by? How bizarre.