In defence of the state Grammar School

[boredorboard]

I get so fed up of the standard rhetoric on Mumsnet that state Grammars are exam hothouses with no extra curriculars and you have to be a robust child to survive because there is no pastoral care and staff are so overworked with no budget they do nothing to help their pupils.

I appreciate that no one school is the same as any other but I want to defend the state Grammar my 3 DC go to...

We are in a wholly selective county so approx the top 25% of ability go to Grammars and the other 75% go to a secondary modern (no comprehensives here). The Grammar social make up is truly wide, approx 20% come from Preps (as mine did) and parents range from Oxbridge educated professionals to manual workers and everything in between. There is a Young Carers programme

The school is co-Ed, has boarders (who also must pass the 11plus) and is around 509 years old so has a good number of school traditions.

Academically it is strong but in no way a hothouse. There are extra literacy lessons and maths sets for those who struggle a bit.. Dyslexics and.Sen pupils are supported and do will. Pupils aim for Oxbridge, Russell Group but also art subjects and apprenticeships.

Teachers run a whole host of clubs. There is CCF and DofE. Fantastic £3k holidays if you can afford them and an annual ski trip. I should point out that the area isn't particularly affiluent. There are areas of deprivation in catchment.

There are amazing music opportunities, a touring orchestra for the most able and other bands and groups for the developers. Struggling to think of a sport that isn't offered and there are fixtures for all years against the local independent schools. Amazing art facilities and regular drama productions.

Sorry for the long essay. I thank my lucky stars that my DC go to this particular school. I will admit that we couldn't afford £15-20k per year per child for the local independents but even if we could I struggle to see the value add of them.

So to counter all the anti-state posts on Mumsnet, tell me about your state Grammar school?

I am also a life long resident of Bucks apart from the years around university. I went to a a girls grammar back in the 1990s and my kids are yr 5 and yr 3 and the older one is being tutored. I loathe the system but feel we have little choice but to work with the fully selective county we live in as my job and elderly parents are all here (my kids are at a state primary). The system is massively unfair. Just think of the bright but poor children who could have passed their 11 plus if it were not for the parents with sharp elbows who buy the prep school places to get their children in? I know 3 local doctors who grew up in Bucks and failed their 11 plus and got into medical school despite the rotten selective system

Where is said "scholarship vs grammar thread please". My kid is only 4 and in preschool but we've gone and bought a house in a grammar area with many independents and shit schools (behaviour wise) without realising, so I'm interested in the debate

It's in the secondary education section.

I personally have only witnessed grammars being bashed on here by parents of prep school kids/heavily tutored kids who couldn't get into them and they often feel the need to justify their senior school fees by saying things like 'grammars are such hot houses, not enough clubs or sports' when a lot of the time they would've accepted the place had it been offered. So I can understand how that would annoy you OP, as it makes your choice sound inferior, but your school sounds great and I would ignore these types of posts.
Education admission is a shambles in England, whatever sector you're in.

But Malmontar we are surely all guilty of justifying the choices we make, about everything. Equally, there is a strong tendency on MN to perceive any form of disagreement with one's own choice as 'bashing'. So the OP thinks that posters on the other thread are 'bashing' grammars. Just as anyone who says that they chose a grammar over a secondary modern because of (say) concerns about behaviour or lack of academic aspiration will immediately be accused of 'bashing' non-selective education - as the OP is experiencing on this thread. Can we not all just try not to get offended and acknowledge that certain types of school might tend to have certain advantages and disadvantages compared with others? So an independent will tend to be able to offer more sports and arts facilities than a state school. But it will also tend to be less diverse in socio-economic terms. A grammar school might tend to have better behaviour and a higher concentration of academically motivated kids than a secondary modern. But it may also tend to exert a bit more academic pressure and to be less socio-economically diverse. Considering these things and then trying to make what you feel are the best choices for your children within the options available to you (which, as you point out, often means very little or poor choice for a large number of parents) is not 'bashing'. The OP on the other thread was trying to make a decision and asking for others' opinions and experiences. Almost by definition, posting a reply means explaining why you chose one type of school over another.

@coelietterra You're 100% correct and I agree with everything you said.

OP - there is no tutor proof test. You presumably know that the primary education will make a difference which is why you paid for prep. I live in a selective area too and my DC seem at present likely to pass the 11+. I still don't think it's a fair system. The teachers with higher qualifications are all in the grammars. the secondary moderns are awful so you're massively disadvantaging the 75% in favour of the 25% who can afford tutors. (It's also not just tutoring - ability at 11 is very variable and isn't always indicative of long term potential.).

The teachers with higher qualifications are all in the grammars.

That doesn't make them better teachers. There are a few "doctors" at my son's school, and the pupils generally agree they're pretty crap at teaching. The pupils universally agree the best teachers are the ones who've come in late to teaching and have had other careers. His German and Geography teachers are absolutely exceptional but neither teach beyond GCSE level as they only have A levels themselves in their subject. The "doctors" seem brilliant at the after school clubs and trips but don't seem to be good at classroom work, discipline, etc. So I don't think top qualifications automatically make them better teachers.

My girls went to grammars. They did very well and went onto good universities. They had tutoring before their exams as did most of their classmates. It’s really not a fair system.

I don’t doubt the grammar schools are great schools if you are wealthy enough to afford to get into them e.g the tuition (500 pounds a term for 11 plus group tutition would be considered relatively cheap in Bucks) or the prep school at £5k a term! I have difficulty in respecting Bucks county council who condone this desperately unfair and elitist system but I don’t blame parents for playing the system to get their kids into grammar schools

But then again, in non GS areas (like the city I live in) you may find you need to live in the right catchment or be willing and able to attend the right church to get into the good state schools ... I don't find that sort of unfairness and elitism more palatable tbh.

Back in the day before the GSs were mostly abolished, afaik tutoring wasn't really a thing - I was in the last 11+ year in my area, the primary schools familiarised us all with the tests. Doesn't that still happen in counties with lots of grammars ... if not, why not?

Nothing wrong with grammars. Some exceptional ones near me but I don't have young children any more.

We also have a good comp nearby so I suppose you could say we're fortunate.

Children do well at different types of school, it's important to vet them thoroughly before enrolling.

ErrolTheDragon, state schools don’t prep for the 11plus as it’s not part of the national curriculum.

State schools find time for all sorts of things which aren't on the National Curriculum. In areas where selective education is part of the mix, primary schools not doing any preparation for the tests is bizarre. The state school system should be trying to make up for the differences in family background and parental engagement (which are inevitably one of the biggest contributions to educational outcome), so that each child can access the education most likely to fulfil their potential, and allow social mobility. But currently the system can tend to exacerbate and amplify those differences and lock in disadvantage.

We have 2 super selective grammar schools near us. They’re extremely popular and ridiculously over subscribed yet I’ve never met anyone who has even bothered to look at them let alone sit their kids for them. And that’s a very v middle class and affluent community so the grammar angst has totally passed me by.

Errol, where I am at least, the state schools are banned by the local authority from prepping kids for the 11+. It's not their choice. (Though it's also true that there are lots of primary teachers and heads who are very, very anti-selection, and probably wouldn't prep kids even if they were allowed.)

Sounds like the educationalists are putting their politics ahead of serving the interests of the kids. If they're against selection then by all means they should try to get selective schools abolished - but while those schools still form a large part of secondary provision in an area, all this policy achieves is to skew it further towards selection by parental aspiration and engagement, rather than true selection by the child's aptitude.
It'd be better to enforce familiarisation in primaries (not 'tutoring', just doing a few tests in a fairly relaxed way ... I seem to remember them being more like fun puzzles than pressured slog!) and ban the Bond Book. (Yes, I know that part isn't actually possible)

Errol the dragon - in Bucks I’ve seen data saying 16% kids kids in Aylesbury Vale district council area passed their 11 plus a few years ago (this area has few prep schools and is less wealthy, less money for tutors I imagine) while the Chiltern District Area had around 44% kids pass - much wealthier, lots of prep schools and tutoring agencies. Please can any one tell me how they think this is fair? And remember grammars are state schools, we as tax payers are paying for this system that leaves kids in deprived areas stuck in secondary modern schools

PS Bucks schools are not allowed to tutor for the 11 plus.....When they tried to bring in a ‘tutor proof’ test about 5 years ago in Bucks the proportion of private school kids passing increased! My theory is ‘tutor proof’ tests are not at all tutor proof which is accepted now I think, but my theory is it’s harder to tutor for them, it costs more money, a few books from WH Smith aren’t enough anymore.....Therefore those who can afford the best tutoring get in

We live in a non-selective area, semi-rural and a three tier school system. There is one Upper school close enough to walk to, my children have been to the closest lower and middle schools. The only tests they have taken/ are about to take (youngest in y 6 now) age 11 are the SATs.

I have two children with autism they are both extremely academically able, my oldest ds is taking GCSEs this summer and is predicted 8/9s but if his academic potential had been decided in y6 he may not have passed 11+ it has taken years to get his exam needs properly assessed, he will need to use word processor/ scribe this summer and uses laptops in class. In y6 he did not have these adjustments in place and his GCSE predicted grades based on his SAT results are 5/6 as a result.

Academic selection based on children's performance aged 11 is a blunt instrument. It seems nonsensical to me and makes me question who really benefits. Parents of children who pass earn confidence in their children's ability and future opportunities, and bragging rights. Middle class parents can ensure success by purchasing tutoring and have already passed on their privilege and sense of entitlement to their children.

The grammar school system benefited my father - he passed and did well enough to go on to University (after doing National Service), my mum didn't pass, was treated like factory fodder and left school at 15. It seems likely to me now (as mum seems to have many of the traits shared by her autistic grandchildren) that with reasonable adjustments and support mum would have passed. But with a comprehensive non-selective system maybe they both would have had the chance to get to uni and have interesting careers.

Life opportunities should not be restricted at age 11. I honestly don't care how lovely and inclusive your DC's grammar school is I think they are an outdated concept based on corrupt and mostly made up social/ education research.

I swear I had paragraphs!

I can honestly see both sides of the argument, Errol. Yes, if state schools were allowed to help prep kids for 11+ then it would probably mean that some of the bright but less affluent kids would be a little better prepared and/or might be a little more likely to enter in the first place. On the flip side though, it would take quite a good deal of school preparation to make a dent in the advantage of intense tutoring that goes on privately - and is there a chance that you just ramp up the arms race even more by doing this (ie those who can afford to may tutor more and earlier to retain their advantage)? Another argument against is that school resources are ridiculously stretched, so is it reasonable to dedicate any of this resource to something that's only going to benefit a smallish proportion of your cohort (and mainly the most able and affluent - because of course school prep would help those who are being tutored at home as well as those who aren't).

Elitist. Disgraceful system. How's about great secondary schools for EVERYONE...

FlemCandango your point that the MC have already 'passed on their privilege' is spot on. In DS's class there was a boy who, right from Reception, was clearly v bright (top one or two in the class). But very much not MC - dysfunctional family, low level criminality, little or no educational support at home, poor attendance etc. Despite the very best efforts of a very good school, the gap widened and widened. By the time 11+ came around, the gap was already much too great for him to pass, even with the help of familiarisation papers etc. No church attendance to secure a place at one of the good faith schools, and not in catchment for one of the more successful secondary moderns. So he has ended up going to one of the worst schools in the area, where there are huge social problems and the percentage gaining 5 GCSE passes is vanishingly small. I really, really hope that he is able to overcome the challenges and emerge with good qualifications and good prospects, but frankly the odds are against. Slightly off the point, but I think an anti-selection educationalist might say that these are the kind of kids who are really failed by the system.

Fleamaker, the ideal is to have great secondary schools for everyone, that's something I have always believed is every child's right. However it hasn't happened yet so no one can blame parents with a bright child wanting to help them get into a good school.

Oh yes Bluerussian I completely agree. Don't blame people at all!! We all want the best for our children. Its the system creating a two tier education and its just so wrong. My friend's two children attend local grammars, and she openly admits she paid for tutors to help them pass 11 plus because she could afford, but some parents couldn't and it was heartbreaking. And how it it fair that her son's school is teaching subjects such as Russian! going on science trips to top universities etc but then on the news we hear an inner city school has cut subjects like music/art because they can't afford supplies.. Makes me angry!