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?

Fleamaker - I agree there should be great education for everyone. There is already a two-tier system in place within the state sector even without selective grammars.

The whole education system needs an overhaul IMO, or rather the whole system surround school applications does.

Let's start by getting rid of grammars

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)

So it's the top 25% whose parents could afford a prep school or tutors?

The fact they are having extra lessons in Maths and English reflects the intake being about privilege rather than ability.

Let's start by getting rid of grammars

I would start the other way. Create a more level playing field making grammars less desirable. Simply moving grammars won’t make a difference.

JacquesHammer... Yes there must be a better way. In your earlier post you said there was already a two tier system in state schools... What did you mean?

Simply that money talks - which is why we end up with desirable state schools with house prices way over the area average.

It simply furthers the rhetoric that money buys education. Whether that’s through overtly using the independent system, or buying a more expensive house to get into an outstanding school.

choose the school that suits your child, whatever that school may be!

One of my DDs went to a state grammar ( from a state primary and not tutored ) and it was absolutely the right place for her and the other went to a good comprehensive- which was the right place for her. The grammar had larger classes of girls all working at the same, fast pace, which suited that DD and the comprehensive had smaller classes and much more attention to individual abilities and ways and speeds of learning, which suited DD2.

Hardly any of the grammar pupils had come from private preps
and neither schools had rich and particularly active PTAs, contrary to what some PPs seem to think .

JacquesHammer... Yes, I see what you mean. I agree.

Realistically, the only alternative is for "bright" kids to be identified during primary school for admittance into the grammar, rather than the 11+ test, but that also has it's unfairness, i.e. kids who the primary teacher doesn't like, and kids whose parents/HT at their primary school. It's already bad enough with nepotism as to it always been staff's children getting the best parts in plays etc - it'd be no different if they had a say in which primary pupils went to the grammar.

I don't know if maybe two possible paths to grammar could be an option? My child is very bright but cruises. Parent-teacher nights are always 'doing fine, on target, but could do better with more effort'. They were also a disadvantaged child for much of primary school. They were admitted into a super-selective on their own merit and a practice papers book bought a month before the test, but may or may not have been identified by their teacher.

I don't see how an undefined woolly system of "identification" during primary school years is a superior method of channelling children into different schools. It would be fairer to identify children that need help provide an excellent generalist education for all and then allow channelling and specialisation post 16 when the evidence of how a child is progressing and their true potential can be gauged.

The fact remains that children from privileged backgrounds will almost always do well. We won't have fair education systems in an unfair society. If your parents need to rely on food banks to feed you then they are not going to be able to facilitate your schooling the way a child with parents educated to degree level / secure employment/ high income can.

Why do we even need them? What is the purpose? Surely bright children would flourish anyway if there was only a standard secondary to go to? What message does it give to children who don't get in, that they're second rate? Awful.

Why do we even need them? What is the purpose?

Single sex was the big draw for us.

Oops pressed before I finished.

The other massive pro for us was the size of the school. Both comps near us (although decent schools) are absolutely huge. Onsite pupils at DD’s number 500 ( sixth form are on a separate site), in the comps it’s 2800+.

I can see why people go for them... I would too but there aren't any near us. But still think it's wrong. I'll shut up now

Fleamaker123 - I totally agree it’s wrong. Apparently it was the middle classes who were most unhappy with the secondary modern/grammar system back in the 1970s and the Tories who got rid of grammars in most areas

We still have grammar schools in some areas because they provide a better standard of education. If the comprehensives were all outstanding they would not be necessary.

If we are to have any selection surely Yr9 would be a better time to select?

Have schools that are 11 -16/18 but have real specialisms and children transferring to more suitable schools.

By this stage teachers have an idea of who is likely to get top grades at GCSE, who might be better suited to a different route.

Have all schools teach acore of GCSEs but have schools equipped for specialisms whether that is science or sport or arts etc.

If we are to have any selection surely Yr9 would be a better time to select?

You'd need consistency between all schools in years 7 and 8 in terms of the subjects they teach and the level they teach to. At the moment, that's not the case, different schools teach different subjects and at different levels. You need a level playing field at the start of year 9 which is when many schools now start their GCSE courses, i.e. 3 years instead of the old 2 years.

We still have grammar schools in some areas because they provide a better standard of education. If the comprehensives were all outstanding they would not be necessary.

No, you still have grammars because certain areas refused to switch to comprehensives, and then the ruling elite decided it was better for their children (and stuff others).

Every time someone says grammars provide better education, they need to be able to simultaneously say 'and so do the non grammar schools in the same area'. If they can't say that, then they shouldn't be supporting grammars.

I wouldn't have considered where I live to have any ruling elite, everyone seems quite ordinary to me. I've no idea why there are still grammars but there are and many are very glad of it. There is also one very good comp.

My only child is now forty so I'm not in the market for schools but am aware of what other people want for their children and what is available.