Non grammar school areas - do you regret not having had a child have a chance of grammar school?

[mids2019]

I live in an area with no local grammar school but am aware of other parents that have made decisions to move into grammar school areas with their children gaining successful entry.

Does any one else sometimes feel they would have liked their child the opportunity to take the 11+?

I sometimes feel my children are vaguely aware of grammar/private schools where the 'bright kids go' and dont want them to feel educationally less esteemed.

I understand the point that a child likely to do well at GCSEs will do so at any good school and it seems perfectly sensible.

Why then do parents tutor their children and locate near grammars? There seems to be an awful lot of it....

I grew up in the Midlands, believing that the whole grammar school system had been abolished when comprehensives were introduced in the 60s.

I was genuinely shocked when I moved down to Sussex and found that Kent still had grammar schools.

I think that they are incredibly divisive. My mum and dad both passed the 11 plus and went to grammar schools but that was way back in the 50s. They were from very working class families and got there purely on brains. My mum in particular had zero family support.

These days, there is so much tutoring etc that poor but bright children seem to have less chance of getting in than more average but heavily coached children. Comprehensive schools in selective areas inevitably do worse than comprehensive schools in the rest of the country.

I'm glad that I went to an ordinary, non-selective state school and that my dd did the same. We have both achieved decent exams under the comprehensive system.

In Hampshire there are no grammar schools. But lots of very good comps.
The grammar areas select off the top set children from all the other local schools effectively so yes you will get better results. It leaves the secondary moderns without top students and alot of children who have had their self-esteem bashed by missing out. That is why those schools performance is poorer.
In non grammar areas you have children of all abilities in the school, so the top set children get top grades and bottom tend to perform worse. But all children have the options to work harder and go up the sets. Nobody has been told at 11 they are a bit think as they failed a ( often highly tutored for) test.
But because all abilities are in the school the results will appear slightly lower than a school where only top performers go.
These mixed ability schools ( comprehensive s) also tend to be highly competitive and believe me they push the children damn hard to get the best grades.
I'm very glad we live where we do. I am highly ambitious for my children but they do not need a grammar to get to a top university. I say that confidently from experience.

Mids - I work with a similar cohort of people and if you look carefully you will find others like you. There will be plenty of people in your field who got there from state backgrounds, and there will be plenty of families whose children go on to do v well in many directions from their comprehensive backgrounds. Concliiding that the dc of highly qualified, well educated and comfortably paid professionals have better life chances because they went to grammar school, as opposed to their immensely privileged, engaged and supportive backgrounds is the wrong turn you're making. Those who make enormous sacrifices to move house, or get to a distant bus stop by 7.15 every morning will always justify that decision because why else would you do it? But it doesn't mean they're right.

I had a conversation with DH about this ages ago, wondering if I was letting our dc down by not pushing and jumping through hoops. He very cleanly pointed out that we might be letting them down by forging on up that road instead...

@NewallKnowall

Thank you for the wise words

I went to a high achieving grammar and ended up at Durham where I met my husband (he'd come from a middle of the road private school). My school achieved excellent exam results but were a bit lacking in other areas (my teacher told me I'd be very unlikely to get into Durham, despite getting all As at GCSE and three As and a B at A level...thanks for the vote of confidence!). My kids go to a selective private school only because the sporting facilities, number of fixtures and breadth of sports is better than our local grammar school (appreciate that this isn't always the case either).

But (and it's a big but), we are fully aware that the university application process has changed a lot since we went. As such, our children going to a private school is a disadvantage versus going to a grammar school. I'm not saying this is wrong in any way and I understand why universities do it, but it's becoming harder for the private school pupils to get university offers than it once was. Our school's Oxbridge numbers have fallen substantially over the last 5 years. Similarly, I'm doubtful that my son will receive an offer from Durham despite having all 9s at GCSE, predicted 3 A stars for A level and a range of other interests. It's no coincidence that there's a trend of private school pupils going to a state sixth form.

And just to reiterate, I'm not saying that private school pupils shouldn't be disadvantaged on the basis that some have had a lot of support and resources to help them achieve decent grades.

No I prefer the very good state comp which has been really good

Some people travel from where I am (SE London) but it’s very far and onerous on the dc

No I disagree with the grammar system , its unfair to select at 11.

I went to a comp and a grammar. The quality of teaching was much higher at the comp than the grammar. The results at the grammar were better because the intake was selective, not because the teaching was better.

Parents can prefer a grammar school because it infers a level of status on them (look at how well I am doing for my children as they have passed the 11+) rather then being in he child's best interest or providing the best education.

There are probably grammar schools not too far away from you, op, and grammars do take pupils from outside their catchment area.

I get what people mean who say they don't believe in selective education but what we all want for our kids is good schools where they will thrive and are happy. If a grammar fits that bill, better to let them go there than to a school that isn't very good.

My two went to a grammar school as did I and their dad. It worked for us. We're quite ordinary people, nothing remarkable about us, at least that's how I see us.

There's no point in worrying about it years later; as long as your child has done reasonably well, why worry? Some kids do dreadfully at a grammar :-).

The local school is not appalling due possibly we are not in the immediate vicinity of a grammar but GCSE pass rates do not really compare with grammars in other parts of the county

Well of course they won't. Because the rates are pulled down by the kids who aren't as academic. That doesn't mean that the more academic kids there do less well than the kids of the same ability at the grammar schools.

I went to grammar school back in the 60s/70s, and even then I knew it was a terrible divisive system. I was the only one of my friends to pass the 11+ and I felt so bad for the rest of my group. To this dayI can remember their faces when we all opened our envelopes with the results inside. I am totally against selective education, and am very glad to have bright up my kids in an area where schools are truly comprehensive. And they did extremely well.

For the record, non-grammar schools in areas where grammars exist, should NOT be called comprehensive. Because they're not.

I regret it, but I hadn’t even realised grammar schools were a thing until I came on here. In my town only 30% of kids get a pass in English and Maths GCSEs… All the schools are equally bad. I think my county is the worst of the whole country in terms of schools.

If there was one grammar at least some of the children would have a chance for something better, but there isn’t. I think either every county should have grammars, or no one.

Judging from some comments above are grammars the new independents? Anecdotally instead of allowing social mobility by taking bright kids from deprived areas many of the pupils seem to be relatively privileged . Maybe this feeds into a mindset of grammar equals 'success'

(I know this maybe misguided)

We have just deliberately moved to a non Grammar area.
Our DD is not academic. Buts shes bright in her own way. It also seems she's developing into a strong mathematician.... her Writing and reading are below her year expectations though.

She likes the look of a lot of the creative and practical subjects available at the local comprehensive.

@mids2019

Judging from some comments above are grammars the new independents? Anecdotally instead of allowing social mobility by taking bright kids from deprived areas many of the pupils seem to be relatively privileged . Maybe this feeds into a mindset of grammar equals 'success'

(I know this maybe misguided)

My SIL lives in an area with grammar schools. Even the brightest children don't stand a cat in hell's chance of getting in one without tutoring. Aspiring parents have their kids tutored from year 3, purely to try to get them in. And even then, that tutoring might all be for nothing. My SIL decided she wasn't prepared to put that sort of pressure on her kids, having seen what it was doing to my DN's best friend.

It's ridiculous to say that grammar schools give kids from poorer backgrounds the chance of a better education. If their parents can't afford the best tutors, then they won't get a place. And if their parents are that motivated, they'll do well anywhere.

So yes, grammars are basically for the same parents that might otherwise put their kids in independent schools

We border a grammar area but my kids went to the local comp. Top sets in non-grammar areas are often composed of kids who would have gone to grammar in the area was a grammar area. Someone in DD's year got 9x9 and 1x8 at GCSE and my own dd is predicted top grades so no regrets.

Some private schools are for rich kids rather than academic so no regrets about their schooling

Absolutely, the people we know who go to the grammars are wealthy, educated, able to facilitate the commute or pay for the transport and had either seriously considered private education or even had insurance places in case of 11+ failure. The idea that the tax payer subsidises better facilities and teaching for this group of already exceedingly privileged individuals is not a system to be proud of at all.

If you're a bright and capable child at primary but have parents who cannot navigate the 11+ system, can't pay for tutoring and preparation, can't fund the longer journey or be available to do the driving etc, then you have absolutely no chance.

@TotorosCatBus

Seems like a positive story. Good to hear about success at comprehensives.

My local comp sends half a dozen kids to Oxbridge every year. We live in a very mixed semi-rural area, and there's a layer of kids creamed off after primary to go to independents. So it does a good job.

Like @Sidneysussex I also live in Hants. This happened by as it turns out fortuitous accident long before kids were considered.

My DC would not have got into grammar school anyway, but our good comps seem able to deal with the top kids (coming out with strings of 7-9 grades) just as well as they cope with the ones who struggle to get 4s.
11+ no longer really helps the 'bright but poor'. The mass tutoring means it favours the 'sharp elbowed middle classes'. It certainly doesn't help children with a skewed profile, late developers, those with difficult home lives.
I think 11+ disadvantages those who just miss the cut off, as the schools they go to may not have sufficient critical mass of children able to take triple science or 2 MFL, (whereas comps can offer this so it stays available to any that turn out to be capable).

The answer to @PearlyAdriatic having poor schools, isn't to invent a grammar to go to, it is to sort out the poor schools. You can have good or bad schools under any system. It is just that a bad grammar will still get pretty good results by pure virtue of its intake.

Anyone advocating for grammar schools for 'top 20%' needs to equally advocate for 'secondary moderns' for the other 80% and be happy to accept that for their child if they miss the cut. Too many grammar advocates want, but if they can't get grammar they'll go independent rather than accept the state alternative.

I sent mine to independent primary and then moved house specifically to be as close as possible to the grammar school (we were already in catchment but I wanted to be walking distance in case it went to the wire).

The grammar has exceeded all of my expectations. It really has been like a free independent school.

Yes, I wish we had had the choice. We moved to a town with a good comprehensive and it is excellent in many ways but my kids won’t have had anything like the educational opportunities dh and I had.

I went to a grammar school and I absolutely did not want that for my children. My DC go to a large and very socially mixed comp. DC1 did well in her GCSEs and has stayed on for A levels. DC2 is also doing very well. No regrets.

@TeenMinusTests The issue is that it’s all well and good to say that poor schools just need to be sorted, but it just never ever happens. So I’d rather children had a chance at getting into a grammar instead of just being guaranteed a terrible school.

No. I don't believe they should exist.
I'm not prepared to go to the 'right' church for a token number of visits to get them in the popular faith school or have them travel an hour on the bus to the nearest independent either.
My parents went to private school and grammar school. I refused to sit any entrance exams and went to the local comp.