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.

caramelflat the 'super-selective' grammar schools to cater for children who are really advanced and come from a much wider area

I would argue that they are not much brighter in many cases. They just have been heavily coached to pass an entrance exam. My DD said many of them had private tutors throughout and they have lots of cultural capital and parents with sharp elbows.

I'm ok with the comprehensive system where I live. For context I have one Y9 DC who would probably get into a superselective (3 x 120 at SATs) and one top table Y6 DC who would probably not make superselective but would pass on the 20-25% model.

Thing is, although lots of Londoners moved to Kent "for the grammars" no-one moves to Kent for the secondary moderns, because they're not very good. I don't think a system that doesn't do well for 75% of the pupils is a great model.

I see my colleagues with kids in the grammar school borough drive themselves and their kids crazy with tutoring from Y3. And on the occasion when the kids doesn't pass they appeal and push as hard as they can. And yet overall the performance of kids in the grammar borough as a whole is not better than ours.

No I am basing it on the 2-3% (or 5%) of the population. That's about 5 or 6 DC in each school year. These DCs are your future Steve Jobs and society fails them at it's own peril

Basing a whole education system on the needs of 2-3% is clearly pretty damaging for society too, and I would be much more supportive if exceptional support for those very specific candidates. It would be a better use of time and resources to direct additional support to those than set up a whole system that deprives the majority. It is widely acknowledged that the current 11- selection is flawed and while you may net these 2-3% you also miss other exceptional but less coached candidates, and you advantage many less exceptional but heavily tutored students.

Steve Jobs' school is still a public high school though, not a super selective grammar equivalent. He then dropped out of the next level up too.
Anyway we will wander too far off topic if we start talking about people who have been through the USA system as it is different from the English one, within a very different culture.

The idea of bullying at grammar school due to wealth (or lack of) is concerning as anecdotally I have heard a lot of children at grammars maintain certain life styles and it can be hard if your children cant 'compete'.

@ContessaVerde

Countess of fitzdotterel The targets will have been set in yr 7. Ofsted measures school on if they get close to the targets. If your kid overshoots, this will make up for another kid underachieving, so of course the school will keep trying to get your kid to do better. It’s easier to push the engaged, moderately bright kids to do really well by overloading them and overemphasis on results than it is to get unengaged but moderately bright kids to give a shit. Guess who comes out of it feeling shit about themself though.

With respect, you don’t know how all teachers behave at all schools. Some try harder than others. On more than one occasion I have asked at a parents’ evening what dd should be doing to improve and been told ‘she doesn’t need to, she’s doing fine, she’s on course for her target grade.’ This is not all teachers at the school, just certain subjects.

Grammars are problematic in a lot of ways but the fact is a door is closed just as firmly to a child at 11 if there is no school in the area that will enable high achievement as if the school is there but they are not allowed to go to it.

We moved to get away from them. A bright kid will do perfectly well in a decent comprehensive. We didn't like the socially and economically regressive nature of the system. Everybody who could pay had tutors; the prep schools were 11+ factories. Pupil premium kids were massively underrepresented at grammars. State schools were banned from preparing for the test. The non grammars were alarmingly low achieving. Thankfully we were able to buy a house in catchment for a nice leafy comp, not everybody has that luck.

@TeenMinusTests

Steve Jobs' school is still a public high school though, not a super selective grammar equivalent. He then dropped out of the next level up too. Anyway we will wander too far off topic if we start talking about people who have been through the USA system as it is different from the English one, within a very different culture.

It’s not a super selective grammar equivalent at all, I agree, but I think it’s very relevant in that the ability to select by house price and move your children to a better comprehensive at the cost of widening the gap for those who are left behind in the others is absolutely one of the problems with the English system as it stands.

What I find interesting on these threads is the focus on academic achievement above all else. I went to a grammar in the 80s and hated the place. As a pp mentioned you're suddenly in an environment where getting a B is seen as failing and you are surrounded by peers who seem to have, or at least acknowledge, very few difficulties with grasping anything academic. I escaped to my local sixth form college asap and remember the Head being astounded that anyone would want to leave his exalted establishment.

As someone in their 50s now, I also realise through my own experience and that of friends and family, that achieving top marks at school and first class degrees (including Oxbridge), does not equate to happiness and fulfillment in life. Of course we all want our kids to be able to support themselves and engage in a job that brings them satisfaction, but I find the obsession with 9s at GCSE, As at A Levels and RG or Oxbridge rather tiresome. There is more to life and we shouldn't be making our DC think that there isn't.

I'm v glad not to live in a Grammar school county. My DC attend the local comp with all and sundry and it's a mixed bag. In some areas there is room for improvement and in others it's a fantastic place with some staff who go above and beyond. If they don't get 8s or 9s for GCSE they'll probably be ok. My yr10 daughter hasn't a clue what she wants to do for sixth form. We've told her that's fine too. They are so young and many of them are so stressed and anxious. This can't be what we aspire to for our kids, can it?

@NursePye

I agree with a lot of what you say. .

However I suppose the counter argument is that the string of 9 s at GCSE and oxbridge entrance 'opens doors'. It therefore follows that doors can be closed if those grades arent achieved

Admittedly this is at the higher end of the academic spectrum but is it right that such opportunities should be more available at independent and grammar schools?

I think everyone wants their children to be happy and opportunity is one factor in that happiness.

I think to my mind it seems a good question is are conpa capable of getting the most out of academic children?

We ran away from a grammar area! Hated the hothouse tutored atmosphere everywhere. Also disagree strongly with selective or private education.
The state comp our DC attended was the only choice in the area (apart from a fee paying), and frankly my DC couldn't have achieved higher anywhere else. Top grades across the board. But more than that, they were embedded in the community and mixed across al levels.
Plus we didn't drain academic talent away from that school (yes I know there are other forms of talent, but that was theirs). DD in particular made friends with girls who had no family record of university, and her best friend actually went to u I (against her parents' advice) bc DD applied. And now has a cracking grad job.
It's a win win

Mids, I do think there are may ways of achieving success and having doors opened. Being educated in a selective and rarofied environment can also close doors and opportunity. Having a highly selective education has not necessarily served our governmental leaders well in terms of empathy, responsibility, accountability etc has it? They may indeed be 'successful' but they're not necessarily people we'd want close to us are they?

For my DC, us making the decision to go from grammar would close a lot of doors for them as they would have long commutes and no longer be able to tak eosrt in the clubs and hobbies that they already do. One of mine is in a competitive team and has had so many amazing experiences through that - residential, competitions, tours etc and that would all have to stop. They have gained so much self esteem and made so many friends from outside of school that losing this activity would most definitely close doors. They may later open doors with hughr grades as a result but at what cost?

To believe that academic success in selective education is the main priority, you are already making choices and closing other doors. You have to decide if that's your focus and te negatives of long journeys, additional pressure, distance from home, less local friendships, less independence in arrangements etc is worth that. In our situation it most definitely isn't.

@mids2019 - yes you're right. It does open doors and yes comps should be able to provide those opportunities for the most able. Our comp usually sends a handful of pupils to Oxbridge which is fantastic.

I suppose that I am just mindful that this is still a tiny percentage of the population and yet on MN it seems that everyone has offspring who are in that group. And arguably if grammar schools didn't cream off the top 10% then would the standards at comps be raised by attracting and supporting them?

I realise that it's probably very idealistic but dividing children at such a young age just seems to be creating a two tier system which exists in so many areas of society. I'm a bit of an old hippie at heart so it just doesn't sit well with me.

Non-grammar area here. Do I regret it? No, because the children are not divided into the haves and the have-nots at the tender age of 11.

My local school just puts the brightest ones in top sets, and organises STEM events with the nearest university for those with the interest and the aptitude.

[quote NursePye]@mids2019 - yes you're right. It does open doors and yes comps should be able to provide those opportunities for the most able. Our comp usually sends a handful of pupils to Oxbridge which is fantastic.

I suppose that I am just mindful that this is still a tiny percentage of the population and yet on MN it seems that everyone has offspring who are in that group. And arguably if grammar schools didn't cream off the top 10% then would the standards at comps be raised by attracting and supporting them?

I realise that it's probably very idealistic but dividing children at such a young age just seems to be creating a two tier system which exists in so many areas of society. I'm a bit of an old hippie at heart so it just doesn't sit well with me.[/quote]
Precisely this. Selective schools
In a an area mean that the most aspirational families slough their children away from the bulk. No wonder those other schools are seen as failing. And so the circle continues.

Maybe I'm skewed because my personal experience of Oxbridge graduates (and indeed those with stellar results from sixth form) is not overwhelmingly positive. Many of my friends/extended family who were in that high achieving category have struggled with their mental health, anxiety etc and only a couple have gone on to have careers that they actually enjoy and that fulfill them. The majority of that admittedly small dataset have not flown through adult life in the way they did school. (2 have genuinely excelled in their field, working for CERN etc).

I'm comparison, I have many friends and family who are EXTREMELY successful whether you measure that in terms of income, material wealth, lifestyle, relationships etc... And these are not people who would have passed the 11+,indedd some are those who have 1 gcse or didn't study at a level. Maybe having more time and less pressure to explore their own interests, invest in their personal relationships and find out what they really wanted to do has been more beneficial than academic pressure?

A friends naturally bright Ds in the 80s asked to be moved from the grammar school he attended to the local secondary modern as he knew what he wanted to do for a career and it just wasn’t possible when the grammar schools main aim was university and really looked down their nose on doing a trade. At the secondary modern they taught more practical skills which interested him more.
He now has a really successful business.

@NewallKnowall

Thankyou for the post

A lot of what you say makes sense and I an feeling more justified in terms of schooling for my children

The idea of a long commute does not appeal and being acquainted with people from a breadth of backgrounds definitely appeals

It may be the case that for a more holistic (less hothouse?) environment a good comp is a good option

Mental health is important and I realise that this is a consideration in competitive educational environments

I think it really helps when you hear of positive non selective state experiences.

No I am glad our grammars are a long commute away which I wouldn't ascertain for my children. The comps are generally better in non grammar areas. Also now that I am long enough in the parenting game to see children I know coming out the other end of comps, privates, grammars I have the advantage of seeing the most important thing - that no sector has the lead in happiness stakes. Teenagers mental health problems are shared around all the types of schools. And the other thing that I see is that the middle class children from all the different types of school all seem to end up in the same Uni's on the same courses whichever route they take because their parents are generally involved in their education and are acting as positive role models. That is the main determinant to their success not where they went to school.

I think to my mind it seems a good question is are conpa capable of getting the most out of academic children?

As I said, my DDs comprehensive sends half a dozen to Oxbridge every year. My eldest's cohort of friends did exceptionally well and it's hard to imagine that they could do any better anywhere else. Their grades certainly couldn't have been higher because that's not actually possible. And as I said, the intake is mixed. I don't live in a hugely middle class area.

Of course schools and their catchments vary. But you'd be better researching your local comps than worrying about grammars.

mids2019 The idea of bullying at grammar school due to wealth (or lack of) is concerning as anecdotally I have heard a lot of children at grammars maintain certain life styles and it can be hard if your children cant 'compete'.

Yes this was part of our problem. DD went to a local primary and we lived in a ‘rougher’ area than most which was multicultural. DD did not have the same opportunities for e.g. ballet, flute lessons, skiing holidays and so on due to lack of money and the hours me and DH worked. I do feel that this was a disadvantage for her and certainly some girls, but not all, looked down on her for it.

That's awful, clopper.

However I think some people do lose sight of the fact that grammar schools are state schools. Perhaps it is because there are less grammars now than there were, for example, when I was a child.

Nevertheless grammar pupils come from all backgrounds, always have and always will. Whatever type of school that children attend there will be bullies and those who look down on others.

I come from an ordinary background and can't remember anyone looking down on me or anyone else, it was the same for my children (neither did they look down on others). Each school is different.

maggiesfarm I come from an ordinary background and can't remember anyone looking down on me or anyone else, it was the same for my children (neither did they look down on others). Each school is different.

Same for me too I come from a very ordinary background too. Honestly I can’t believe it went so badly for her. She is a gentle soul. I think there was just a huge disproportionate amount of very entitled and wealthy girls/ families. Hardly any pupil premium or free school meal children. The parents paid a lot of money for the girls’ travel to school. Honestly the first year was very stressful with the school asking for money for this and that, plus the uniform was expensive and very specific ( I know not unique to this school sadly). I also wish it had been a mixed school rather than single sex, as I think that didn’t help.

She was basically ostracised for year 11 and showed great resilience to go to school each day. However, did develop an eating disorder. I do feel that if some of those wealthy confident parents knew how their daughters had behaved and the things they said, they would be horrified. It just made me laugh in a way they were all for the latest cause like BLM, child poverty and the #bekind movements yet were so so unkind.

The sad thing is these bullies and bystanders will probably have terrific careers and charmed lives and will never consider the harm they have done.

I know there is bullying in all types of schools but this was very specific about wealth and not mixing with the same sorts of people or hobbies outside of school. I may sound bitter because I am really. I thought this would be a great chance for my bright DD who got in with no coaching to have some great life chances, plus it was walkable from my house. But it has ruined her self esteem. I would do away with all selective education having had this experience to be honest.

@clopper

Sorry to hear this and I hope things work out.

I can sympathise to some extent as I attended a private school and there was a degree of ostracism based on how wealthy your background. I think some of it as pretty immature looking back...comments about trainers, Sports gear, where I lived etc. I as there on an assisted place (bursary) and my parents really couldn't give me the same money as my school peers so I missed out on the holidays etc.

I think that experience set me against private education but I didn't realise until recently grammars may have the same problem. In my parents' day grammars were for bright poor kids to aid social mobility but things have changed.

clopper

Comfort yourself with the fact that if these girl’s families had been truly wealthy they would have been put in private school.

At Dds private school there were families who were truly wealthy. Personal body guard for the children wealthy and neither parents or children acted like how you describe.