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.

In my parents' day grammars were for bright poor kids to aid social mobility but things have changed.

I think that's a big problem with them nowadays. As someone says upthread, grammars are now stuffed full of middle class children with parents who know how to play the system and are looking for a private school type experience without paying fees (and many of them go to private prep and will go to private independent if their DC don't pass 11+).
My mother is hugely in favour of grammar schools having been the first in her very working class family to go to one and then on to university. Sadly I think the chance of a girl from a similar family background getting to grammar school nowadays is pretty small.

In my parents' day grammars were for bright poor kids to aid social mobility but things have changed

Unless you were in an affluent area during the very early 70s in a school that had 60 pupils per class and portacabins for the excess class rooms needed for the population explosion for that particular year. Then some very strange results for the 11+ came through

We too had the results of exams etc posted on a board for all to see.
My friend was always top of not just the class but the year by a fair margin. It was a given that she would get into the local grammar school.
Imagine our surprise and her devastation (I don’t think she ever got over it as it meant she couldn’t go on to university) that not only had she failed to pass the 11+ but our other friend who struggled at reading and writing let alone taking exams and was always bottom of the class/year apparently passed. She too was horrified as she knew it wasn’t right and she was going to struggle
But clever friend came from the council estate and other friend had parents who said they would tutor her so she could keep up and lived on the new estate in one of the detached houses

In those days it wasn’t just if you passed you went to the grammar. Your head teacher could object and you didn’t get to go.

My mother had already sussed out that no one ever from the council estate or if you came from a single parent family ever got into the grammar school so there was no point in getting your hopes up.
But in this instance it was so blatant.

Grammar schools were introduced in an era when most people left school at 15 and went to earn money, needed in so many households.

Though some did get the chance, the Golden Age of Grammars never did achieve the feted social mobility it was credited with.

Abd they used to fiddle the results to enable boys to get in, too. Even in the 60s girls had to get a higher pass mark.

It is comprehensives, access to more welfare and benefits and the raising of the school leaving age that has enabled more ‘first generation’ university attendees.

Usually grammars areas the surer bet for rounded academically able dc because of a host of reasons, dc surrounded by dc of "invested" parents usually helps with the discipline aspect, usually the dc that have sen have been supported to learn, rather than disengaged dc who can't read at secondary school etc.

And they do well at what they do!
Just as a ballet school usually does well in its specialist area.

I don't think having grammars also excuses behaviour in the secondary moderns, and grammars are good for all rounders that doesn't mean they take the brightest. Some dc may excel in maths but would never pass the 11+ in English.
Vice versa.
I've actually moved a dc from an ok school where she was doing OK to a grammar.
We get one life and just ok when there's better isn't good enough in my book.
We need to be honest about what any state school can do especially with dc with sen.
Some rare schools do well but they are the exception not the rule.

Lemonmelonsun, very well put.

@Lemonmelonsun
Some SEN children get crucified by the grammar experience, it is utter nonsense that they can provide more support than other state schools. Many are actually more poorly funded than comps.

Anecdote - there are plenty of discipline issues at the grammars near us, lots of drugs, problems on the school buses, bullying.
Also high incidence of mental health issues. Hardly the nirvana you suggest that ALL grammars are.

@hoopa

"some" and some actually get far better resources and support.

Many comps and secondary moderns are failing all ranges of pupils and to boot also high instance of mh issues and all the rest, no where in my post did I say grammars are nivanra, but again painting them all as exam factories/drug dens with mh issues is not true and in my experience it's the comps near us who are destroying children with sen all bar one with many grammars actually supporting the them very well. It's also many grammars who invest in the dc and getting to know them and look at the child holistically, supporting with them with strong pastoral support as well.

Sorry a bit long
I wonder if more testing for dyslexia, adhd etc would help schools more with behavioural issues and children who disrupt classes etc
Having been through the system and had Ds walk out of his school after 5 weeks I can see Ds would have been heading in that direction

Ds had, at the time undiagnosed dyslexia, dysgraphia and adhd and struggled to read and write. I knew he had all these issues but could never get him tested. We were pushed from pillar to post. No senior school I visited on open days was willing to test him in year 7.

They all said they had to get to know him first which is code for we won’t test him and if we make your life so uncomfortable you are welcome to leave and we can push the problem onto someone else. Heard it and experienced it so many times before.

But in the meantime without a diagnosis he had to be subject to the same work/rules as everyone else.
The fact his writing was illegible and he could only read words by really concentrating on them and is and has ADHD meant he was constantly in trouble for not listening, having scruffy unreadable homework or day dreaming. He got 5 detentions on his 2nd day.
In the end he walked out and refused to go back.

I wonder how many boys and girls are in the same position as Ds was. I could see that whilst he wasn’t a “bad lad” he was so absent minded and struggling to concentrate that the more the school came down on him for this type of thing the more upset and angry he became because he was trying so hard it was exhausting him,

If I had said he had to return to the school, I am sure the more disruptive he would have become because although he was trying probably a 1000 times harder than his peers it just came across as being lazy or not concentrating and eventually he would have given up.

I wonder if more diagnosis of these issues would lead to a more tailored education system and eventually a better outcome for the schools and the children.
Dd went to a specialised private school and she had actual lessons about dyslexia with other dyslexic children in her year which was separate from her peers for an hour each day and whilst academically she didn’t do great she came out with her self esteem and confidence and the school didn’t have the disruptive issues a lot of senior schools have.
I wonder if it is false economy not testing children or making it so difficult that parents give up.

Underpinning so much of this discussion is the assumption that grammar is even an option for most. Grammars are in a tiny number of areas and for most of the country there is a simple choice: go to the local comp/academy, or pay and possibly travel.
The reality is that most kids get on fine (and better!) at a comp. Only on MN could you be forgiven for thinking that grammars litter the land. And of course if you have a grammar in the area, sucking up the best grade-getters, then the state alternative's results will look pretty poor in comparison
MN is a weird alternate universe!

I went to a super-selective grammar so not against them at all, but it's about the right school for the right child.

DD is bright but not very interested in academic subjects and doesn't need to work at an accelerated pace or anything like that.

Our local secondary options were either dire or didn't really cater to her specialist interests, so we did sit her for a lot of music scholarships for really good comprehensives where a % of places are awarded on that rather than living nearby.

She would have had a long commute whatever as we live rurally, so 90 minutes wasn't that much more and she doesn't find it a problem - still does lots of after school clubs and out of school classes.

I always used to be very pro grammar. My siblings are older than me and went to grammar school (though it went comprehensive part way through) and my parents went to grammars. Had they still been around, I would without have gone to one but instead I had some pretty miserable years in the now awful comp that replaced my siblings' grammar. If you'd asked me this question a few years ago I would definitely have been in favour of getting into a grammar at all costs. But I have radically changed my opinion, for several reasons.

1. My children have all had excellent education at a truly brilliant state comprehensive. I know I'm lucky. I know it's(sadly) quite unusual. But it shows its possible and I'd like to see more investment in replicating that than creating more division.
2. There is one famiily in our village who sent their children to one of the few grammars in our county. Its 45 miles away. None of their friends are local. They've given up all their local extracurricular activities. Their parent drives 180 miles per day on the school run. We're rural, so used to long journeys (my children's school is 20 miles away but there's a bus), but that's nuts in my opinion. Especially as in all likelihood the children would have done equally well in either of the good comps they drive past every day, without the social isolation that they're experiencing now.
3. A few months ago a friend posted an old newspaper clipping she'd found on Facebook. It was a list of the then Secondary Modern's exam results. I didn't grow up here, so didn't know any of the people listed as children, but I recognised a lot of names as people I know now. Lots of very able, intelligent people. Not an O level between them. Only CSEs were offered at that school. And the comments on her thread literally made me cry. These were children who were being told at 11 years old that there was no point in study as they were destined for the mines, farm labour or factories. Lots of the comments were people who were proud that they had proved their teachers wrong and gone on to gain further qualifications and good careers, so you might say it did no harm. But how much unnecessarily harder did it make their lives, what damage did it do their self esteem at a young age. And for the children who did go into manual work it's still wrong. That doesn't make you of no value to society and unworthy of an education. I know things are a bit different nowadays and that the issues are complex but I have become convinced that segregating children on the basis of a test taken at age 10/11 is just plain wrong.

Yes I'm sad my children won't have those opportunities.

@Newchallenge

Yes I'm sad my children won't have those opportunities.

Which opportunities New ?

You can do triple science, 2MFL, history & geography and come out with 8s&9s at a full comprehensive you know.

Or do you mean they won't have the opportunity to be pressured by tutoring age 9/10, to be told they have failed, and then maybe to not have educational opportunities because there aren't sufficient numbers in the non-grammar to support e.g. triple science?

New Sorry. I think my previous post to you is unnecessarily snipey/grumpy. I'm having a bad day and feeling a bit distressed over upcoming GCSE results.

Some rare schools do well but they are the exception not the rule

Please provide evidence for comprehensives that do well being ‘rare’.

The English school system is absolutely bonkers just sets people up for division of class, wealth and attainment.
Scottish school system much easier state or private. Religious or non denomination.
People do move home to get into particular school catchment areas but if your child has the ability to gain 8 Nat 5 at A level then there are few schools which would hinder that.

If the grammar schools operated with the same teachers and systems, but took every child in the area, their results would be no better (and possibly worse) than a comprehensive. There's nothing magical about them. Their results are better because they only take children who's results are going to be good, whoever teaches them.

I find it astounding that there are posters on MN who are statistically innumerate to the extent that they think results from a grammar school and the local 'comprehensive' (which it isn't, having had the brightest kids creamed off) can be directly compared to decide which is the better school.

It's very hard, if not impossible, to provide any meaningful statistical analysis comparing the two. Anecdotal "my child achieved all 9s, went to Cambridge and won a Nobel prize in x" at either type of school is not really relevant. That's before the natural/inherent bias of the type of school that you/your kids attended.

I can't say that I wouldn't have achieved my grades from my grammar school at our local comprehensive instead. It's quite possible. I loved my school but I also appreciate that it can have a very negative impact on those who don't pass the 11 plus. But I don't think anyone can say with complete certainty that the grammar school cohort would have achieved the same grades at a comprehensive; there's far too many unknowns and variables.

Referring back to my post about my total loss of work ethic when I got to grammar school, I honestly think I'd have done better at a comprehensive.
At primary school I aspired to being top of the class. I enjoyed succeeding at stuff. I don't see why that would have changed had I continued to go to a school that catered for all (though with streaming/setting.for some subjects, as in my last year of junior school)

At grammar school I realised within days that I probably never would be even in the top 20%. And I missed my friends. Suddenly school didn't seem as stimulating or as pleasurable. So my motivation disappeared pretty much overnight, and didn't return until sixth form when I was only studying the subjects I loved.

I live in a non grammar area, it would never occur to me to even consider applying. I've had friends who've put their children through the 11+ and the amount of pressure they were under seemed insane.

Where I live, the secondaries are either good or outstanding and consistently have results well above the national average.

@Newchallenge
Our comp offers 3MFL plus dance, drama and music on timetable each week, excellent science dept which is known for its You Tube vids which have got an international following, brilliant links with local companies to encourage placements, sponsorship of two 6th formers to go and study at university from one of the local companies, better sports pitches than the local private (due to planning restrictions on listed building) and gets about 4 oxbridge each year, endless RG uni, BUT still manages to offer BTECs and do courses in horse management, agriculture, hair dressing, building skills. It also turns out nice happy kids which is the most important thing.
Comps can be brilliant. So can grammars. So can privates. The same way schools in each sector can be rubbish. It is not down to the type of school, it is the leadership team, governors, funding, catchment area.
@Lemonmelonsun your over use of the word 'usually' suggests you don't know what you are talking about. Every grammar is different there is no 'usually'. I spoke today to a friend who has just removed her DD from a local all girls grammar as she has a severe ED. She has written them a 'closure' letter complaining about the fact they have policies on vaginal mutilation but not on ED despite reputedly having the largest number of children in the South West with ED. Their failure on duty of care towards this child was atrocious.

No. My two go to a Comp in Surrey which doesn't have grammars. They are happy at school, have made lovely friends and are doing well. Dd1 got really good GCSE results. Couldn't have asked for more really

Hoopa I'm finding your posts strange /weird.
I guess you are close to your friend and her daughter and it's a deeply upsetting time for you which is clearly coloring your view at the moment.

And yes I do use the word usually in terms of students at grammer usually forfill their potential and get good grades.

Our outstanding girls comp is known as an exam factory caring only for higher achieving students and those with sen fall by the way side where mh issues are rife.

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.

If triple award science is not on offer, the child can’t do it. If you have to choose between one MFL or one humanity and aren’t allowed to do both, your A level and degree options are limited. If nobody is put in for the higher-tier GCSE papers because there is nobody to teach it, you can’t get higher than whatever a B is these days. If nobody is allowed to do more than 8 GCSEs, it is hard to compete with pupils at schools who do 10-11 as the norm.

DH went to a shit comp, and while he is equally as bright as me, he did far worse in his GCSEs (B’s and C’s, then got straight As at A-level after he moved to a sixth form college, so definitely the school and not him).

@Lemonmelonsun
It isn't colouring my view of anything, I knew about the school's reputation years ago and know lots of children there and swerved it for my own children for the reason that has turned out to be true for this particular friend. I am trying to make the point that you can't 'usually' anything to do with schools. They are all different, you can't sweep a generalising paintbrush across them like you are doing. Nothing strange/weird about that!