Ballot to abolish grammar schools

[zeolite]

With all the talk on catchments, here is the second ever ballot to abolish grammar schools (the first was in 2000, on Ripon Grammar, which failed):

www.reading107fm.com/newscentre/local-news/petition-launched-to-scrap-two-reading-grammar-schools-247

What do MNetters think?

[takes cover now]

The criticism mainly comes from those of us who went on to do law degrees, medicine etc, but had the disadvantage of someone telling us that we were not fit for it when we were only 11yrs old. Also I am highly annoyed by all the people who took a place and had left school for work by the time I got into the grammar school 6th form.

Why do people that disagree with grammar schools always presume that those of us that have dc at grammar schools have some kind of fear of of our children mixing with those that are slightly less intelligent? I really don't get it. And as it's complete tripe, it taints your arguement somewhat.

As has already been said, we all want the best for our children. We all want our values to be upheld in out children's learning environment. If a GS is going to cater for my child better than a comp, I would be failing my child if I didn't give him the chance of going to the school that would suit him best. No?

In my area, a GS is available, I beleive it's what's best for my child, so why wouldn't I use it and support it?

If a child doesn't have access to a grammar because they don't reach the required grade, I'd be happy for him to go to a comp, providing it catered for his needs. Our local comp wouldn't. Not because it's not a good school, but because of who my child is.

No comp can cater adequately for every child. Children are simply too different for one size to fit all.

If a secondary modern does not cater for a child's needs, then that is what needs to be addressed. Why would you want to change the GS's if they are doing a good job, instead of changing the secondary moderns if they are doing a bad job?

My secondary modern did a very good job-look on friends reunited and you can see how well we did as 'failures' -it would have been much easier to be in the same school as those who were expected to go to university.

I do think it is entirely wrong that once they have a grammar school place it should be until year 13. They should definitely change school if they don't keep up and there should be a yearly review.

I would agree that in an area where a child either goes to secondary modern or grammar, it should be reviewed yearly.

Although that would also have its drawbacks.

I really don't see what is so wrong with things being done as they are in my area. Children whose parents want their child to go to the GS have the chance to do that. They don't just have to achieve 77%, they have to be in the top 100. If that means that all 100 applicants score 96%, then so be it. If the parents don't want it, or the children don't get a place, they go to a good comp instead.

About twenty people in my year didn't come back into sixth form (this was twelve years ago). Most of those didn't get the grades in gcse or chose not too because they didn't fit the grammar school mold. I will be honest and say that the school I went to in Northern Ireland was very snobby, and there was blatant favouritism. The children that didn't stay on were all the children that came from less well off backgrounds. Why this was I don't know and I don't know what the solution is. Six new girls joined in sixth year from a secondary school and they all hated it and really struggled to integrate, so I am not sure if I would recommend to my own daughter to join at sixteen, as there are some really good secondary's and I think if you have the capability to do a levels it won't make much difference where you do sixth form.

Q:......."I haven't read all the comments, but having been to a grammar school I can honestly say it was great. I don't remember ever wishing I had got to mix with the children at the local secondary school, although after I left school I had no problems mixing with people from all different backgrounds. Myself and my three best friends all went on to do law degrees, and many of the other pupils in my year, did medicine, dentistry and engineering. Several went to oxbridge. I just don't get the criticism"...

Yes, I went to GS as well, and it was 'great'. It's great to be basically told, at 11, that you're the dog's undercarriage, that you are the elite, that you will succeed- (even though rather more than 20 left my GS at the end of Y11 not clever enough to go on to A levels.. 2 were 'advised' to leave during the preceding 5 years due to being 'unsuitable' ie not easy peasy to teach- but none of the 20 odd girls who joined our Sixth Form from a girls SM were moved to the GS before Y12...).

Yes, we were totally up ourselves, yes we were snobby, yes we were taught or at least more-than allowed to basically look down our noses at the less able (not explicitly, but certainly implicitly!). Our teachers were great- many wouldn't've lasted 10 minutes in a Secondary Modern.

However, I cannot in all honesty countenance this elitism being encouraged at the general public's expense.

Q: "...If a child doesn't have access to a grammar because they don't reach the required grade, I'd be happy for him to go to a comp, providing it catered for his needs. Our local comp wouldn't. Not because it's not a good school, but because of who my child is.

No comp can cater adequately for every child. Children are simply too different for one size to fit all."

Point a: in a GS area, the alternative isn't a comprehensive, it's a Secondary Modern.

Point b: I believe that a comp can and does cater for the vast majority of the educational needs of NS children. My DS, Y7, sits in a tutor group with two boys who already have their maths 'A' levels. At a nasty old comprehensive.

"I would agree that in an area where a child either goes to secondary modern or grammar, it should be reviewed yearly."

Well, as that is the case in most grammar school areas - in fact, as far as I can see, all of them except reading - it looks as if you are on the anti-grammar side, bubblecoral.

Welcome to the team!

Nah, seeker, I don't think so. 2 girls from my year of 120 were asked to leave, but none came in til the end of Y11.

Can you imagine the outcry if Jemima or Charles's parents were told that actually, time to ditch the stripy tie and braided blazer of the GS, grab your poloshirt and sweatshirt, they're off to the SM 'as we feel your child would be better suited to that learning environment'...

Why, we'd get arissa's : "Across the two schools, they have put 1600+ childrens lives into turmoil. These children now fear that their school..... may no longer be the safe, secure educational haven they know and trust and now also have the very real fear that it may all be taken away from them"....

Banish the thought that their advantage may not be enshrined for their whole school career!

Sorry - I didn;t make myself clear. I mean that in most grammar school areas it IS either grammar or secondary Modern, ( apart from Reading), and bubblecoral agrees that is an unfair system because she thinks that kids should be able to move between the schools so SHE is on our side!

Surely that rather than being critical of grammar schools the solution would be in improving standards in secondary schools so that it no longer seems like second best? Northern Ireland has the best academic results in the uk, and I believe this is down to the very strong grammar school system (there are no public schools that I am aware of). I now live in Scotland where it seems to me that if you want to have something comparable to northern irelands education you have to pay for it. I have a foster son who is at one of the top comprehensives in Edinburgh and while it is lovely that my foster son, who has an iq of seventy, is in a mixed ability class, I honestly do not see how this is going to benefit him in the long term. I also do not see how the teacher can cater for him, with a reading age of seven, and the kids who would hope to go on to university. To me, having never experienced this kind of system, it seems total madness.

I'm not really on anyone's side! If your 'side' is seeking the abolision of grammar school altogether, that's definately a side I'm not on!

We have already established that your area and mine are very different Seeker, and I said ages ago that my opinions might be different if I lived in an area like Kent. Surely Reading can't be the only place in the country that has a couple of lonely grammar schools in an area that is mainly served by comps? If it is, then I feel even more lucky than I did before! But it probably isn't. I am not completely blind to the system and it's flaws just because my child got a place at my first choice school.

As this thread was started on the back of what is going on in Reading with a few disgruntled parents not being happy with the schools they have got, so have turned that into a campaign to end selection at Reading and Kendrick, that is what I have based my opinons on.

I realise that threads don't always stick to the OP, but what is in the OP is quite important to me.

I agree with a lot of what people have said in favour of a completely comprehensive system. But not all of it. I don't believe children should be judged at 10 years old, and be made to feel that they are not worthy if they don't get a high enough grade in a test. But much of that comes down to how the whole thing is handled by the adults. It's not as simple as pass or fail. After all, children of all ages get tested anyway, and by the age of 10 they know roughly where abouts they are in terms of achievement in their class.

I have said all along that all children should be educated in a way that suits them. Whether they are high academic achievers, or their talents lie on other subjects. They all have talents, and they should all be given the chance to achieve their potential. For some children, GS is the best way to do that, so for that reason, I think there is a very valid place for them.

Just because some children aren't receiving an adequate education, does not mean that it should be taken away from others that are.

This comment

Banish the thought that their advantage may not be enshrined for their whole school career

is just mean and snidey. Why shouldn't those children be able to have some security in their school? Do you think they deserve less because of the natural intelligence that they have?

It not nice to see reverse snobbery, especially about children who's parents aren't even paying for their education. About children who are only there on their own merit.

And at Reading, they really are there on their own merit. No amount of tutoring will get a child that is not that bright a place in the top 100 out of 500+ children.

If you had made that statement about children with dyslexia, or other SEN's that make them achieve less academically, people would be jumping all over you.

Erebus,

This country, in general, as another poster has already written, should be investing that teaching talent at the end where it's really needed- those kids who are failing.

You pretty much give the game away here. While pretending that comprehensive schools are right for everyone and all we need, what you really mean is that they're right for the kids who are "failing", and that's all that matters to you. Well I'm sorry but able children have the right to an education that's appropriate for them too.

This is a huge part of the problem right there, as I alluded to in my post above. My son learnt practically nothing in primary school because everything was focused on bringing the lower end up. I fully support efforts to do that, but I see no reason why he shouldn't have an education that challenges him to.

As GS parents here have readily admitted, their clever DCs would almost certainly walk out of a comp with the same results as the GS will furnish them with

I don't know how many have "admitted" that. It's a hard thing to call because it's difficult to predict in advance what effects the factors of peer pressure and general school and community ethos will have on any individual. For me, as I've already described, it's not really about results.

but I feel a vulnerable, under achieving DC's life could be turned around with access to a targeted, focussed and disciplined learning environment- like GSs provide for the more academically able.

Again, you're basically admitting here that you consider it the responsibility of the grammar-able children to provide the right educational atmosphere for the less able. Why? Why can't they, or their parents, provide it for themselves? Being in a school with the grammar cohort "creamed off" actually makes delivery of optimally targeted teaching easier, because there are fewer ability levels to cater to at once. I don't think anyone doesn't want to see these kids get a disciplined and focused learning environment. I just completely fail to understand the mentality that puts the responsibility for that on another group of children, rather than on the kids themselves, their parents and communities, and the government to provide the structure.

Grammar schools get no more money than other schools. With the pupil premium, and their smaller number of children on free school meals, they will generally get LESS. Yet their wierd idea persists that they are recipients of some kind of special privilege. The reason kids at grammar school get a positive environment to learn in and generally good results, is because (a) they have a high level of innate ability, to the extent that one believes in that sort of thing, and (b) THEY THEMSELVES focus, work, take a constructive attitude and are supported and directed in doing so by their families. ie, they create that environment for themselves.

If non-grammar families want to emulate at least the second of these factors, then I'm not stopping them. And neither is any child in a grammar school.

exoticfruits,

I do think it is entirely wrong that once they have a grammar school place it should be until year 13. They should definitely change school if they don't keep up and there should be a yearly review.

I don't know how widespread it is but at the grammar my son is going into, they definitely have to get all As and Bs at GCSE to be allowed to go on and do A Levels there. And I know at least one families with a kid in a grammar school elsewhere who wasn't allowed to take A Levels for that reason.

I combination with the large numbers of sec mod kids who transfer to grammar 6th forms, this rather throws out the idea that they "permanently" stigmatise children one way or the other.

Too busy right now to dismantle all the bogus arguments in the last 2 responses but- the very last comment:

Surely the fact these DCs DO transfer across from SM to GS in Y12 if we assume GSs are only for the most able, and that GS pupils leave at the end of Y11- proves that there should be constant movement between the different levels of ability. Like every year?

But there isn't.

And I think if you read an earlier post I made, I used the term 'NS children'. That means 'normal spectrum' ie without the sort of SEN that makes mainstream education inaccessible or difficult to access for those DCs. I haven't actually said that 'those kids who are failing should be in a mainstream class in a comp', have I?

I can't believe that people are seriously proposing that every year children should 'swap' between grammar school and secondary modern.

Can you imagine the stress on a child who is maybe having a bit of difficulty, worrying that they might have to leave their friends and start again at another strange school after just a year?

And for those who were 'promoted' at the end of the first year - what if they can't keep up? - they then have to worry about being 'relegated' again.

If you think parents go overboard tutoring for grammar school entry at 11+, think what they'd be doing with a system like that.

And how do you ensure that there would be an equal number who 'deserved' to go up to those who 'deserved' to go down.

It's so obviously a ridiculous idea when you think of applying it to actual children instead of theoretical 'pupils' that I have to assume those who are suggesting it are not serious.

I absolutely refuse to believe that you can accurately select the 23% brightest children in a county by giving them 3 50 minute tests over two days when they are 10. ANd there is no planet oon which telling 23% of kids that they are better than the other 77% - and conversely, the 77% that they are failures is a healthy thing to do either for the individuals concerned or for society at large.

And that is what the grammar school system does. A properly streamed comprehensive school doesn't do this.

I quite agree that the tests aren't an accurate measure; as I said above, DD has proved to be a lot brighter better at getting good results at GCSE and A level than many (probably most, given that she got 5 A grades at A level) of her contemporaries who passed the entrance exam.

When I went to grammar school, 44 years ago, I didn't have to take an exam, the places were apparently allocated by reports from primary heads and, I think, inspection of work - tbh I'm not really sure! But it did mean that a place was gained on more than a 'snapshot' and therefore was fairer and probably more sustainable in the long term.

That may be what the Grammar system in Kent does, here, the top 100 scores are what gets you a place. Everyone who applies for the test is well aware of that, and chooses to take it on that basis.

They don't have to.

Once again, if you feel the system is so flawed in your area, maybe you should put efforts into changing that, instead of calling for an end to all Grammar Schools, some of which have huge support in their surrounding area.

Ultimately I think what it comes down to is: If your child passes the exam and gets a place in a GS (regardless of whether this is down to 'natural ability', tutoring, private prep school, whatever), is it OK for them to benefit from a superior, academically driven, parent-supported environment at the expense of the majority who will end up at a secondary modern, knowing that they would never be there at all had they done better in a test when they were 10?

If you think that's just the way of the world then you're OK with GS. If you think that's despicable, then you'll be against.

Incidentally, I haven't seen a single post from a Sec Mod. parent saying that the school is the 'best fit' for their child and they are glad they're there. Are there any?

How are grammar school students benefitting at the expense of the majority?

They are benefitting, yes, but not at anyone's expense!

Because the secondary moderns would love to have all those forward-thinking, education-focused, well-disciplined parents on their boards of governors or volunteering in the classrooms through pride in the school, except they're all at the grammar school. How on earth do you foster a 'grammar-school' atmosphere in a school which only exists to serve chilldren who fail an exam?

One previous poster said her DD had failed but would be doing 12+ and having another go at getting out. Anyone who can go private will do when faced with a Sec Mod, so you're not exactly faced with a cohort of happy, enthusiastic parents to work with. It's no secret that school success is down to pride in the institution, quality of parental involvement and excellent discipline and teaching. It's all there on a plare for the GS - long hard slog for the sec mod.

on a plare...plate!

But that's not the fault of the grammar school families!

We're back to the point that was made earlier, it is not the responsibility of the grammar school students and their parents to improve anyone elses education.

There is nothing from stopping the parents of secondary modern pupils from making the effort to become forward-thinking, education-focused, well-disciplined if they want to.

You foster a 'grammar school' atmospere, if that's what you want to call it, by valuing each student for the things they are good at, by promoting learning and good behaviour, by the parents placing importance on education and instilling good values in their children.

That is for the teachers and parents and students at a secondary modern to do, not those at a grammar school!

I combination with the large numbers of sec mod kids who transfer to grammar 6th forms, this rather throws out the idea that they "permanently" stigmatise children one way or the other.

I was one of them -one of the many-and it was fine, BUT I should have got a place earlier and those who left before A'levels should have swapped places. I agree it wouldn't work-but it does when they are all in the same building with the same uniform-namely a comprehensive.

I actually have nothing against the Reading system, where the very top are creamed off over a huge area and the comprehensives are good so that many who could pass don't even take the exam. I do have a lot against it when they all take it and a line is drawn between DCs who are of equal ability.