Should we take DS out of grammar school?

[dobedo]

Our DS started at a grammar school in Sep 14 and is in yr7. He was very close to passing the 11+ exam and got in on appeal. DS went to a state primary up to the end of yr4 when we decided to move him to a local prep for the last 2 years as the state primary had really gone downhill due to a new head. When at primary school he hated maths as the school didn't teach it well however at his prep school he came on so much and enjoyed learning again.

Basically we thought that by putting DS back in the state system into a grammar school would be fine and a great idea as it wouldn't cost us anything and he would be getting a good education.

However, since being there for 1 term his confidence has gone down, he moans that children just talk in the classes all the time and he can't hear everything and that the other children aren't interested in learning. Also, especially in maths the teacher never gets to him when he puts his hand up for help in a lesson and when everyone is talking he gets confused.

There is an independent school in the area that gets fairly good grades but not as good as the grammar school obviously, however, he would be back in classes of 20 rather than 30 and get more attention and help from the teachers.

Would you remove your child from a grammar school to put them back into the independent sector for the additional help and attention? I'm so confused, I never thought we would consider taking our DS out the grammar school.

Well, there are plenty of sibling groups I know of who have children across both types of school, so, I don't know. Then again, tutoring isn't much of a thing where we are PLUS some of the grammars I'm talking about are in areas where hardly anyone IS m/c as such (coastal/rural), so it's not so clear cut. A colleague at another grammar surveyed an entire sixth form cohort and discovered only 3% had a parent with a university education, so I guess there are areas which are still seeing social mobility.

Please note the careful use of the word "most"

We are as middle class as a hummus, rocket and granary bread sandwich with a glass of Sauvignon Blanc eaten while reading the New Statesman and we have a child at a secondary modern. But we do not represent the majority at the school.

Smokepole, I don't know. None of those are reliable class indicators.

"But, if it actually worked really well for the vast majority of pupils then I would assume that our ranking in world literacy and numeracy levels wouldn't be so embarrassingly low?"

If selective education worked so well, selective LEAs would have significantly better results than comprehensive ones.

Is he struggling academically? You said he got in on appeal.
My DDs friend struggled and after a year she left the grammar school.

"I'm not talking about the grammars. I am talking about the comprehensive system...if it's so effective, and differentiation so good...then why are we ranked so low compared to many other countries?"

Grammar and secondqry modern schools don't do any better than comprehensives, though. So by your reckoning, neither system is doing well compared to other countries...............

Personally I did not choose a grammar school for my bright working class son because I thought he would get better grades at the grammar school than the comprehensive, but because I wanted him to be able to make friends and not spend another 7 years being bullied for being a nerd! The inside of a toilet is not a nice place head first.

...because no bullying goes on in grammar and public schools

Surely you're more likely to find children who want to study at grammar school? And who struggle less and so find it more enjoyable? And I'd guess they have a wider choice of teachers than many state schools (as seen to be more enjoyable to work in). So more likely to have less disruption in lessons, less bullying, better teaching?
I've certainly seen plenty of disruptive behaviour, bad teaching and bullying in private schools.
Just choose based on the particular school.

Why do you think that only high attaining children are keen to study? Plenty of middle and low achievers who are studious and hardworking and keen to learn at dd's state comprehensive.

Effective differentiation can overcome the boredom or frustration that can come from lack of natural flair for a subject.

Bright kids need stimulation too, and from dd's experience, and my own at a high achieving state comprehensive, children were just as likely to be disruptive in top sets as in middle and bottom sets.

And as the op has experienced, even within a grammar school you can have low level classroom disruption.

I find the assumption that middle and low attainers are more likely to be horrors to teach rather insulting. In addition, some teachers actually like having a broad mix of abilities to teach because of the challenge and stretching of their own ability to make a subject come alive regardless of the child having a D target or an A target. My mother was a secondary teacher and while the top set was probably easier in terms of the speed with which concepts were picked up, getting a child from an E to a C was as much of an achievement as the inevitability of a child in top top set getting an A.

And by just as likely to be disruptive, I mean similarly unlikely - dd's school is v strict and deals with classroom disruption very effectively. Of course there are some issues with the behaviour of individual children, but it's inaccurate to imagine the bottom sets being chaotic or lacking in discipline.

Ah, but Pooka, top set people are only disruptive because they are bored and undechallenged. Bottom set people are disruptive because they are knuckle dragging mouth-breathers........

I didnt say you dont get bullying in grammar schools but at least children can be proud to be intelligent instead of having to hide it for fear of being bullied for being a geek, which was my sons experience.
The chaotic system that varys from area to area in this country has many faults, if I had the choice I would pick the dutch education system, which is actually very selective but which provides quality and appropriate education for all children and isnt obsessed with league tables.

People do have this idealised view of grammar schools. All this "proud of being intelligent" stuff. People get accused of being geeks and nerds In grammar schools too, you know!

There was certainly bullying at my single sex Grammar School. Girls can be quite evil to each other no matter what their social background.

Maybe Some pupils are in "bottom sets" because they are bored and not getting help to show how "intelligent" and capable they are .

Laqueen. Don't you think some pupils are let down by their own expectations "I am thick me" caused by parental and school expectations and standards.

Steiner schools have a particular problem with bullying. And a particularly poor record of dealing with it. At least I don't think they say it's the victim's fault because of something they did in a past life any more........

Until recently I taught in a local comprehensive/ secondary modern, when you compare students of the same ability the grammar did not do any better. We often do significantly better, especially when it comes to A levels. Every year we send pupils to Oxbridge, our classrooms are calm and full of pupils who want to succeed, much like the grammar. The only tangible difference is that our school contains more pupils from poor families and our facilities are more modern.

Then really I see no issue.Their parents must be happy,I'm sure the Grammar parents are too.

You are obviously describing a compr he dove, not a secondary modern. I don't think there's a secondary modern anywhere that has ever sent anyone to Oxbridge.