Should I send my kid to a grammar school

[Mamahen999]

Ds1 is really bright high 11 plus score . Grammar would involve a bus journey but not too bad. I'm rural so would take a little planning. Family and friends are really against this. In fact I'm feeling quite upset at the negativity about it. Local comp was in educ dept intervention as a failing school until last couple years. Turning round and kids seem to love it but falling intake. As a kid I was offered a grammar place but the family decided I shouldn't go as bright kids do well anywhere. I was bullied year 8 and 9 but came into my own and was very very happy at comp. I got middling GCSEs but got notes from grammar friends and went to technical college at night to get me the excellent a levels I needed for the high level uni course I wanted. I succeeded academically in spite of the school but the life lessons in schooling with diverse pupils was invaluable . Family Nd friends are so negative via they all went comp. none of my family went to grammar. They keep saying he'll do well anywhere but I remember vividly the underachievement of boys. Even I had to hide the fact I was studying . it wasn't cool. Yet the grammar school is made up entirely of middle class parents ( my education has made me one too) sending ds1 to grammar is saying to them all I don't agree with your choices but my bright boy is telling me mum I'll have more opportunities there. Maybe he's the bright one . I dunno but I cannot believe the negativity and hostility . Views folks.

Perhaps they should use means-testing to accept a proportion of the best-performing children from each income bracket?

In some regions they do. The score required is lower for those who are on pupil premium.

I don't think there are any grammar schools where children attracting pupil premium need to get lower scores, are there?

A few have instituted a system where a very small number of children attracting pupil premium and who have passed the test are given priority for places before the usual distance criteria kick in.

You are correct they don't have to get lower scores, I incorrectly stated the result of the Birmingham region reserving a number of places for PP children which has the effect of lowering the pass mark/score for those children. This could of course change in future years - it is just the first few years of the PP reserved places.

They still have to pass. Which is where the problem lies in the first place.

They still have to pass. Which is where the problem lies in the first place.

Perhaps they could introduce a "weighting" to redress the balance. There must be some way round it.

"Perhaps they could introduce a "weighting" to redress the balance. There must be some way round it"

There is. It's called a comprehensive school.

There isn't really a way round it. There is a culture in some communities that their child should go to the school on the estate where all their parents went and friends go. And there is a culture with many "groups" of parents that your child should go to the place which gets the highest grades according to the slant/measure that the latest league table has taken.

A school coming out of special measures can be appalling as staff turnover will be high due to the stress of endless inspections with different criteria and approaches each time; or it could be great, with a fabulous new head and a team of driven teachers. A grammar can be quite low in terms of "energy" and exciting teaching, or it can be at the cutting edge. Staff turnover tends to be very low which can be good or bad. You can get teachers who have been there since 1978 and are set in their ways, but you have a constancy and a settled feeling that is rare in many schools.

You need to visit it to make up your mind. I would say that the vast majority of kids tend to do brilliantly in terms of grades at grammar, but there are a few who can't keep up and bomb. Also, some grammars have more issues with mental health due to the stress that the girls or boys put themselves under as they are so keen to do well. If your child crumbles quickly under pressure then maybe have another think.

If you like it and your child likes it then sod the rest. You don't want him to turn round and ask you in 10 years why it was that you and he both liked the grammar school but why you picked the comp because of Aunty Mabel.

This is in effect what is happening in Birmingham, the pass rate for PP places ends up lower (although not required to be) so is like a weighting. Predictions are that it will change over time to be less of a discrepancy as more become aware of it and advantages are taken - although they may just tweak qualification (eg just having had to be on PP a short time in the past seems to be skewing things) for those places of they see it being mis-used. At least they are trying and it seems for the moment PP children are getting places at grammars where they wouldn't have qualified previously.

At least they are trying and it seems for the moment PP children are getting places at grammars where they wouldn't have qualified previously.

Govt funding has been changed so that schools with more PP pupils get more funding and those with few have suffered quite harsh funding cuts. That's certainly going to drive schools to increase the number of PP pupils on their books. My son's grammar school's published accounts clearly show a reduction in government funding which has meant redundancies and some subjects no longer being taught.

It's a fine line. You can't start accepting children who aren't going to fit in, either in terms of discipline, ability, etc. as it's unfair to other children, they don't want to risk lowering their exam results statistics, and more importantly, it's a great disservice to the PP child themselves if they're not going to be happy there and aren't going to be able to keep up with the work.

But, at the end of the day, the grammar takes the top x number of applicants, so plenty of kids will achieve a "pass" mark but not be offered a place because others have scored higher marks (or live closer). So there is scope for tweaking the admission criteria to give a modest weighting for PP children who "pass" but are too low down the list to be offered a place, and put them up the list to give them a place, but inevitably that means someone who got a higher score or lives further away, losing their place. What isn't acceptable is admitting PP kids who get low marks in the 11+ just in order to secure govt funding and tick boxes.

But, none of that deals with the "poverty of aspiration" where the parents of some children don't value education, or, as discussed on this thread, are against grammars. If the kids aren't put in for the 11+ or are entered but get no parental support with practising and exam technique, etc., they'll not get a place even with some kind of weighting.

Our son's grammar work with local primary schools to try to solve this issue. They have a scheme where the primary schools select a small number of children who they've identified may be suitable for grammar, and they go to the grammar one afternoon per week for several weeks to experience it - they have a separate classroom, dedicated teacher and support staff, etc. The aim being to get the children to want to go there themselves, so as to substitute the parental push that is lacking. Unfortunately, it falls down because it's up to the primary to choose the children to attend, and, inevitably, that means nepotism and bias comes into play - the kids chosen by our primary were the children of the staff and governors. In the end, 9 children went to one of the two grammars, very few of whom had attended the grammar's programme, in fact most of the ones who went didn't even enter for the 11+. So it wasn't a great success, but more the fault of the primary rather than the grammar!

Your description of your own experience is the perfect answer to why you should send your son to the grammar, I think you have beautifully described the reasons why. Hope he has a good experience there.

"You can't start accepting children who aren't going to fit in, either in terms of discipline, ability, etc. as it's unfair to other children, they don't want to risk lowering their exam results statistics, and more importantly, it's a great disservice to the PP child themselves if they're not going to be happy there and aren't going to be able to keep up with the work."

I wonder whether you might like to read that paragraph again and decide whether it's an attitude you happy to associate yourself with? I'm just wondering whether you didn't quite mean it to come across the way it did.

Does the 11+ test for behaviour , then?

My DC's comp is a high performing comp, with a v high % of children on FSM. They identify and look after children who need support for learning across all abilities. This includes a bright children from chaotic / not valuing education
backgrounds. They have had a steady programme, taking them to do sections of GCSE course work and practicals in Uni labs and facilities, taking them for 2 day visits to top Uni's, offering interview practice, etc.

The 11+ doesn't overtly test for behaviour.

But the kids who pass it are almost without exception, well supported, privileged middle class children with involved, educated parents..........

What is wrong with grammar schools predominately catering for middle class kids and parents !. These being the ones who deserve an academic education seperated from less motivated children or families who are not engaged in their childs education.

I fail to see why there is so much debate,about schools that offer an education that is appropriate for ambitious motivated parents and children regardless of class or social staus.

The only reason to debate the presence of grammar schools, is to disbar people who cannot afford private education, the desired schooling for their children.

This boils down to a simple and outdated belief that because 100% cannot have a state education on par with private, 'nobody' should have that either.

Grammar School all the way! I was very irritated by some people who tried to convince me that the schools in my local area were our ONLY suitable option for our DS years before we even considered our options/choices; therefore, when quizzed I tried to avoid straight answers. I felt that the choice was a very private matter. As a parent I know my child & his abilities best!We discreetly prepared our DS for the Grammar Tests and discussed Secondary school matters after we knew the outcome in March.

What is wrong with grammar schools predominately catering for middle class kids and parents !. These being the ones who deserve an academic education seperated from less motivated children or families who are not engaged in their childs education.

Because the whole point is that they were set up to help increase social mobility, not to cater for middle classes but to give every child with the ability a more academic education. Motivation shouldn't come into it. Nor the support from families.

"Perhaps they could introduce a "weighting" to redress the balance. There must be some way round it"

There is. It's called a comprehensive school.

Actually I was suggesting a weighting to allow students from less well-off backgrounds to have an equal chance of a grammar school education, so that entry is by ability not money.

Exactly IguanaTail.

Bert: not to mention the children who have proved that they will sit still, do as they are told and do endless test routines as part of the tutoring since Yr 4

let me guess Blu and Bert, you both have children who didn't pass? This is what these parents all say!! The truth is that mamy children do not require tutoring and no more than a few practice papers.My own 4 kids included .

despite my DS year 8having issues with Aspergers Dyslexia and the occasional breakdown at school, if i had gone down the tutoring route he may have passed the Kent test. I decided against the tutoring or entering him for the test.

The result is a school that is the correct environment for him to achieve level's 5 or 6 (or whatever they will be) in his GCSE , they are also forgiving to his occasional displays of frustration.

DD3 year 10 in contrast despite not being as bright as DS has no issues with learning disabilities, so the 'bog standard' grammar is the right school for her. The school gets her to work very hard (not allowed) to switch off or grades to slide. DD3 in a Comprehensive school would end up sliding in to the 'middle' pack and end up with C grades, that being her real abilty level. However, with the work ethic 'discipline' other pupils standards, she should end up with mo B grades and a couple of A grades thrown in.

The Comprehensive system is wrong for children like DD3 because she would get drawn in to the 'just doing enough' culture. This can to children with average or slighter higher abillity children in comprehensive schools.

Wrong, marnia. Some of us are capable of having opinions which are not entirely motivated by self interest or that well loved mumsnet accusation- "jealousy".

Sorry, I've read lots of this but not all: has the OP visited either school? Is this a school that lots of MNers are familiar with? I'm surprised by the certainty here!

MarniasMum : Wrong!
Selective schools miles away, never even taken the 11+ . (but I have watched families where intensive tutoring has taken place).

And as you might have seen, I have actually advised the OP, in her situation, and having not intensively tutored her child, to go for the grammar option.

So ner.

Full disclosure. I have one that passed and one that failed.