Difference in grammar schools vs high schools

[winkywinkola]

So once your child is in grammar school, what is the difference in their education?

Surely they follow the same national curriculum as all high schools?

Is it more demanding? Faster pace of work? What exactly?

Can anyone explain please?

flyingwithwings "cobblers" that's odd because several pp and me think our kids go to a school a good school not filled with frustration - apart from the obvious teenage frustrations.

Now "class angst" that you will find in abundance in grammar schools with those parents desperate to keep their precious babies away from the working classes.

"Now "class angst" that you will find in abundance in grammar schools with those parents desperate to keep their precious babies away from the working classes."

Not what I've experienced personally amongst the parents I've met, if anything the desperation is for their kids to be happy - through enjoying their time at school, through not being bullied for being bright and wanting to achieve academically (some of my kids' peers suffered exactly that in primary, a grammar secondary has been a huge change and relief).

I'm not saying it's impossible amongst a large cohort (150 or 240 kids per year in our alternative choices at the time) to find friends with similar interests, but my kids felt such happiness at "finding their people" when they started secondary school. It was a shock and sadness to me that up until then, as they were growing up through primary school that they had begun to feel alienated from their peers.

At secondary school they have thrived and found other girls like them - even the ones they don't get on with, there's shared commonality.

I agree too that selection through parental wealth / catchment and property prices is just as unfair a system as any.

"Now "class angst" that you will find in abundance in grammar schools with those parents desperate to keep their precious babies away from the working classes."

Now that really makes me cross.
Every parent makes choices for their children.

If I had charge of designing a school system, I would not be using grammar schools, mainly because as a society I don't think it is best for everyone - 20 % go to grammar and the rest get what's left - isn't to me a good education system for a whole society.

But you know what? I live in a town with crap secondary schools. It even made headline news last year when one of the MPs went onto the news and said all our schools are crap!
The reasons are complex, and I'm not going into them here.
But we live near the county boundary, and over the border there are grammar schools.

my kids took the test and passed, and are both at those schools. I am grabbing hold of a good education for them, as many parents do. I can't afford to move to the naice town down the road which has fantastic comprhensive schools (do to being in a expensive area) so I have made the system work for us.

At primary it was really important for me that my kids mixed with everyone, and got to know and have friends from all backgrounds etc.
But as we got towards the end of primary, I realised, as ThinkFast says, that they were struggling, that they were picked on for being clever and that they were struggling to find a group they fitted with.

I am doing the best for them, as any parent is and it is bollocks to say it is because it is anything to do with class.
We still live in our majority working class town, and the kids are still friends with neighbours etc from primary who live in our street.

In a true comprehensive school , surely 4 social groups of pupils will form ! 1. The bright kids possibly children of staff or teachers 2. The well off kids might be bright, but obviously have been indulged by parents. Where they are going on holiday or what I phone more important than grades to them ! 3. The poor children who neither fit in to groups 1or 2 even if they are bright culturally can not be admitted to group 1 due to lack of 'professional' parents.

1. Those with SEN either diagnosed or un diagnosed who will always be astray from the other 3 groups. This is actually far worse if the child is High Functioning and would be far better if the child was in a selective environment.

@flyingwithwings so all well off kids are indulged by parents? How about another group 5/ Kids who just go to school and crack on with it?

Flyingwithwings: in a true comp (as attended by my DC) there are bright top set kids: a melting pot of race / economic circumstances, middle set kids: ditto , SEN / support: ditto.

There may we'll be different friendship groupings, but academically the sets are representative of our hugely diverse S London demography.

A real comprehensive school has to prioritize the needs of their lowest common denominators , otherwise chaos is created
Lowest common denominator is a problem in terms of progress and on my experience only happens in schools that are struggling.
A real comprehensive meets the needs of a wide range of pupils.
To suggest chaos happens if we don't pull everything down to the weakest in the school is just so far away from the reality of teaching secondary.

Don't get me wrong, some schools get it wrong, but we can't be silly about this and suggests bright kids will never get high level teaching if they go to a comp. How the hell do you think we all manage to get kids into Oxbridge and other top unis in non grammar areas?

I think I live in ThinkFast's town - have had a child at each of the grammars and two at a leafy comp on the other side of town to where I live.

(I agree with Mousse to a certain extent -
I sent them over there to a naice middle class school as opposed to the less welI-performing comps in our more working class area.)

But whereas some children at the grammar schools are expected to buy their own textbooks and this is seen as a bad thing, my children at the comp just don't have textbooks at all below A level (at which point they have to buy their own). There are arguments pro and con textbooks, but at the comp they admit their biggest problem is simply not getting them back!

For me, the biggest difference in schools is about expectations. My comp-educated top set children and their peers have similar expectations of them as the grammar-educated children - that's the reason they go to their school rather than the ones that are much nearer to us. One of mine is about to leave a grammar to do A levels at a 6th form college which has similar expectations of its high achievers. There are much bigger differences (insofar as they impact on my children) between a 'poor' comprehensive and a 'good' one, than between the 'good' comp and a grammar.

(Poor and good being shorthand for all sorts of factors, results, etc)

Basically I feel that selecting children at 10 (most tests are so early in the year that 95% of the kids won't have had their birthday yet) isn't really justifiable. However, my eldest went to the grammar because it's our nearest secondary school and seemed to be the best fit. And I've had mixed feelings ever since!

Hi

I am in a grammar school area and currently have two in year 8. One in grammar and one in comprehensive. They are both doing the same curriculum but the grammar goes at a faster pace and has a better quality of teacher.

Interesting thread. I'm not a fan of grammar schools. I think they're divisive. I went to one, but wouldn't want my kids to. It was a great education, but cut me off from a wider range of kids. A lot depends on how you see education, but I think being one of many and meeting all sorts is a very important life lesson. If you can't do that at school, where can you?

DS goes to a big inner city comprehensive. It has a huge range of kids from all manner of backgrounds. Throughout the school the standard of work is high and ambition is high too - they definitely don't just cater for the lowest or the highest denominator, as to them every child matters. Every child knows that the ability sets are fluid, so they can move up if they show they have the ability. Top sets are a genuine mix of kids and the fact that they can be moved down, keeps the higher achieving kids on their toes. Basically a good comprehensive works well for all. I honestly can't see how anyone can argue otherwise. It's just a big old shame that not every school's good!

Totally agree with @Traalaa it is sad that not all comps are good, our local school is excellent. However my DD preferred the grammar and despite not being in catchment managed to land a place. DD2 will likely go to the comp and have a great education and experience there.

I think aspiration is really important and we have to ensure that ability is nurtured. We need this for the good of all society.

Why do you ask OP?

bluecitygirl

better quality of teacher

What total and utter bilge. What absolute crap.

I work with and teach both challenging teens and bright teens - I have worked in schools. It is significantly harder to teach students with challenging behaviour. SEND teachers are some of the most skilled professionals I know. People who work in PRUs are heroes.

Teaching bright, middle class kids is a doddle - I have done it - I know. I have my own opinions about grammar school teachers but I don't want to generalise.

Better quality of teacher my arse.

Teaching bright, middle class kids is a doddle - I have done it - I know. I have my own opinions about grammar school teachers but I don't want to generalise.

Different skills and techniques are required, it must though be easier to teach to a single standard level i.e grammar schools . Grammar pupils in a class obviously will be above the 'floor' level requirements of the lesson being taught.

All children should behave in a decent manner when in a classroom with a teacher who is teaching them.

The very fact that many teachers are spending up to 30% of classroom time dealing with disruptive behavior means teachers require indefatigable qualities to come through.

This is very apparent to my sister who is head of Chemistry/Double Science (only 14 students took triple science at GCSE this year ) at a Staffordshire Comprehensive .

What is particularly interesting though is that she tells me the most obstructive and disruptive pupils are the D grade capability students. Sister highlights that these students are quite capable of achieving at C or grade '5' level !

I used to teach at a grammar school. it's nothing like a real school and in many ways I've been deakileld as I don't have the behavioural management strategies for a normal school!!

FlowerFairyLights you are confirming my prejudice

I've never taught in a grammar but my anecdotal evidence suggests teaching is a bit old fashioned. Everyone needs a bit of 'chalk and talk' sometimes but really teaching should be so much more.

Rather than having better teachers quiet the opposite seems to be true.

"Different skills and techniques are required, it must though be easier to teach to a single standard level i.e grammar schools . Grammar pupils in a class obviously will be above the 'floor' level requirements of the lesson being taught."

You know comps teach in ability sets? So a teacher is working to one learning pace per lesson?

All state schools, including grammars are being starved of resources by this government.

Grammars often have even less $$$ to play with as fewer pupils receive PP.
But because they have a smaller spread of ability the pittance money goes further.

The difference, I would assume, is that in grammars you are there to teach. Whereas elsewhere you may need to deal with other issues. If a child has got into a grammar they will be likely from an unremarkable home and one without drama, so they can study.
If you are in a comp a small number of kids will need support in other areas too.
Am guessing here as I have no experience of either. I went to a comp and it had a lot of deprivation which was tough for some of the brighter kids. Certainly children far brighter than me didn't go onto flourish as they didn't have the at home support.

testtube not all comps set. Some have bands ( streaming by its new name) or mixed ability lessons ( particularly in yrs 7 and 8).

And in any event the ability spread in the top set of a comp can be quite large with very few at the highest end.

Whereas sets in grammar schools have a smaller spread and there will be critical mass at the highest end. Though of course some super able DC will always be outliers.

Sister teaches year 7 and year 8 science to mixed ability sets it is only in year 9 where a 'modest' setting begins to happen. In practice year 10 sets because those doing three individual sciences are separated from those doing double science.

You know comps teach in ability sets? So a teacher is working to one learning pace per lesson?

Sister has differing levels even within the 'triple' science group pupils she teaches !

The difference in the academic levels at years 7 ,8 and 9 within one single group can be huge ! For instance some pupils at year 9 spend the lesson 'coloring' a science book aimed at 9 year old'., This compares with the brightest where preparation for studying triple sciences at GCSE level is required.

Mousse I wasn't chalk and talk, I was fab but yes there were old school types there. I felt free to experiment more and be interactive/go with the class as they were easy to teach.

I taught elsewhere too so it certainly isn't the case that grammar schools get "better" teachers.

I certainly went into far more depth and was able to pursue higher thinking schools more at the grammar school. I loved it as a teacher, but as a parent I hate the effect it's had on the other schools.

I do think it's different skill sets. I can teach at a high academic level really well, but I have lost behavioural management skills .

(And I can't type on a phone.)

If you went in to teaching for 'behavioural' management, maybe a career in the prison service might have been better !

It is a stain on education, society and family life that we are suggesting that because a teacher taught in a composed stable and focused environment , they have became 'deskilled' to real life teaching.

Surely all classroom environments should not need a teacher to be skilled in man management skills more appropriate to a nightclub doorman trying to calm down a drunken yob !

The very fact that a teacher having such 'skills' is a bonus or advantage, for the job highlights that schooling for many kids is just a holding pen for society !

In non grammar areas, where do these top end ability kids go? The top sets of comps. Where they form a critical mass....

And yes, some comps stream. Which actually is what a grammar is, a stream.