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?

Lazy, I agree with your grammar vs private school comparison. I would say, though, that statistically, grammars have a smaller percentage of children from deprived backgrounds than the population as a whole. Thus although there may be children from disadvantaged backgrounds - Pates Grammar school, cited often on here so it is top of my mind, had 2 in last year's year 11, out of 121 - there are not as many as you would expect from the local population as a whole. Balcarras had 16 out of 210; the secondary nearest to Pates had 61 out of 65, an indication of the 'norm' in that locality.

61 out of 165! Sorry, that really would have been an unusually high percentage!

Thus although there may be children from disadvantaged backgrounds - Pates Grammar school, cited often on here so it is top of my mind, had 2 in last year's year 11, out of 121

This is what I was referring to.

Of those 2 pupils I wonder how many school trips or after school activities they can afford to engage in.

Other schools in Cheltenham (on a roll here):

39/161
50/268

As i have said before, i think here is a strong argument that an equyal % of PP children should be assigned fairly to all schools. It would prevent both grammars and the leafiest comprehensives from benefitting from disproportionately privileged intakes, and spread the burden in terms of time and support needed by such children more equally.

The school I work in - primary - uses PP money to fund trips, after school and holiday activities for these children, as well as for in-school academic support.

Pates' Ofsted report, while not that up to date (2013) states "The pupil premium funding is used to make sure that those students who are eligible for free school meals are able to take part in activities outside the school."

Grammar schools are not inhabited by the monetary elite !
However, there are some very wealthy parents who by sending their children to grammar school acquire a kind of 'inverse' snobbery while protecting their children's education !
For these type of parents it is a win win situation. Firstly they can claim to support state education secondly they can attain their children are brighter than their peers children who might have passed less 'competitive' private school exams. Secondly there are in a very controlled social environment with similar peers whether that be financial or academically.

However, there are apparently two families with girls at DDs school who are worth £ 30 million each . They think sending their girls to state schools is 'cool' and trendy.

The problem is these parents that have the means to provide a 'Grammar' school education for their girls privately are denying 3 other ' Local' girls the chance of a grammar school education !

'Thirdly'

Cantkeep I'm sure that's true and it's such a shame as the original idea has been lost. Both my DF and DFIL went to Grammar schools from the deepest poverty (in 1920s/30s) and it transformed their lives and opportunities.

Even when I went in 1967 we were still a real mix and plenty of people qualified for free school uniform/meals/transport. I did for the latter except it was for 2 miles away and however slowly we walked/cycled/drove we lived 1.9 miles away!

My best friend went to Grammar from a children's home...

Lazy, I agree. My mum is a grammar school ex pupil, and it totally transformed her life. While my family now appears to be 'entrenched educated MC', my grandfather attended school only sporadically, as the eldest son of an invalid mother living in the most difficult of circumstances, and left unable to read fluently at 14. His subsequent studies at night school, and later at police college, left him with the profoundest respect for education, from which my mother benefited hugely via the grammar school system. While my other grandparents came from slightly less straitened circumstances - though my other grandfather was disadvantaged by his disability through polio - none would have been judged to be anything other than working people, maybe lower middle class in 1 case (and teased as being 'very posh indeed' as a result).

I am a staunch 'anti grammar' poster on here, because i cannot support their current ethos, intake and effect on surrounding schools. I could be entirely persuaded to become a supporter if they focused on children from deprived backgrounds and if selection at 11+ could be by a process that could in no way be influenced by the quality of primary schooling or by any training for the assessment.

Again continuing to browse schools mentioned on here, only 90 of Pates' 121 year 11s last year had KS2 SATs results and are included in their Progress8 measure.

It is likely that the remaining 30 came from private primaries - is it right that families able to buy private education in the primary years take 1/4 of the places in the grammar school? it certainly doesn't match the old-fashioned grammar positioning of 'schools for bright poor children'

(In the interests of fairness, I should point out that it could be because these children came from overseas in Y7 or later. However, I should imagine that in-year transfers of children arriving from overseas are relatively rare given that in-year places at the school are scarcely 'open to all comers')

Can'tkeep. Yes I agree with all you say but don't know the solution. We're from similar backgrounds. My paternal DGF worked on GWR and died at the Somme leaving a widow and 3 boys under 6. The first 2 left secondary school at 13 but my DF (no3) won a Grammar place. The teacher visited my Granny at home and asked if they could find a way to keep him on at school after 13 as he was very able and the brothers and agreed to let him not contribute and managed to keep him at school until 18.

He had an inspirational English teacher who wanted him to go to Cambridge but they couldn't afford that. However he got an office job in the civil service and never stopped educating himself so his life was transformed. I guess it was geographical mobility which made things change, when I was young you went to your local school, Grammar or Secondary Modern, no-one moved for catchment as far as I was aware in my small town.

Is it romanticising to think that poorer people were more aspirational in general in the past? Teachers I know find the biggest problem is crowd control with up to a third of the class not wanting to be at school and their parents not caring if they come or not. Is this disaffected segment of the population larger today? I'm sure education is the solution to many of our current ills and divisions. It's how is the problem.

Is it romanticising to think that poorer people were more aspirational in general in the past?

Yes, I think this is romanticising. You and I are the products of the aspirational few. Many boys left education at an extremely young age to go into manual work - farming, factories, mining, trades, but also to under-employment and unemployment. I don't know whether the lack of such jobs, the raising of the school leaving age, and the academic requirements even for apprenticeships means that teenagers are at school longer but have no obvious source of decent employment and thus are disengaged? At a very harsh level, the existence of the welfare state means that choices are somewhat less stark for those who do not have employment - but I know that no civilised society would tolerate the harsh consequences of having no welfare state system...

Equally, the rightful expectation of work out of the home for married women, which it would be unthinkable to withdraw, is a contributory factor to the need for a larger number of jobs to employ both male and female workforces. We may still bemoan the glass ceiling, but the career choices even for my mother, with an Oxbridge degree, were the civil service or teaching, and for her mother, no policeman's wife was allowed to work because it was seen as a potential route for corrupting / nobbling the officer concerned....

My other grandfather, the one disabled by polio, was perhaps an example of the stark choices for disabled children growing up in a poor industrial community in the early years of last century. He had no great education, but got on by organising [bossing around] others in the building trade. Only other option was institutionalisation. Ended up as the head of his own building company. Made a lot of money, lost a lot of money [his transport varied from chauffeur driven Rolls to those odd pale blue invalid cars that were around in the 1970s].

You could say that he was 'aspirational' - but he was probably one of a very, very tiny minority of disabled businessmen in that era, and many others like him would simply have been consigned to institutions or died relatively young.

However, there are apparently two families with girls at DDs school who are worth £ 30 million each . They think sending their girls to state schools is 'cool' and trendy.

Proof that you just can't win!

• Send your kids to an independent school = buying them a privileged education
• Send them to a state grammar school = stealing an education from someone more deserving

I give up!

Why are your family worth £30 million FanDabbyfloozy!

The girls from both families are 'delightful' and a credit to their parents. DD 2 (yr 9) has been to both of the families home for parties sleepovers etc.

There are perfectly entitled to educate their children anyway they like, however it is a bit of picking the best out of each system and making it work for them.

One of the girls went to Primary until 9 then to a Prep school to 11 to make double sure of entry . She informed DD 2 she will be going to Boarding school for sixth form !

This is ideal because it means the children get to socialize and mix with the people who are going to be their 'accountants' solicitors and finance directors at grammar school !

The public school is the final 'micromanaged ' part of their education and comes in the sixth form giving them the 'edge' the connections and thus enabling them to use their privilege .

It is in effect of having your cake and eating it!
Lucky them... but three girls missing out on a grammar education because of it

Flyingwithwings What?! No finishing school
In Switzerland?

I am fine with either 'all through' solution - for a parent to choose to buy private educatiopn for their children all through, or for a parent to choose not to, and use state education all through.

The thing I object to is parents buying advantage in the admissions process for a state secondary by paying for a private primary.

This is partly, of course, because the tests are so 'teachable' - the 11+ does not select 'the x% brightest', it selects fairly randomly from the much larger percentage who are 'towards the top of the ability range', and favours the well-prepared and well-tutored above children who are equally bright but not well coached. Of course, some children get in who are untutored - but given 2 children of the same ability who might be more marginal, the better prepared one is more likely to get the place.

If the test was genuinely of ability or potential,. and could not be affected by previous teaching or training for the test, then private schooling could buy no advantage and wouldn't matter. As previous teaching and training DOES make a difference, then IMO children who have attended private primaries within e.g. the previous 4 years should not be allowed to sit the test for a state-funded grammar school. Also, all grammars should run free tutoring for any and all children from all primaries within their admissions area with greater than the local average of PP children, or, alternatively, for every single PP child in their admissions area.

(And I do mean 'free tutoring for an hour weekly for a whole year', which seems to be the normal procedure for 11+ private tutors)

I'll feed back on this in 1 year.
DT2 off to grammar in sep
DT1 off to comp in sep

Both are the same academically.

Difference so far is
cost of uniform
at GS DT2 has to learn Mandarin, an instrument and join combined cadet forces
A longer school day at grammar
more homework

Flyingwithwings What?! No finishing school
In Switzerland?

No they really are different to us in their thinking !

The elder daughter of the other extremely wealthy family having just finished her GCSEs is now working 'Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights in a 'Chip' shop.

The wealthy girls have the worst phones of any of their year groups. They dress in the same brand of clothes as every one ,only ever have enough money for one drink one bag of popcorn at the cinema ETC .

The parents seem to be quite focused on keeping their children grounded or 'anti -spoiling ' them and actually denying what the normal kids take for granted i.e smart phones.

I went to one of the Winchester comps mentioned up thread and my family still live in Winchester. Yes there are many very comfortably off families in the area but I think all the schools (one in particular) have areas of deprivation in their catchment's. Winchester has one 6th form college which serves the whole area and has made it into the Tatler state school list. But yes overall Winchester is a very monied, educated area - when I was at school (a long time ago) there was a strong link between where you lived and achievement.

I now live in Bucks - a wholly selective opt out County and my children are in a very sought after grammar (which has also appeared in the Tatler list). Whilst the results of the grammar are higher then the comp I would say the overall educational experience are similar.

I also work in a comp in a neibouring county to Bucks - it is a v high achieving comp. The main difference between it and my children's school is that the grammar offers way more extra curricular activities and has very high expectations. Tge curriculum is also broader - the drama, dance, PE, DT and music departments are of s very high standard. We also have a bit insignificant number of children who have been selected to represent England/ GB in their chosen sports. All the children are fiercely proud of their school. The range of trips is extensive (and pricey) - sports tours to Australia, space camp in USA to name two - the comp I work in offers less trips but still has expensive skiing trip.

My children's school is exceptional- they are very fortunate and they know that. Tge Upper School in our town is also exceptional so it does not have to follow that Uppers are rubbish. All children should have access to high quality education.

As an aside tge problem with all grammar threads is they are always an opportunity to bash the awful pushy parents who over tutor their dullard children to send them to these places