Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

[Delectable]

Everyone I speak to about schools speak highly of Grammars. They move house for Grammars and speak proudly of their children's Grammars.

I watched an Episode of Yes Minister and when asked why the govt abolish Grammars Sir Humphrey the civil servant said it's so the govt didn't have to pay Grammar teachers more for the results they got compared to other schools so it was presented as an "all teachers are remunerated fairly" scenario.

So I've been wondering why did the govt ban the creation of new grammars??

Your DD's grammar could presumably choose to set for maths if it wanted.
So the best girls at maths would be all together.
But the school doesn't.
So presumably it feels that the best at maths don't all need to be together?

(Just glad I ended up In Hants not Kent!)

@Neurodiversitydoctor

I agree he was not well served by the "teaching to test" for the yr 6 SAT s (X3). However why not push ahead ? Particularly in maths where little maturity is needed, just attention and cognition.

Because there is so much maths that isn't on the curriculum.

By pushing ahead you potentially end up bored later. Whereas by exploring interesting but non core topics you can enrich the subject knowledge.

I understand the theory I happen to particularly agree with it. A bright DC will much through maths topics like a hungry catapillar.

It's similar I guess to English Lit.

If you have a bright avid reader, you wouldn't go out of you way to make sure they read An Inspector Calls at age 11 if you knew it was on the GCSE syllabus. You would give them a wider range of books consciously avoiding those they would study later (if you didn't want them to be bored later).

@Neurodiversitydoctor

Something which benefits the top 10% (or whatever percentage) at the cost of disadvantaging the other 90% is not a model we should be encouraging

It doesn't disadvantage the other 90% though does it ? It disadvantages the next 20% who have fewer opportunities. The least able 10% are likely to be getting additional support regardless.

If you strip out the top whatever percentage and send them to a different school, you disadvantage all the children who are left in the alternative school because they don't have the benefit of having the brightest children there.

Secondary Moderns don't have to 'fail' their brightest students (the 20% that just didn't get in to the local Grammar school. The ones that PPs have claimed are the most negatively impacted.

Here in South Trafford the local high school, Wellington, gets excellent results.

For family friends the older DS went to Grammar with my DS. The DD went to Wellington and did better in her A Levels than her brother.

She would have been 'average' in a proper local comp but at the secondary modern she was at the nurtured top.

A close friend had a similar complaint about his popular Manchester comprehensive. The top sets were nurtured (grammar equivalent stream); the bottom sets got lots of attention. He said that he felt that he was in the forgotten middle.

It's similar I guess to English Lit
It's really not that's sort of the point really.

@Neurodiversitydoctor
You should have lived in Bucks then. She would have been a shoe in!

I have seen countless DC do very well at secondary moderns. Their parents very much support them. Why does anyone think they are all disadvantaged? And doomed to failure. These schools can have 30% high achievers and very many go to university. The progress 8 scores are good. So the DC are not failed. But not every school isn’t great. I also know some comps are far worse.

You are not going to turn the average child into a top 10% child. So we need schools where all DC thrive and parents need to chill out.

I think that ambition can make a huge difference regarding employment. Having parents in a well paid job helps with ambition but not always. DC follow their own ideas I tend to find and not everyone wants money!

There is research that shows less well off students at Oxbridge are far more likely to go into lower paid work. They must know higher paid work is within their grasp but decide it’s not for them. That’s surely ok!?

Why does anyone think they are all disadvantaged?
Well of course they're disadvantaged! They're disadvantaged by dint of being in schools which are missing the top 25% (or whatever) of children in their area, who are at another school. That isn't the same as saying they're being failed, and the disadvantage can be somewhat lessened by a school's efforts, parental involvement and of course a child's own hard work but they are disadvantaged in a way that they wouldn't be if all the children were at the same school.

And let's face it, if nobody thought that grammar schools were an advantage, they wouldn't send their children to grammar schools, would they? It's flies in the face of reason to argue otherwise.

@thing47
According to quite a few people there are plenty of bright children not selected for grammars. Ones that go on to get firsts from uni etc.

I can actually see that working at school without the brightest can be a huge advantage. Your child might be top! They might actually thrive. They won’t have the continual pressure of being not as good.

I think you over state what parents think about grammars. I know few who have had this angst about grammars or non grammars. Two neighbours were awful with their DC but they basically have screws loose and average DC! As was proved by exam results! The others I know who embraced the secondary schools had DC who did extremely well. Boast worthy on MN. The ones who were pushed (2 of whom got in at 12 and 1 at 13) did far worse. Snd definitely were not happy. Parents are to blame and they should know better. But some cannot bear to be seen as not having the brightest DC.

There are also substantial appeals to get into the best secondary moderns too!

In theory, kids at secondary moderns aren't being disadvantaged at all. The idea is that both sets of children get an education to match their needs - a faster paced environment with more academic subject options for the grammar school kids, and a wider range of subjects including more practical and vocational options (alongside the core traditional subjects) for the non grammar school kids. Teachers recruited for their skills with different groups of learners. The more academic of the non-grammar kids being in the top sets in their school for the more academic subjects, and not having to compare themselves to the top 25%. The less academic kids getting targeted preparation for practical apprenticeships.

In practice, it doesn't often seem to work like that. Grammar passes reflect social as well as academic divisions, due partly to tutoring and partly to the generally greater ability of wealthier parents to support their children's education from a young age. Social, behavioural and SEN challenges are disproportiinately concentrated in secondary moderns, which then find it harder to recruit and retain good staff. Falling rolls in the least popular schools lead to massive budgetary problems, putting further downwards pressure on performance. Some secondary moderns do manage to thrive, but lots don't.

Erm... yes grammars are absolutely brilliant fir those that are coached and have the means to pass the 11+. What about those that don't pass?

This is an interesting thread. I don’t really have a view on whether grammar schools are good or bad. I do know of a secondary (in a town close to where I grew up) where they have completely removed all setting and streaming because the head thinks that even that is quite bad.

I do think it’s quite weird that grammars are only available to families in certain counties. I know that if I really felt extremely strongly, I could move to Kent or Buckinghamshire. However that would mean quite a major uproot.

I would have loved to have gone to a grammar school. My school was good in many ways but, particularly in the lower part before we were put in sets, you really noticed some of the teachers’ lack of ambition. Once I was in sets, it was a lot easier.

Someone unthread said that it’s nice that children mix with lots of people from different backgrounds. I see the theory behind this but my friends all ended up being top set girls with floppy hair who played musical instruments. I think I have got more insight into the lives of those with different backgrounds from MN than from attending my comprehensive.

I can actually see that working at school without the brightest can be a huge advantage. Your child might be top! They might actually thrive. They won’t have the continual pressure of being not as good.

Totally agree with you that some children might benefit from being a 'big fish in a small pond' and others might do better without the pressure of a grammar school environment. I just feel that all these children could be accommodated within a genuine comprehensive where you can more easily move up and down between sets – I'm not convinced the grammar school/secondary modern split is the answer.

According to quite a few people there are plenty of bright children not selected for grammars. Ones that go on to get firsts from uni etc

Indeed. My DD would fit this category. And in fact while you say it isn't possible to turn an average child into a top 10 child, DD's 11+ score was decidedly average but she now holds a first-class Masters from the second-ranked university in the UK (for her field of study). But I have tried to avoid specifics because I'm trying to make more generalised points regarding our school systems and structures rather than the nitty-gritty of individual children's performance.

I've still yet to hear a good argument why a grammar school/secondary modern structure is better than a comprehensive one, other than for the minority of children at the grammar school.

I think there is also a somewhat ludicrous division over “wealth” on this thread too. My ironing lady paid for tuition for her DD. Didn’t work but she totally thrived at her school. Plenty of others I know cut back on expenditure to pay for tuition. The bigger issue is parents being conned to think DC who are average will pass with tuition. They won’t.

Do DC reality keep looking over their shoulders at the DC in the grammars? No. I don’t believe they do. Most make the absolute best of school. My ironing lady’s DD got on and achieved highly at her school and got 103 in the 11 plus. My friends DD got a first at uni with a similar 11 plus score. However these DDs would have struggled at a grammar. Both came from supportive homes. Secondary modern is not equivalent to failure. Of course DC can go and get a masters! They have dropped subjects they don’t like and found what they are good at. Masters don’t necessarily go to people who are the most all round intelligent. They are given to people who want to do them and don’t want to get a job just yet. Or want academia. Many hugely bright people don’t have them and don’t need them. But if it floats your boat, then that’s great. But plenty from secondary schools can get them.

I’m also mystified that people think Bucks secondary moderns are somehow full of low achievers who are useless. Why feel sorry for them? They mostly go to good schools and plenty out perform the beloved comps! Why Wouk’s anyone not want a secondary with 30% high achieving DC? In some comps that figure is 10%. How is that making the comp better? Comps in some areas fail more DC than good secondary moderns do. That is an undeniable fact.

Comps in some areas fail more DC than good secondary moderns do. That is an undeniable fact.

I think you have to be very careful in making that type of statement, because you must match the socio-economic background of the families attending each school - and of the wider community - before comparing the schools.

A secondary modern in a wealthy part of Bucks, within easy commuting distance of places of good employment may look good vs a comprehensive in a deprived seaside or ex-mining town with poor transport links. However that is nothing to do with the school type, and everything to do with the socio-economic background of the families who attend the school and the surrounding community.

It also has a lot to do with the quality of the schools and progress 8. It’s not just about attainment. Also not all of Bucks is from a higher socio economic background either.

It’s worth stating that I would never seek to see more grammars. There was a big move to change from comps to grammars in the MK area in the 80s and 90s. It failed. So changing what schools are and his they have evolved it a big deal. When MK was developed the grammars already there were scrapped. They and the new schools were comps. Great decision. Except hundreds of DC now take the 11 plus exams for Bucks grammars. Strange what people want.

Winchester comps are fantastic. It must be fab not to have to worry about 11+. I quite like Hampshires approach (don't live there 😞.)

@Reallycantbesarsed

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

This makes me incredibly cross. Why are only clever children thought of as ‘wanting to learn’ ?

@EssexCat
If you read my posts you will see plenty want to learn in the other schools. People just see negatives at the non grammar schools that are a tiny minority. It’s very silly. As I have said, plenty of DC in non grammar schools are well supported by their families snd of course they want to learn.

@NinaProudman2022

I have one DC at a GS (20 odd miles away) and one at a local well performing city centre comp (20 minutes walk away). They both choose their school themselves.

I prefer the GS hands down no comparison and no complaints whatsoever. Also lots of nice kids but depends on the child. The comp has a lot of who seem to clamber over one another to try and be popular. Dress code out of school and school uniform adapted to be chavs and slags.

Chavs and slags?!? You do know that you are talking about children???

@cantkeepawayforever
There’s also the issue that we have had comps for 50 years now or longer. If the parents of DC are not in a higher socio economic group then maybe it’s not meant to be? They just might not be able to do better. Someone still has to do the less well paid work in this country and the schools their dc go to should be better. Everyone deserves good schools.

The issue on threads like this is that what is right for an individual given the local and family circumstances is not necessarily right for the majority.

We make decisions over where to send our children based on our own unique circumstances and the schools that are available.

As a parent I have chosen a grammar school 20m away for my 2 DS. All our good local school are voluntary aided and have admission criteria based on religion. My DS' are the wrong religion and would not of got a place in one of these schools. The alternatives locally are shocking. Both boys are thriving and are proud of the school and community they are part of. We are not in a grammar school area and there are only 4 genuine grammar schools in our LEA. Parents choose whether or not to put DC in for the 11+.

However I do not support the ideology behind full grammar school areas which really do result in segregated schools which disadvantage many pupils.
However the alternative is not always ideal. Whilst comp areas will claim not to segregate you do get segregation by religion and by wealth as access to good schools is limited by house prices.

At the end of the day I have seen a lot of evidence that the real predictor of success in school is parental support expectations and involvement with efforts by the school system to circumvent that only having limited influence.

@Mumski45
Why are the DC in the non grammar schools disadvantaged by that? I can show you results in schools like this that would make many parents jump for joy where there are “shocking” schools. You have chosen to go 20 miles to separate your DCs from a shocking school and presumably shocking children. Other parents make similar choices. It’s very hypocritical of you to say it’s ok for you but not others. Are the DC in your shocking schools not disadvantaged by that? At least most Bucks schools are good! None are “shocking”. I guess that’s the problem with looking firm on other kids who are less fortunate. Not clever enough snd not the right religion. They are truly disadvantaged and you say they are “shocking” and luckily walked away. But you are no different from anyone else. The religious schools select and so does the grammar. You ARE in a selective area. It’s just controlled by churches.