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??

Oh for sure, yes, I agree with you @HerdingBats. If they can tap into higher levels of parental funding, good luck to them. I was merely addressing OP's comment that grammars are poorly funded and non-grammars get all the funding – that's much too simplistic a reading of the situation as @HomeHomeInTheRange has explained.

Sunshine How much of the extra wider education and knowledge might have come from parents in private and grammar school family?

I have had experience of 2 S London comps (in non leafy areas) and have been impressed with the setting and streaming, and also the extra curricular offer.

My main issue compared with my own private education a million years ago is the rigidity of the National Curriculum, and the fact that the GCSE curriculum is expected to academically stretch and educationally equip such a huge range of ability, interest and aspiration, unlike the old O level and CSE system.

Parental support does of course have an impact but I don't think you can underestimate the impact of peer group for young people. For many kids at a comprehensive school they simply could not be seen to join an after school chess or science club. The narrow curriculum is also an issue but at grammar schools because the children are all able they can race through much of this and then have time to explore topics in more depth.

Both comprehensives I have had kids at had top sets of extremely able kids, and they did indeed learn fast and do lots of enrichment.

No shortage of clubs and no peer pressure about joining or not joining. Certainly no stigma about being bright and doing well. Things seem very different in schools today from a generation ago. Honestly not one of my friends have kids who have been bullied for being clever, across about 8 schools that I know of, and Dc say the same of friends experience.

I am not saying it never happens, but there is so much prejudice, fear and suspicion that bright kids will get ‘eaten alive’ in comprehensives.

Mine came out not even slightly nibbled, and are heading for very good degrees at top Unis.

They didn’t need a separate school that kept them physically away from students learning at a different pace or from which kids were excluded on the basis of one test at a immature age. Or that massively favoured the comfortably off.

We live in a grammar school area- I didn’t want that for my DC. I think it makes for a bit of a toxic/competitive environment in Year 6 - lots of kids getting tutored within an inch of their lives at a cost of £30 a session. Kids in school talking about ‘who’s going to the grammar school’ The ones who don’t pass getting upset. My DD came home from school saying she wanted to go for the grammar because if she didn’t apply other kids would think she was stupid! She is very academic and able, and I had to try to explain to her why I don’t think grammars are fair and I wanted her to go to the local school.

My step son is at the grammar and in the beginning made some quite harsh comments about kids at the comprehensive that he had clearly heard from other kids (possibly teachers!) We obviously shot him down and he wouldn’t dream of saying that now! But I do think it makes for quite an elitist environment and attitude. When we talk about the work he is doing it is no different to work my DCs have from the comp, and no different to to work I am setting for my classes at another local comp!

I think it’s not so much that the most able kids are ‘creamed off’ but the ones whose parents who have the time, money and education themselves to be invested in their child’s education are creamed off. Imagine how much better all the local comps would be if every child had to go there.

They didn’t need a separate school that kept them physically away from students learning at a different pace or from which kids were excluded on the basis of one test at a immature age. Or that massively favoured the comfortably off.

Just as well, @HomeHomeInTheRange as I had one at grammar school and one at the local school – and my house isn't big enough to keep them physically separate for 7 years

Kids at grammar schools don't take GCSEs which are somehow only magically available to them! My DC at a not terribly good Secondary Modern did exactly the same set of GCSEs as the one at a very highly rated grammar school.

I went to a grammar school and was very sure that it was not what I wanted for my children. We live in an area with a comprehensive system but two grammar schools in the neighbouring county that we could have applied to. DD2 would almost certainly have passed the 11+ but we did not enter her. I'm very happy with the large and very mixed comprehensive that she attends. The grammar system is hugely divisive and unfair.

I’m not sure why there’s always so much grammar-bashing. Frankly the 11+ isn’t very difficult compared to exams that kids in Asia take (Korea, HK, China etc).
Why not challenge kids in the UK. Quite sick of all this molly coddling. FFS, the UK is a developed country surely we can set expectations high.
And why penalize parents who work hard and hire a tutor for their kids? A bit naive to think that we live in a perfectly egalitarian world. If you’re from a poor family then you’ll have to work harder and find a decent different way to succeed - it’s really just the way the world works. Harsh but true. if you’re lucky you’re bright enough to take the 11+ without tutoring!
Theres nothing wrong with a system that celebrates the brightest and/or hardworking in our country.

Theres nothing wrong with a system that celebrates the brightest and/or hardworking in our country.

@littlebitmermaid There is everything wrong with a system that writes children off at 11, that children from less well off families who can't afford a tutor aren't sitting the 11+ on a level playing field, that our education system is so badly underfunded that children aren't achieving their true potential.

That’s a bit dramatic, I don’t think it’s writing children off. If you’re from a less well off family you can still work hard and give it a shot surely. It’s not all doom and gloom if you don’t get into a grammar.And if you don’t make it you have another go at your GSCEs.
There isn’t a perfect meritocratic system but Grammar schools are the closest that we have at the moment.
If you disagree don’t send your kid. Out of curiosity what is your opinion on inheritance? Are you planning on leaving an inheritance for your kids - surely not, as that wouldn’t be fair to lower income families? Everyone should surely be on an equal playing field right.
The only thing I agree with you on is that we have an education system that is badly underfunded.
Im tired of hypocrisy on this topic. Bet the ones tearing down grammar schools are pretty well heeled and have alternatives for their kids.
I don’t come from a well off background and am glad for grammar schools- gives families like mine a shot.

I know a lot of parents want grammar schools. However those parents in non grammar areas if you have a decent comprehensive in your area that streams you are well off. I am in East Kent the secondary moderns don't stream at all, the better ones have 20% of children gaining decent grades in english and maths. Its all decided on one test at age 10 as others say, if they don't pass their chance of getting good GCSEs plummets its an awful system. It also really favours those from middle class backgrounds who can tutor and buy a house near a good primary school- my experience of grammars is they just entrench privilege.

@starpatch I think you will find that the house price inflation near good schools problem happens also in non grammar areas and indeed extends to comprehensives as well as primaries so the good schools are still out of reach if you can't afford the house prices.

In our area it is all about religion as the good secondaries are all faith based so you get families suddenly attending church a couple of years before school applications need to be made. We are the wrong religion for all good faith schools near us and so the grammar was the only good option.

Mumski yes see what you mean. My son fortunately has passed the Kent test for September- I visited 5 secondary moderns and a faith secondary modern (12 miles away) was indeed our only decent option if he hadn't passed.

As others have answered, @Delectable, the ban on the creation of new grammars stems from the 1960s with the move to form comprehensive schools out of the previous mix of grammars and secondary moderns; many LEAs carried through the process swiftly (fully in Wales) but some dragged their heels; hence today's geographically messy outcome (in England).

Whilst 'Yes Minster' is parody, it is actually a very good insight into the dysfunctional working of government policy. I rewatch the episodes (and re-read the accompanying books) at regular intervals because many episodes are relevant to today's politics!

@thing47 makes the key point on this thread; academic and non-academic development is not linear - whether at school or in the workplace. Better to have processes that allow for that and not on 'one shot' opportunities, like the 11+.

To pick up @RampantIvy's point about the Progress 8 scores of grammars vs comprehensives, I have not seen large scale studies on this. However, in my part of the country, a fair number of the best performing comprehensive (all with mixed rather than 'leafy' catchments) have better Progress 8 scores than the nearest grammars schools (these being sufficiently distant not to impact on school selection behaviour by local parents in our area).

This suggests that (some) grammars take in bright cohorts but add little academic value. It probably means natural academic progression has been 'pulled forward' from Y7-9 into Y4-6 and that seems to rely heavily on access to private tutoring, as attested by the threads concerning 11+ strategising and anguish that populate Mumsnet. You could argue this is not good use of limited public money.

By contrast, a well-run comprehensive streams students and allows for movement up and down sets across subjects. My DC, all late-bloomers academically, benefitted from this. Obviously comprehensives in large conurbations can be situated in areas with challenges socially and economically but resource targeting (which already happens to a limited extent) might be a better and fairer way of addressing the issue rather than creating (or indeed persisting with) grammars.

Finally (long post this morning, I know!), @TizerorFizz makes some interesting suggestions that grammars might have been 'captured' by the middle classes in a way not envisaged back in the 1950s. Again, I have not seen large scale analysis on this but David Kynaston's excellent books on post-War Britain are rich in social data and his analysis suggests that, sadly, working class children (especially working class girls) were most definitely 'crowded out' of the grammar system.

This is very accurate.

I live in a grammar school area. The grammar schools take the brightest kids (AND the kids who aren’t particularly bright but who have aspirational parents with the time and energy to coach them endlessly), the faith school takes the religious families, the private schools obviously take the most well off children…

And so if you are a non-religious hardworking quiet child without lots of money who didn’t quite pass the grammar exam, you find yourself in the school all the best teachers avoid, where all of the behavioural problem children are funnelled, plus all the other children are from families which are not rich / aspirational / religious / naturally bright.

The grammar area ‘comprehensive’ is not comprehensive, it is a place where quiet hard working children get beaten up, and I’d rather move house than let my child go there 😔

The grammar schools are wonderful for children who think fast and work hard, and it lets them focus without distraction from slower/disruptive learners. As someone who was picked on at school for getting As, I have a lot of sympathy with the need for grammar schools. But it has a nasty effect on the school that takes the bottom of the pile.

And the worst bit is that those children know that they’re at the bottom of the pile. 😭

But he will be bored and unhappy without a peer group or does that not matter either?

A good comprehensive school will set children. DD’s school set for English and maths from year 7, so they were with other children of similar ability. It makes complete sense to do this.

@TizerorFizz makes some valid points. I feel that some of the parents on here of DC who went to grammar school are looking down from their ivory towers and only seeing the negatives of secondary modern/comprehensive schools. We don’t have grammar schools round here. DD aced her GCSEs and A levels and went on to achieve a first class degree in a STEM subject at an RG university – all from a comprehensive education.

a lot of people who object to grammar schools do so not because grammar schools aren't good, but because of the impact of grammar schools on those children who don't get in.

This hits the nail on the head beautifully @greatestsnowonearth.

I've never understood the argument that secondary Moderns are bad become their top 10 have been taken away.

Why is one.school purportedly bad just because of the existent of another? It doesn't make sense.

Most comps stream as well so where is this amazing egalitarian experience of mixing the least able pupils with the most able?

I wish the focus around grammar would move away and look at what's wrong with comps /secondary Moderns.

We are not in a grammar area but near one.
Our comps are supposed to be outstanding and yet the tops sets are sparse.
They're still failing on great destinations.

They also seem to lack general aim and purpose and having had a child in that top set I know she was only good because she's of sound ability not because the school properly supported her and I knew student's with ehcp also failed in the lower sets..

The only ones it's seemed to suit were middle ability DC who had some movements up or down in sets.

I can't see anything wrong with having more grammar that support children who need a faster pace and more schools that specialise in Sen to support them.

Being mixed does nothing for anyone.
And my observations are people are clannish and stick to what and who they already know!

@Floofyduffypuddy In grammar school areas it is more than the top 10%, more like 20%+.So you have taken away the whole of the top set effectively.

This can mean that the remaining school doesn't have sufficient pupil of interest/ability to run things like single sciences or 2 MFLs at GCSE, so the few children who could have done them miss out.
Similarly the very good mathematician who is also dyslexic can't make it to the grammar but finds few peers amongst top set maths.
Before you get to the tutoring pressure and marking children as failures at 10.

Good comprehensives can be good for all levels. If your comp isn't good that is failure of leadership not of the comp system per se.

@sunshine7981 .. what you are describing there is parental influence coming through the DC.

@TeenDivided

Then the school needs to create the environment of aspirations to get dc to take an interest in mfl or science.

It's all very latent, inactive, waiting for others to do something!

Not necessarily. I used to live in a grammar area (Tiffin) and know several pupils who didn't get in despite being super bright. The reason? No coaching. They went on to ace their GCSES and beyond. I personally know one who went to Cambridge, another to Bristol. So bright kids do go to comps. And often parents may disagree with grammar and have faith their children will be ok.

Exactly faff.

You may get the next Shakespeare's at secondary Modern who didn't get into grammar purely on maths skills.

I think it's a bit of blame game.

No something like separate sciences or 2 MFL is likely to be primarily about ability.

Just because people don't pass the 11+ doesn't mean they don't want to learn.
But languages are hard (due to our rubbish funding/teaching at primary) and 3 separate sciences has massive content, quite a lot of which is conceptually hard.

Why should an average MC tutored child get a place at grammar due to having organised well off parents, above a brighter poorer child whose parents couldn't afford tutoring?

Tiffin is super selective isn't it?
Super selective areas are less of an issue as they only take a few pupils from each remaining school.
The issue is more with Kent / Bucks which are still fully selective.

@LeCarre .. it's an age old problem of how to motivate dx who don't want to be educated!

A lot of disengaged DC will actually have very valid reasons, usually Sen that's undetected and unsupported.

Their self esteem and interest in school is already crushed by the time they leave primary and probably with "label's".
They know very well at a comp that they are struggling to engage and with streams in school it already shows them are they top or bottom set.

That has far far more bearing on them day to day than what's happening in other schools!!

It's all absolute nonsense.