Grammar Schools

I’m also a product of the 3 tier system, although failed the 11+ ended up at secondary modern, they were new then, after, further education college. Did A levels, (was only 16,) there as well as what is now business administration, law, accountantcy, the whole spectrum needed to run a business. This has been brilliant for me, obviously all manual stuff, ended up with my own business etc. by the time I had my children, I was in the UK, dismal, 1976/7, I returned t9 Southern Africa, shocked at the UK. A very sorry situation.

Iwent to a girls grammar school in the 50s and that helped a lot in my adult life I think. I saw that Prince Harry visited the YMCA in South Ealing and was intrigued where that could be as the only YMCA from my youth was in Ealing Broadway. I went online and it turns out it us now housed in the building that was my old grammar school. But ,oh dear, my old headmistress would have hated for the area to have been called South Ealing.

Grammars ghettoise the comps. Making them fail.

coco Your last paragraph said it all. I admit it, as ayoung Mum I wanted the best for my daughter, and to turn it on his head a young girl from a teenage Mother with dreams and ambition, a hard working Mother who who was told would get nowhere in life, who has a good job and is mortgage free. Yes I admit the Grammar system worked for us. Yes I do believe this girl not from a privileged back ground was helped from where she went to school, but this successful young woman got good results, has a good work ethic and is sought after in her field.

If a Grammer school with all her abilities and hard work gave her an advantage then good luck to her. She was on a level playing field with more privaliged ,wealthy families, but I repeat she got where she is in ability the system made it easier for her.

I fully support the Grammar system

On ability.

I think some people have a very old-fashioned view of the grammar system!
My GC live in a town with grammar schools. All the secondary modern schools in that town and the adjoining one achieve excellent results, have thriving sixth forms and send a good proportion of students to university, including Russell Group and Oxbridge.
The grammar schools take a large proportion of children from independent schools and in the state primaries, coaching for the 11+ is common from Year 2. The proportion of pupils on Free School Meals is tiny.
My GDs are at the local academy which has a very mixed catchment. The eldest has received excellent teaching and is on course for very high grades in nine GCSE subjects. The younger one passed the 11+, but turned down a grammar school place to join her sibling at the academy. She also loves the school and is making excellent progress.

Whatever school your child goes to they will be worse off soon as this government's cuts bite. You can find out how much a school will lose here schoolcuts.org.uk/?link_id=1&can_id=9829bb41bfffd3f4f3af96114a8cf8e2&source=email-bad-news-its-worse-than-we-predicted&email_referrer=email_518798___subject_669656&email_subject=bad-news-its-worse-than-we-predicted

I passed my 11 plus and went to grammar school from a working class family. I had a fantastic education that made me equal to anyone. I can see the argument that it wasn't fair on the rest of my school mates who went on to secondary modern school. However, it offered the opportunity for a working class kid to get as good an education as kids whose parents could afford to send them to private school. In fact my grammar school had loads of rich kids trying to pass their 11 plus as it had such a good reputation.

So what do we do now send all working class kids to the same school? Rich kids will still go privately and poorer kids will be denied the opportunities I was given. Not sure what the answer is tbh.

I went to a Grammar School where it was drummed into us that we were the top 8% of the country so we were lucky to be there. I lost all confidence because I was at the bottom of that 8% and just left to sink.
I have nothing against comprehensive education per se, 5 of our children went through it and although I am not convinced they were taught to the best of their ability, they have all done reasonably well.
Our 6th child started off in the state system but after 2 terms, we removed him and sent him to a Public School. It has taken every penny we have but the difference is amazing. It isn't the teaching, it is the whole ethos. Bad behaviour is just not accepted. They do have kids with ADHD, Autism where support is put in place but they do not allow disruption to the lessons.
Interestingly, my son has retained friendships from his state primary school (which was brilliant) and the difference in those friends compared to his Public School friends is amazing. Their conversations are just so different, one lot very mature, discussing real world problems, the other more childish, no interest in politics, community etc. Most of his state school friends have ambition but not the will to succeed which means as they head to A levels they are dropping like flies. In my son's school, universities have been chosen, heads are down to the revision and they are gearing up for the exams by retaining their sport but stopping the partying. All the State School kids in my son's friendship group are every bit as capable as my son but the work ethic has pretty much diverged since they left Primary School.
I don't think this is the fault of State School teachers. You cannot tie their hands, have them demonised by parents and hammer their enthusiasm for the job into oblivion by giving them such a mixed bag of children with behaviour issues and expect them to achieve miracles.

Where we live the 3 tier system is selective like this; 2 Grammar schools with entrance exams, 2 church schools with family church attendance requirements and sundry comprehensives, or academies as one proudly boasts. The biggest problem is behaviour. All the schools seem to have bullying as part of the school life, but the comprehensives seem to have more poor behaviour in class which affects learning for all pupils as I know from my children’s experience. I wonder if behaviour would be better if there was no choice, or would the behaviour in all schools simply deteriorate to the lowest standard?

We still have grammars in our area. That fact however pushes up house prices - people move to the area, which is expensive anyway, because of the schools, and there's a lot of tutoring for the 11+.
So sadly, whether your parents can afford to buy or rent in the area and pay for a tutor, is going to be a factor. The private local primaries give children a lot of practice in the kind of tests they'll encounter in the 11 plus, and I've been told that the state primaries either don't or won't on principle, because they think it shouldn't be necessary.

So that's an added disadvantage for the children of parents who either can't, or choose not to, pay school fees.

As an ex-teacher it has been fascinating reading these posts. I have grandchildren in all types of school ( except private which we couldn’t afford even if we wanted - and their very existence prevents a truly “comprehensive” system)
I believe that my grandchildren are all doing reasonably well because of good encouraging parental support.
Bad behaviour often stems from poverty and poor parenting and social deprivation. As one 11year old lad was heard to remark “Why should I bother to learn so I get a job, my Dad says I can go on Benefits like him”!

I think that is the point Witzend. The day of the grammar school as a way of gaining educational advantages for children from poorer families has pretty much gone. Tutoring for the 11+ is the norm, uniforms can be hugely more expensive and I know that some grammar schools ask for termly parental contributions. I think a lot of the children who attend would probably have gone to independent schools in other areas.
It seems that some people think that comprehensive schools still favour mixed-ability classes. I think this is very rare these days. The vast majority set for most subjects and the top sets will be effectively equivalent to a "grammar" stream.
Where I think there is a growing problem is with the impact of the "Gove" 11-16 curriculum on children of lower-ability. The difficulties and frustrations of accessing the demanding GCSE curriculum will undoubtedly impact on the behaviour of some children.
Vocational education is in urgent need of reform. I am not holding my breath.

Scotland did away with grammar schools (although some remain in name only) many decades ago and has a fully comprehensive education system.

The Scottish education system has been recognised almost everywhere as superior to that of England, which is probably also the reason fewer children are privately educated in Scotland, 4.5% as opposed to 7% in England. Sad to say, under the SNP, Scotland's education system is on a downward trajectory but that is nothing to do with the lack of grammar schools.

My own four children have been through the pre-John Swinney Scottish system (although my dds both had a modicum of private education when we were posted abroad) and all have done very well, with two of them now university professors, another forging a career for themself in public service and the youngest soon to be taking finals in medicine. It's hard to see how grammar schools could have improved on that.

Both Dh and I are grammar school-educated but I don't think it conferred any special advantages on us. My own grammar school concentrated on the 10% 'creme de la creme' of pupils, which I wasn't amongst, so I merely bumbled along in the background with no one ever paying me much attention.

It seems that some people think that comprehensive schools still favour mixed-ability classes. I think this is very rare these days. The vast majority set for most subjects and the top sets will be effectively equivalent to a "grammar" stream.
My child was in the top set. Just because you are badly behaved doesn't mean you're going to be in the lower sets. If I hadn't had video and audio footage from several different lessons to back up my son's tales of woe, I wouldn't have believed it could be so bad and I am an ex-teacher and youth worker.

I can't see that the comprehensive schools have really been a good answer. Many inner city schools are now Academies who seem to be run to make money.
Many of the pupils are not interested in being educated and I have seen one of my grandchildren lose all confidence and self esteem by being one of a minority in her Academy.
She was always quiet and caused no trouble but feeling unable to cope she began to go truant and this has led to an intelligent and sensitive child being completely held back.
Her Academy was also huge, I cannot remember the numbers but worked out is was approx double the size of total pupils I went to school with.
Comprehensive schools vary too much.Many are not of a high standard.
As someone who loved books I was glad to go to Grammar School rather than the local Secondary Modern.

I was lucky enough to pass for the grammar school in the 1950s. Both my parents worked in factories, had left school at 14 themselves and we lived in a council house on the wrong side of town. My parents were so proud of me, and I remember they had to get a loan from the Prudential to pay for the uniform (£30 was obviously too much to just cough up out of their wages). Now you can pick up basic white polo style shirts for £1.99!

I had a fantastic education and, more importantly, it gave me a love of learning throughout life- I am now a successful, committed pub quizzer - and I ended up training as a teacher, but could have chosen any career really on the arts side. Now I live in a lovely, expensive area of the UK and own my property outright. I don't feel I could have achieved that as easily without my grammar school background. My husband was also from the same background and felt we had been given a wonderful opportunity. We were both the first of our families to ever obtain qualifications and enter a profession.

In my town, there was also a Comprehensive school and a Technical College as well as several Secondary Moderns. My dad said there was no way I was going to the local secondary modern as it was in such a bad area catchment area - we couldn't chose where we lived- and said that he was willing to work two jobs to send me to a private school but, luckily, he didn't need to do that! He thought education was so important, and that it was the way out of the working class, council house rut that his ancestors had found themselves trapped in.

Just because not all children are clever enough to go to a grammar school or would benefit from that type of education, it shouldn't mean the brightest children in this country should be prevented from going. My BinLs both went into manual trades (one from a secondary modern background, the other from a comprehensive) and actually did very well too as they have both set up their businesses, but neither of them would ever open a book for pleasure or go on a 'cultural' type holiday. That doesn't make them bad or lesser people, but I feel their attitudes have shaped by their schooling, which they saw as something to be endured rather than enjoyed!

It really annoys me when some people say they don't approve of selection or private education but then they, themselves, chose to live on a nice private housing estate; that's what I call being a hypocrite. It is a socialist mentality which thinks anything elitist must be bad However if they won the lottery, I think the majority would buy some swanky house and send their children to private schools!!

I do feel for the children at comprehensive schools when they show great aptitude as they struggle against those who aren't interested or disruptive. In my day if you didn't pass to enter grammar school, if you after two years at secondary showed potential you were moved to grammar to allow you to flourish. The lack of teachers and funding is a massive problem which together with the increase in population and decrease in respect from pupils for staff and other young people is ruining education. Don't get me started on the constant testing in primary schools!

My DGD is at an excellent comprehensive school, far far better than any available when DC went to secondary school and offering far more subjects and opportunities to follow their interests than the academically successful grammar school I went to.

DGD's school pursues excellence and they have enough high flyers and highly motivated children in the school for them not to be distracted or intimidated by those less academic.

However, and this is and will always be the weakness of the comrehensive system, the school is so good because, while there are several small area of deprivation within the catchment area, the side of town it is situated in is the wealthier side of the town and all the secondary schools there do well. On the other side of the town where the situation is reversed, significant areas of quality housing, but large areas of deprivation, results are not as good.

I went to a girls grammar school which was not only a good shcool it was luxuriously built. Parquet flooring, super gym and shower rooms, extensive playing fields, well equipped dining room and kitchen and domestic science room.
I was not so happy there but left being able to swim and play tennis and with a good knowledge of science and maths.

Years later I met someone at an evening do who had a high job in education and he asked me where I had been to school. I told him and he said it would cost a lot of money to be educated there nowadays.

I now live in Germany and in Germany's power point area, regarding jobs and opportunities etc. We have here a three level education system and all GCs are at grammar schools.
The local government refused to close them and comprehensive schools are there as an alternative.
But technical education takes place after 16 together with economics or social sciences. Students can choose at 16.
Entry into these colleges is open to comprehensive students at 16 if they have good marks and particularly boys benefit from being first in the comprehensive school.

Depends on the school and quality of teaching. Both of ours went to a comprehensive, as did their partners, all four are high flying professionals who travel the world.

My children both attended a comprehensive school. One is a GP, and the other a highly paid executive in the private sector. Both are well-rounded, contributing members of society and good parents. As a family we are totally opposed to selective education, especially if it involves giving up on children at 11. or, at the very least, limiting their options.

Opinions vary depending on which school you went to.
Myself and my OH bothe went to secondary schools,OC went to a northern Comp! But all did very well and continued to Uni.
Both me and my OH despite a poor education made up for it,I went to Uni as a mature student,OH did on the job training. The only handicap was that we didn't earn decent money until we were in our late 30s,which meant we lagged behind the ex grammar kids of the same age.
Despite being in our late 60 s now, we still feel aggreaved about our poor education.

When Labour did the half-hearted, shambolic getting rid of grammar schools, they should have abolished private/public schools, too. Comprehensive idea was never going to work without that.
Everyone would send their children to local school, like they do in France. Finance it all well. Get the locals, rich and poor involved. I went to a grammar. My kids to a comprehensive. Mine was better because smaller and in a different era.

I went to a grammar school and loved it, the education and the behaviour of pupils was excellent. My year was a three form entry so the school, although it covered 11-18 years, was just the right size for staff and pupils to know each other. I would have been lost in a huge school.
Those who went to grammar school passed the 11+ entirely on their own ability, no tutoring in those days. When the city went comprehensive the school changed overnight. The daughter of one of my grammar school friends was there as a grammar school pupil when the school became comprehensive. She said the discipline and behaviour went downhill immediately with the arrival of the secondary modern pupils. Some of the grammar school staff stayed on but some found the range of ability a difficult challenge. Others moved to the sixth form college. Many teachers had liked teaching 11-18 and following pupils' progress right through their school life. Sadly the downhill trend continued and the school eventually closed but its solid, dignified and well designed buildings have been taken over by the nearby private school.

We live just outside the catchment area for a high achieving comprehensive. This school creams off from other schools pupils whose parents can afford to move into the catchment area (inevitably house prices are high).
The comprehensive system is not always fairer and giving children an equal chance.

Nor would more grammar schools necessarily be fair, in that children with parents who could afford tutoring would be at an advantage.

The ideal in my opinion would be well-disciplined comprehensives everywhere that are streamed to give each band of ability the best possible education.