Grammar Schools

Septimia

Good for him! I don’t think anyone in the history of my school went to university, it was more a matter of whether you’d like to sew shirts or pyjamas, and most of the boys were destined to work on the land, the really bright ones may have gotten apprenticeships

I went to a grammar school and was certainly not among the high flyers there. Nonetheless I applied for university and went for interviews at a couple. At one, I realised that the interviewee after me was someone I'd met briefly so we travelled home together. He went to the local Secondary Mod.
He got a place at uni, I didn't.

To the enormous disappointment of my dad, I failed the 11+ my family’s humiliation was complete, when my cousin, who they’d always considered to be a bit thick, passed!

I quite enjoyed my time at the secondary Modern, but it was a dreadful school really, it was due for closure, the big shiny comprehensive was being built, and teachers were leaving in droves, I left at 15 to do O levels at college

I agree with those of you who say the Grammar Schools were great, but for every child getting excellent opportunities, three or four aren’t, and 10 is way too early to write children off

I totally agree with you Coco. When I passed the Eleven Plus, I was totally ostracised by many of my friends who didn't pass and I could see exactly how they felt - written off and excluded from professional careers. I went on to have a career in journalism and then education but worked to help those adults who had often failed their 11 plus or had done poorly first time around. The successes those people achieved in later life very often changed their lives completely when they discovered that they were very far from the children who had been labelled as low achievers because of a few marks on an intelligence test.

My four children all went to comprehensive schools and all four have achieved excellent degrees with the youngest graduating tomorrow. It's a shame however to see the once excellent comprehensive school they attended now being placed in special measures. An entrepreneur, trying to make it into a quasi-grammar school by turning it into an academy, has only succeeded in destroying everything it once was by trying to impose 'traditional learning methods' - whatever they are.

A good education for all and for all abilities is a right and not a privilege which turns on the results of an IQ test.

As an ex council house kid living in a run down part of the country in the 1950s, with poorly educated parents who left school at 14 and who both worked in factories as there was no other choice, it was my privilege to pass to go to my local grammar school. It changed my life and made my family very proud and I have done well since, now owning a nice home outright with a good lifestyle in a lovely part of the country.

My two children both went to comprehensive schools and had a rubbish education even though they managed to be in the higher sets for most subjects. They also had one year in a posh private school when we lived abroad, paid for by the company my husband worked for . I think there is a place for private, grammar, technical schools and GOOD comprehensives. One type of school shouldn't need to exclude the other.

I assume all the socialists who are against private education and selection wouldn't be so hypocritical as to want to live in the private sector in a nicer part of town thenselves!!

I just wanted to point out, in case the questioner is from the USA, that grammar schools in the UK are completely different from US grammar schools.

A UK “grammar school” is a selective secondary school, for pupils aged 11–18. Selection is theoretically by academic ability but in practice (thanks to coaching etc.) largely by class / parental wealth. Most grammar schools are state schools, although a few private schools have “grammar” in their name too. In public discourse, when “grammar schools” are discussed, usually it is the state grammar schools that are being referred to.

We we must agree to differ JohnD, my beliefs are opposed to yours.
Not all towns allowed a 13 plus. In any event, the system confined many bright youngsters from age 11, just plain wrong.

In 1949 I failed my ii plus but I was determined to go to Grammar School and worked extra hard and fulfilled my wish when i got a second chance.
Later in life I did a spell of teaching in a secondary school and it was obvious that many very bright students did not ffulfil their potential because they saw others gaining points for poorer work and too the attitude - why work hard when you get through just fooling about - and standards fell.

Iam64 I'd never thought of it before but , yes, many of the people I know who did degrees in later life were in the 'caring' professions, teachers, social workers, probation officers, and therapists. All now retired or about to retire leaving a collapsing system.

Absolutely agree Trisher. Dads work meant I went to 7 primary schools, made worse because there was no consistency as no national curriculum. I’d no idea what an11 plus was. Five days after arriving in year 6 in the seventh school, we sat the 11 plus. The head at the secondary mod I arrived at 2nd one in 2 months) recommended me for grammar school. My 11 plus scores would have got me into grammar if the town where I sat it, I’d theyd had more places for girls. Various moves conspired to mean I went to the FE college to do a secretarial diploma.
I was lucky , I did A levels at a different FE college. That got me onto a course at Manchester poly and on into a good career. My training was sponsored by the home office as I worked with offenders.
Those opportunities are no longer available to mature students, unless they can afford £70,000 debt to fund their training. No wonder we have shortages in teaching, social work, nursing, etc. All career choices fir nature students who bring s wealth of life and work experience into their workplace.
Sorry for such s long personal post. I get so cross at the complacency shown by some posters

I too went to a grammar school- it was expected of me. I came from a working class family that believed in education. But now knowing what a lottery the system was I completely disapprove of it. I know a number of people who left school at 15 but ended up doing degrees in later life. What really restricts education now in this country is the lack of proper spending on it. Funding has been cut at every level and so the problems of society are brought into schools by the children and cannot be dealt with. Until there is a proper support system with counselling, educational assessment and classroom support adequately staffed and paid for, we will continue subjecting thousnds of children to a lottery system, where the quality of your education depends on the area you live in, the number of disruptive pupils in your class and the ability of your school to retain stressed staff.

The idea that giving 8percent of children better teaching and opportunities than the rest disgusts me.
Secondary modern schools were in the main, dreadful places.
Why shouldn’t we seek to provide the best education possible for all our children. Good comprehensives carer for all abilities.
The fact that the UK has failed to provide apprenticeships, vocational or technical training shouldn’t be used as a way to bring back secondary modern fir the majority

There are plenty of comprehensives that are brilliantly run, where the children get excellent results.
Indeed there are but these are over subscribed. If you have a look at the League Tables it is interesting that many of the schools that used to be Grammar Schools still have the highest results despite now being comprehensives.
In the Free School in our area, the admission is based on a lottery system with the exception of children with Special Needs. Unfortunately, despite spending many hours helping set it up, my son did not get in.
I also wonder how many children get by in our system rather than achieving their potential. When my son and his friends were at Primary School, they did very well but without having to put in much effort. There was nothing about striving to do as well as you could and my son spent many an hour helping the teachers out with those who were struggling. Of course, it was a valuable lesson for him in terms other than the academic but there are many who just coast.

My grammmar school was my saviour. Passed 11+ but told I could not go as education was wasted on girls. My uncle
(guardian) was relating this at work and was told that education on a girl is not wasted as she would teach her children. At the eleventh hour I went! I was always in the A class and did well. Tutored one son in maths and both sons got maths and English o levels at 15. I always took a lot of interest in their education. I always had a good job/ career. I proved a lot of people wrong.

I think grammar schools were brilliant but I think the system for allocating places was awful and biased against people who were hard up.

My husband won a place at a very good grammar school some distance from his home. His parents were working class and could not afford the uniform or the travelling expense. Hence he didn't go.

My brother failed the ll plus. My parents could afford to send him to an independent school, and did. He eventually became a barrister and then a QC.

Unfair, of course it was. Twas ever thus.

No indeed MOnica and I agree that one in eight underperforming secondary schools is too high a figure. Those of us who worked in school improvement did try very hard to support schools by sharing good practice, pairing weaker schools with more successful ones and lots of other successful strategies, but that service, like many others, has been cut to the bone.
In addition, schools are dealing with the problems caused by poverty and deprivation and it is no wonder that more have been rated inadequate. It is very hard for children to make expected progress (which is the key measurement of success) if they are hungry, living in poor conditions or leading chaotic lives. Teacher shortages are not helping.
Nevertheless many schools are still managing to raise standards and produce excellent results.

Comprehensive schools seem to have a big range of standards. Perhaps dependent on catchement area, quality of leadership. generosity of the LA etc.
In general I think they were a sensible idea. Although I agree with M0nica's earler post about size. At the time also I suspected it was for economic reasons - a large organisation can make economies which a small one can't.
I also agree with the poster who misses the tech. based secondary schools.
My husband is dyslexic and failed the 11+ but benefited from his years in a Sec. Mod. which taught subjects such as metalwork, car mechanics , photography , basic plumbing and electrics etc.

Being told what your school ought to be is no consolation for any of the children struggling to succeed in any of the many failing schools.

My grandchildren are benfiting from the best of the state system, but that is no reason to forget those who are not

I agree with 123coco grammar school are not a good thing, and I went to one. What is more important is that schools are properly funded, this is where the fault is at present. Education is not given the priority it should, also it is too academic. Technical colleges, or a place where people can learn trades are really important. Not every one is academic. This rose tinted illusion of “the good old days” is just that an illusion.

There are plenty of comprehensives that are brilliantly run, where the children get excellent results. The most able pupils get an education that is every bit as good, if not better than some grammar schools. You only have to look at the Progress 8 data to see that, but in my career in school improvement I was fortunate enough to work with many of them and see it with my own eyes.
There is a massive funding crisis which is affecting all schools and teacher recruitment is a major and growing problem.
It seems to me ridiculous to spend taxpayers' money setting up grammar schools when good comprehensives can and do achieve the same results for their pupils.
Instead, the money needs to be targeted at improving leadership and management in weaker schools, boosting recruitment and retention and putting adequate resources in to support the less able and children with additional needs.
Successive governments need to stop imposing their own ideas about the curriculum, stop changing the educational structure with free schools, academies, new grammar schools etc and let the professionals lead the agenda for improvement.

In a properly-run comprehensive school

Therein lies the rub.

I come from a “blended” family - I went to Grammar School, next sibling went to Boarding School, next sibling was a day pupil at private school last went to a local Comprehensive.

Myself and day pupil are successful the other siblings not so.

The child either wants to learn or not.

In a properly-run comprehensive school, there should be no need whatsoever for grammar schools.

Both the brightest and the least able should be well catered for within that system!

sodapop I agree with you in principle and back in my 11+ days all children took the test and many children from working class backgrounds got into grammar school. I was at a predominantly technical university and I would have said that the majority of men studying engineering, in partiular and science had working class backgrounds

But that was then and now is now and the problem now is that so many parents who could afford it would pay to have their children coached, which would put all parents unable to afford coaching at a disadvantage.

This is why I am no longer in favour of a return to grammar schools

If all the private schools closed, the state education system would not be able to cope with the additional pupils. My grandaughter has been out of school for the last 2 terms because the County could not provide a place which didn't mean her travelling miles despite a school being close enough to touch from her bedroom window to her new build home. The new Free School is over subscribed so much that they have had to close the waiting list.
Many private schools do not "select" on the basis of intelligence but on the colour of the money, some even have SEN units to assist those who struggle with education. The only difference to those schools and the LEA ones, is that the parents care about their child's education. Of course, the majority of parents who send their children to any school care but unfortunately the hard core of those who don't, will cause massive disruption and the teacher will not get support from the parent. It is absolutely tragic for those children but I see no reason why the majority of children should suffer because the state wants to spend less money providing for the disaffected.