Grammar Schools

I left school at 15 and had my own business at 21 ..a business that supported not just us but 16 or more employees .I went to a state run convent school .I left before taking exams simply because I knew what I wanted to do.I still run the same business 44 years later ,still employ staff and still make a living from it.I dont consider myself inferior because of my lack of "qualification" on paper.I have all the qualifications I need to be successful in my field .My children and GC all attend/attended the local schools all have and are doing well .I'm someone who doesn't belive that money should determine how well you're educated .I could well have afforded private schools but it goes against my core beliefs .I believe the comprehensive system should be properly funded instead of diluted by giving cash to grammar or academy schools..though thats not the case in Scotland .

The county in which I live has nine excellent grammar school, two of which my DD and DS attended. The secondaries in the same county get better results than comprehensive schools in surrounding counties and boroughs so the grammars are not flourishing at the expense of those who attend the alternative.

For the life of me I cannot see why a country would want to waste the talent of its brightest pupils. Grammar schools gave us Shakespeare, Pepys, Marvell, Shelley, Berners-Lee and many more individuals who have enhanced the lives of millions.

My DH did not pass the eleven plus and did not die of low self esteem and disappointment. He got on with things and caught up in his traditionally run, discliplined and academic comprehensive. He did not and does not want to destroy the good for some because everyone couldn’t have it.

Education since New Labour has been a very large tail wagging a very small dog to the detriment of all.

Just an amusing factoid to add to the mix. Harold Wilson closed more coal pits than did the Conservatives and Margaret Thatcher closed more grammars schools than Labour.

Most people would not believe that.

Abolishing private schools would have no effect or otherwise on comprehensive schools. Firstly the proportion of children going to private schools is quite small and there are many areas where private school provision is minimal and others where the local comprehensive does as well as local private schools.

The main reason however is simply that how good a comprehensive school is far more dependent on the catchment area than anything else. If a school draws its pupils from an area of professional level owner occupiers, it will be provide a far better education than one whose pupils came mainly from areas of deprivation.

The only way that can be dealt with is by subjecting every child to a combination of a means test and intellectual ability test (11+?) and then distribute the children round all the local schools so that the pupils of every school have exactly the same social and intellectual level profile. This will of course require a major bussing in and out programme - and to make that fair perhaps there should be an attempt to make sure that every child is bussed out of their home area and all friendship groups are broken up.

I don't understand the antipathy shown towards grammar school education. There will always be people who are more academic and those who are less so. Life is always going to be competitive so we shouldn't shield our young people from this. I do agree that funding should be shared equally between all types of education. I have to admit I am out of touch somewhat with education now as my grand children are grown up and I don't live in UK.

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.

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

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!

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

Therein lies the rub.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.