Grammar Schools...... would you like to see a return?

Iam64

Totally agree with you, I did ok, but we were limited from the minute we walked through those secondary modern doors.

I have a lot of ex grammar school friends, who like a lot of ladies here, seem to be very proud to have attended them.

I liked school, I have a lot of happy memories, but our junior school head drummed it into our heads that if we ended up in the SM all we could hope to achieve would be working in a biscuit factory, why a biscuit factory, I have no idea, because there wasn’t one locally.

Alegrias1 How can money buy success?
Our sons went to a public school, many of their peers are not successful.
They have been well educated, disciplined and given a good foundation, the rest is up to them.
I don’t believe the name of the school made any difference on a CV or university application.
It possibly went against them..

Ellianne I disagree. Sometimes, but not all the time, money can buy children success in life - your children have their name down for elite private school at birth and move through the system where they meet other rich kids useful for the old boy network, and then get employment in daddy’s firm. This used to be especially true in stockbroking although in later years more from non elite backgrounds have been able to get positions. If daddy owns the company you are still more or less guaranteed a position.

Comment heard from someone whose. Children amd grandchildren were privately educated.
Her son was teaching briefly in a state school and her comment was that he managed to teach the class despite there being 32 in it. Had to point out that is the number in every state school class. Another world!

although some would say it’s wrong to sacrifice your child on the altar of your principles

And there you have it Suzie! If the above is wrong for your own child, how come it’s fine for everyone else’s?

Secondary Modern Schools - would you like to see a return?

No, I wouldn’t. To be told at 11 that you’re a failure, won’t have the education or opportunities that the pupils at the Grammar School is just wrong.

Comprehensive schools, properly funded, with smaller class sizes are better than dividing children in the way they were is just wrong.

Ellianne

I think there is a misconception by some posters here that people with money can buy their children more success in life. You can't actually buy a brain. What you can buy is confidence and discipline which might be the factors that influence parents who can afford it to pay for tuition.
Elitism can come in many forms - academic, monetary, social.

No misconceptions at all Ellianne Of course money can buy their children success in life, otherwise why are they spending the money? Why should people be able to buy confidence and discipline? ( I assume you mean self discipline?). Teach those things, don't buy them.

Sorry, still angry, it's all so ridiculous.

Kent is a county with a number of grammar schools and apart from a couple of well heeled areas most are in run down poor areas along the estuary. I live in a poor area with many social and economic problems but have 4 grammar schools in walking distance which give opportunities to bright children of not so well off parents. Both my children went to one of these.
There are only a few counties in the uk where they are retained most closed and there are only about 160 left, so for the most part children will go to non selective or if wealthy to fee paying schools.
Sadly we only see academia of any value. Anything else not.
In Germany youngsters can go to a gymnasium ( grammar) or technical school and neither is valued over the other and no one feels a ‘failure’ as they start secondary education at 11. There is equal respect for both.
Someone mentioned earlier that many grans writing about their school often mention grammar school , amd i have noticed this too, so will end by saying I mostly enjoyed my secondary education. Years later I got studying and got my degree and following that with a few O levels and then a professional qualification but it was the longer and harder road.
My 11 year old gd starts a new school in September and passed the tests with flying colours. However if all children are taught well and work hard they can and will succeed wherever they go at 11.

Pantglas2

^I am neither Labour or Tory Pantglas but how does it differ if they both do it?^

Snap Pippa! I have absolutely no political allegiance although I’d probably be defined as liberal by those who know me well. It differs because one lot own up to it and t’others deny it, which makes them hypocrites in my book!

I don’t understand the good socialists who practice what they preach and send their kids to the local comp, how come they don’t call out their comrades who game the system for their own kids benefit? They’re ready to call the tories for the same thing!

I really don’t understand who these good socialists are not calling out their comrades? What exactly are you expecting? A daily roll call of shame ? There hasn’t even been a case for ages - it’s only ever been a handful anyway. Yes it’s wrong morally some would say not to practice what you preach re your child’s education ( although some would say it’s wrong to sacrifice your child on the altar of your principles) But your OTT generalisations are pretty tedious. This and successive Tory governments are nothing but hypocritical re education in a much more fundamental way by saying it matters to them and then constantly underfunding it and undermining it by change after meaningless. change. I mean look at who is S of S for education? FFS ?

Further to my pp, one interesting anecdote about independent schools now vs. a few decades ago:

A nephew of ours (now late 40s) went to an independent school in the N of England, that regularly came not near the top but reasonably high up in the A level league tables.

My sister told me that more recently it has slipped quite a way down the league tables. She puts this down to the fact that the sort of parents who used to send their children there (mostly reasonably comfortable but not rich) can now no longer afford to do so, and it’s become the preserve of the very well off.

The school was selective by exam, and maybe still is, but the league table evidence would suggest that it’s now much more a question of whether the parents can afford the fees, rather than how well their child will do in the entrance exam - assuming they still have one.

Of course there has always been a difference between independents with rigorous selection procedures, by exam and maybe interview too - and those that will take more or less anyone whose parents can pay the fees.

I think there is a misconception by some posters here that people with money can buy their children more success in life. You can't actually buy a brain. What you can buy is confidence and discipline which might be the factors that influence parents who can afford it to pay for tuition.
Elitism can come in many forms - academic, monetary, social.

Oldbat1

No! Everyone deserves the chance of an equal education and children develop at differently so why write them off at 11? What people fail to realise is that out of a class of say 30 very very few would pass the 11+ And make it into grammar schools.My husband went to a private school in Oxford. Hated every second of it. No way would he ever send our children to a private school.

May I state the obvious here? Private schools vary, from very good to rather bad, just as state schools do. You really can’t generalise like that.

When I went to university, back in the 1960s, the only students there who had failed their 11+ were those who parents had then sent them to private school .

It set me thinking about all those other children who failed and went to secondary modern schools but given the same private education could have gone to university.

People like my best friend at university, who suffered a lot of ill health as a child and did not even take the exam as she was so far behind other children, the school could not see the point in her even attempting the exam. She went to a good private school, caught up and went to university,

Like my dear DiL, whose father died of cancer when she was 7 and where the family struggled mentally and emotionally in the ensuing years. She was the first child from her secondary modern to go to university. But not from the school. She did not go to university until her mid 20s, having first trained and worked as a secretary.

The grammar, technical school, d(o not forget the technical schools, although not many were built), secondary modern, like many such schemes the theory is good; in practice they do not work.

I am neither Labour or Tory Pantglas but how does it differ if they both do it?

Snap Pippa! I have absolutely no political allegiance although I’d probably be defined as liberal by those who know me well. It differs because one lot own up to it and t’others deny it, which makes them hypocrites in my book!

I don’t understand the good socialists who practice what they preach and send their kids to the local comp, how come they don’t call out their comrades who game the system for their own kids benefit? They’re ready to call the tories for the same thing!

Pantglas The majority of parents don't have a choice with a selective system. If their children aren't academically able and they don't have the money for private education, their children are stuck with second best. Grammar schools only offer a choice to an elite.

foxie I think you've misunderstood what I meant. If there are grammar schools in the same area as academies, the academies aren't fully inclusive. They are, in effect, secondary moderns because they don't have the most able pupils. Therefore, they are the result of a selective system.

My daughter wasn't an exception at her school. There were many more who were hard-working, achieved highly in all sorts of fields and are now doing well.

rafichagran

Growstuff of course going to the Grammar helped your daughters friend, your daughters friend if anything like our Grammer School is the norm and not the exception.
I am glad your daughter has done well.
Every School however good or bad has has clever, or hard working pupils.

Why "of course"? On the evidence I've seen, she would have done just as well at the comprehensive my daughter I attended - and possibly have been happier. It didn't "help" her at all.

You seem to assume that the grammar school is somehow better - it really isn't.

Chardy

Simple question to all those in favour of grammar schools.
Would you feel the same if your child/grandchild ended up in the secondary modern school?

This is a good question. In a similar vein, I feel the same when I hear people argue for cutbacks in university education and an expansion in the number of vocational courses that lead to manual jobs. Would they encourage their own children to apply for those instead of getting a degree? I doubt it, somehow.

Pantglas2

^Why is it hypocritical to use the system that exists while trying to change it. Very strange logic.^

Because they had 13 years to change it so why didn’t they - explain that logic...

Just like Tories do (and at least they own it) they use every trick in the book to make sure their own kids don’t go to bog standard comps including finding religion, moving house etc from Shirley williams through to Tony Blair- hypocrites.

I am neither Labour or Tory Pantglas but how does it differ if they both do it?

No

DD went to our little village school which only had three classes. From there she went to the local comprehensive, took A levels and went to university. She worked for a PhD and is now leading a research team at the same university. I don't think she would have done any better at a grammar school.

I went to a girl's grammar school which has since gone co-ed and comprehensive. I went for a tour of the school a couple of years ago and was amazed at the changes. So many more opportunities for the children than we ever had, subjects we had never even thought of.

For grammar schools to work now there would have to be really schools for the less academic children offering them proper opportunities. Not just keeping them off the streets till they are old enough to leave. In other words - more schools, more teachers and more money.

Everyone should have a choice -not just the rich..
Agreed! So why do socialists deny grammar schools to those that want them?

Tory-a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess.
Change the first word to Socialist - and the same applies... “pretends” being the operative word in both cases!

No! Everyone deserves the chance of an equal education and children develop at differently so why write them off at 11? What people fail to realise is that out of a class of say 30 very very few would pass the 11+ And make it into grammar schools.My husband went to a private school in Oxford. Hated every second of it. No way would he ever send our children to a private school.

The tories have always believed in choice - state funded education, health AND private/selective schools/hospitals for those who can afford better.
Socialists believe that no one should have a choice, especially those prepared to make material sacrifice to enable a better standard, except when it comes to themselves and their families of course.

That's just immoral. Why should people with a bit more money be able to buy their children more success in life than those with nothing? Its not giving up the material things in life if you have nothing to give up in the first place. My parents lived in a two room flat with an outside toilet when I was little, there was nothing for them to give up to get me a better start in life, they could only just make ends meet. If it hadn't been for a proper equal education system in Scotland God knows what I would have been doing today.

If thinking that makes me a socialist, well sign me up for the Little Red Book. God it makes me angry.