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

* Growstuff* patronising to you, but the truth to me. I did not see you keeping quiet about how well your daughter done, and you were quick to compare your daughter who went to a Grammer School in not too favourable terms.
As for not worrying about other children, I leave that to their parents. I cannot help or judge what other parents do with their children.
Long may the Gramnar School thrive in my area, and long may the children who have academic ability, whatever their parents income thrive, as my daughter did.

And when you get fed up of the argument, comment on someone’s use of ‘myself’.????

Grammar schools were always for the elite in the past. No, I dont want to see them coming back. Too many people will be up their own backsides when they get their little brats into them. No way. Stay the way we are.

Let me just summarise this.

If you are very well off or think that giving up the second car is worth it for your children's education - Fee paying schools

If you're not quite so well off but can afford fancy uniforms and tutoring - Grammar schools

If you have the smarts to move closer to a "good" school or get your children tutored - "good" comprehensive.

If you are disadvantaged, or can't play the system - bog standard comprehensive.

Greyduster 10:37, I agree with you.

Rubbish Purplepixie. I passed 11 Plus for grammar school. No way were my family elite. We were middle to upper working class. I stayed behind at primary school for homework which no one else did. The school uniform at grammar school was only available from one supplier and was so expensive that most of mine was bought from the school’s second hand shop. All in larger sizes to make it last. Very elite!

25Avalon I remember the economical larger sizes from the second hand shop, run by the school, for the same reason. Pity the third child who also got handed down things.
Purplepixie you only have to read any social media sites to learn that people get ‘up their own backsides’ about anything they have that is different, and that includes opinions about schools.

It surprised me, when GS was getting ready to leave junior school, what a rising tide of panic there was from parents who were only just in the catchment area for the city’s most desired secondary school. People actually moved house to be closer to the school, or started looking at private schools “just in case”.. What engendered the panic was that, to increase provision, the local authority built a new school also within the catchment which was due to open that year. New, untested, no track record. Where would their first intake be coming from? What sort of education were they going to get if there was only one year group in the whole school to begin with? All that sort of thing seemed to be exercising people to the point of distraction. Nobody wanted a total unknown quantity for their children. In fact this school is part of an academy trust, and while “it is not selective” it was made clear that no-one would be press ganged into attending; pupils would only be accepted if they and their parents were prepared to buy into the school’s ethos of a traditional curriculum, a very long school day - 8.30 until 5.00 p.m. - red hot discipline and good manners. It takes its pupils from a very wide catchment that includes some of the poorer areas of the city. The ethos appears to be somewhere between a good grammar and an independent. It appears to be very successful and has been oversubscribed every year it’s been open. Yet this is a state secondary school. I doubt it will be a model for all state secondary schools, but elements of it must be seen to have merit, I think.

I am in two minds about Grammar schools as a child I failed my 11 plus and went to a girls-only secondary school, my younger sister passed and I think had a much better education than I did. Some secondary modern schools did not offer the opportunity to do 'O' levels. I wasn't given the opportunity to take Science or Maths at 'O' level.

In my day it was such an unfair system as a boy could attain the same mark as a girl yet be offered a place at Grammar school whereas a girl wasn't. Also, you could get the same mark as another child in another part of the country yet one could be offered a place at grammar school and the other not.

Both my children went to a state comprehensive school but they hated it and they weren't pushed academically. I do think we should bring back the old technical colleges for those that are not academic. Also, comprehensive schools tend to be much larger than the old grammar schools and secondary schools. Setting does take place but quite often setting takes place on the basis of how you do in one subject which is grouped together with other subjects.

At the beginning of December 2013, the seven Grammar schools in Gloucestershire have made a decision to change the examining board to Durham University – CEM (Centre of Evaluation and Monitoring). This is because they are concerned by the amount of tutoring that takes place. The CEM tests enable children to demonstrate their academic ability without excessive tutoring. CEM do not produce any books or papers. The test relies heavily on good mathematical and English skills.

25Avalon

Rubbish Purplepixie. I passed 11 Plus for grammar school. No way were my family elite. We were middle to upper working class. I stayed behind at primary school for homework which no one else did. The school uniform at grammar school was only available from one supplier and was so expensive that most of mine was bought from the school’s second hand shop. All in larger sizes to make it last. Very elite!

My mum won a scholarship in the 1930s to go to a school that was the equivalent of today's grammar school. Her mum had been a dressmaker so her mum went and studied the uniform and proceeded to buy the material and make the school uniform including the blazer!

Retired65
Sorry to tell you that CEM produce practice and test papers now, though they may not have done in 2013.

I came from a very working class background with non-academic parents but I got a place at a grammar school back in the late sixties. I hated it. But a lot of that was due to my own issues rather than the school. I didn't get much benefit from it. My daughter went to a comprehensive and did well, went to Uni and now has a law degree. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue now really.

Surely secondhand uniform and home made items are/were, certainly in the past, part and parcel of any child's experience. My father was an army officer so we were not poor but I wore secondhand uniform and passed-on uniform, as well as my mother making some items

It was the same with DD. The school uniform providers made a mistake with her skirt when she joined the school at 11 and as they could not rectify it before the beginning of term, DD and I tracked down some identical skirt fabric and a pattern and made one for her.

No one noticed so I cancelled the skirt from the outfitter and for the rest of her school career all her school skirts were home made. I also bought second hand items in secondhand sales.

Most of the army bases we lived on ran Thrift Shops where you could buy and sell clothes and my mother bought and sold clothes for my sisters and I, and I commissioned her to do it on my behalf when I was at uni. I still buy second hand clothes from charity shops and online.

I have found the responses very interesting and surprising.

I still believe grammar schools should remain.

Sadly the SATs and league tables have created a huge divide, there is no measure for the many schools that have got a vast amount of SEN and ESL pupils to a good standard, this is down to amazing teaching and teamwork.
It’s not so hard to educate the top 25% of pupils.

Thankfully we have a choice, as a parent I have experience of public school, independent schools a grammar school and a comprehensive.
We have had highs and lows in every school but they have all had some outstanding staff, the one thing that stood out in all schools was favouritism of certain pupils/families.

So many of the posts are about what happened to our generation half a century ago, or to our children a quarter of a century ago. The OP is interested in her grandchild's future, not ancient history.

Chardy

So many of the posts are about what happened to our generation half a century ago, or to our children a quarter of a century ago. The OP is interested in her grandchild's future, not ancient history.

Yes, but a lot of posters don't read the threads on here or answer people's questions - we just get anecdotes about their own experiences .

A lot of people have expressed concern for children who are 'not academic', and suggested alternative routes for them. Would anyone who thinks they should be educated separately like to explain how they would decide whether or not a child is 'academic' at the age of 11?

Being good at puzzles in IQ tests is no guide, and general knowledge or ability to spell or do arithmetic just shows what they have been taught, so children from some backgrounds will do better than others. Testing writing ability is also likely to exclude children with dyslexia, for instance, as this is not reliably diagnosed before the age of 11.

A child with parents who are interested in education and have the resources to help them to learn will inevitably do better than one without. That is not always to do with social class, and it most definitely is not to do with intelligence.

Also, intelligence is not the same as academic ability. I have seen a lot of academic 'plodders' get PhD's and a lot of people without who are sharper of wit and faster of brain. An 'academic' approach is suited to postgraduate study, not GCSEs and A levels, which are largely about recollection and the ability to string a sentence together in a coherent manner, and is absolutely not something that an 11 year old is likely to demonstrate.

It is also the case that many, many people become 'academic' in later life, when they are more mature, have less going on in their lives and a better idea of where their interests lie, so basically selecting people for university study at the age of 11 is idiotic.

Some 11 year olds are a mass of hormones, and others are children. Deciding who will become 'academic' would need a crystal ball.

My brother failed his 11+. He had one year in a secondary modern school and then my parents sent him to an independent school.

He passed his O levels and A levels and went on to university. After university he became a barrister and eventually a QC.

The point I am making is that if my parents had not had the resources to take him away from the secondary modern would he have eventually succeeded in that career. I think not.

My secondary school experience echos that of Retired65 and there was no way to make up the shortfall of not having basic maths or science.

My DGD in Buckinghamshire opted not to take her 11 plus as she would have been borderline. She choose to be at the top of a good comprehensive rather than struggle at the bottom of the grammar school. Apparently though resources still seem to be channelled towards the academic "Elite" in the grammar. Its great for those there of course and that has always been so.

I'm not sure the experience of those of us educated pre 1965 is particularly valid. We don't have grammars and secondary moderns these days. Even in those authorities that still have some grammar schools, the majority of children go to comprehensives with full access to the curriculum and the same qualifications. In most comps the top sets have children with a similar ability to those who go to grammar schools. IMO good comps serve their community well and can offer a suitable education for every child. In Saturday's Telegraph there was an interesting article about Oxbridge entrance. Bampton Manor Academy in Newham, which is a comp, got 55 pupils offered places at Oxbridge , whilst Eton got 48! (for the record in case anyone makes a judgement on my political stance, I subscribe to the Telegraph, Guardian and Washington Post as I like a balanced view of the news!)

I meant to also add that we should focus on improving all schools not creating more grammars, which I'd be pleased to see the back of!

Framilode, good on your brother. I recognise some will accuse me of banging on about ancient history but here I go. Those of us who were told at 11 we were failures, at least had the opportunity to pick up 0 and A levels at f.e college night schools. Minimal fees, opportunities once two or three A levels were in place to go on to do a degree, or professional qualification. The degree was free, grants available. My prof qualification was funded by the home office, which paid me a small salary. I was a single parent. These days I wouldn’t be able to afford the night school fees. To train over two years my course fees would be £20/30,000 - no salary or grant so I’d be paying about 70k to have a very low starting salary .

We need to value education and training/higher Ed for all, not the just the privileged

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message removed as it quotes a post which has been withdrawn.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message removed as it quotes a post which has been withdrawn.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.