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

May I point out this thread asks if you would like this archaic form of instruction to return - not did you enjoy it.

I think all those telling us it was good for them so we should go back to it - it hardly exists now - are forgetting that we are half a century on from this lifting the level of education - if only for some. We now want that for all - surely?

I would (and have on another thread) advocate a different approach. Paid for pre-school from 3 to 7 followed by (totally free) compulsory basic comprehensive school 7 to 16 with matriculation at 16/17.

A Post-compulsory, 3 years "upper secondary" thread is then chosen. This is the structure in both Finland and Sweden. About 54 per cent go into General upper secondary, 36 per cent choose Vocational upper secondary and 3 per cent choose No qualification-oriented studies. About 7 per cent do not continue immediately but they have the choice to return at any time and it is free for all whenever they take it up. So the choice of route is chosen at 16/17 not forced on you at 11.

I lived in a grammar area and the tutoring of children was happening in infant school! I thought it was completely ridiculous. One of my children was highlighted as one of the brighter pupils in infants and when at juniors he was removed from classes for some hot housing (there was name for these lessons but I have forgotten) Poor kids written off as 'not academic' at 11 years old.
We moved
I have not read the last 12 pages as I don't wish too. The grammar schools of yester year where the brightest pupils went without tutoring have long gone anyway

I agree*PippaZ*, as I said in an earlier post, the Finnish seems to be very good, and costs less than our current system. How is that? I don’t know. Maybe with the cost of constant inspection taken out it frees up educational resources for actual teaching.

The grammar school system did work to some extent to promote social mobility - as both my DH and I benefited in this way - but its day is done as there were too many downsides. I would not want to see it return.

The big thing that may swing some others grandmajet, is that it has better outcomes than ours does, costs less and "levels up" more.

I can understand the argument that, at the stage Grammar schools were brought in, government did not see the need for more people to be educated to a higher level and it was new and better than the previous offer to many children. But why would we grind to a halt in a system that worked half a century ago when the world has changed and so have most people expectations?

Getting back to the original point.
I wouldn’t like to see my grandchildren, or indeed any child written off at eleven.
I also feel that even within the comprehensive system, there are vast differences in standards. So, no, definitely no return to grammar schools, however much some of you may want them.
What is needed I think, is to try and raise all schools to the same standard, with plenty of flexibility within them.

Sarah1954 good post. Written off at any age isn’t good, but at 11 children are very vulnerable to feelings of success or failure, especially if it is rubbed in by separation from school friends based on one achievement.

I seem to be following Iam about agreeing with her lately, but I also support an expansion in Further Education, which has been savaged over the years.

I used to live up the road from an FE college ('the tech' as it was called) and it offered courses in everything from cake decorating to O and A levels, and provided day release education for those employed in local industries.

There were night classes as well as what amounted to a sixth form, and the students included young people who didn't enjoy the restrictive atmosphere of schools, those who had failed important subjects and wanted to plug the gaps, older people who had never had the chance to study (perhaps because of being written off at 11 ), apprentices who were moving towards HND qualifications that could get them into managerial roles, and people wanting to learn a bit of French, or to dress sticks, or sew curtains.

Now, FE colleges offer very basic qualifications (levels 1 and 2, where A level is a 3), or try to compete with universities by offering degrees. There is little or no opportunity for those who missed out on secondary educational qualifications to have another go, and I feel that this is a huge barrier to social mobility.

Sara1954

Getting back to the original point.
I wouldn’t like to see my grandchildren, or indeed any child written off at eleven.
I also feel that even within the comprehensive system, there are vast differences in standards. So, no, definitely no return to grammar schools, however much some of you may want them.
What is needed I think, is to try and raise all schools to the same standard, with plenty of flexibility within them.

Not writing them off at 11 is exactly why I quoted the Finnish system Sara1954. I that you don't even change schools at 11 you are in the same comprehensive education from 7 to 16/17. Then you make a choice - presumably a guided one - but still your choice.

These days I don’t think it makes any difference, we have grammar schools if you dont pass 11+ There are p.entry of opportunities for education and university if that’s what you want, or more vocational courses if that’s what you want.

At any level the support of parents is probably the most important factor, next the quality of the school attended.

I think what you have touched on is really important Doodledog. It is very difficult and expensive now for anyone to retrain or gain more qualifications or you know, enjoy education for educations sake.

I think the biggest barrier to social mobility is the way almost every profession has reduced itself to being graduate entry only.

Back in my young day (early 1960s), most professions had a number of ways of entering them depending on what age your education stopped, and once you were qualified, what career path you followed was entirely up to you.

I had two friends who for different reasons left school at 16 and worked, one on a building site, one as an office worker. Around 20 both decided to could do more with themselves. One decided to become a chartered accountant, the other a solicitor. Because they both only had O levels both faced a 5 year training period. They were paid while they worked and had period of study leave to get their qualificataions. By 25 both were fully qualified and my friend who became the solicitor, rose through her profession, and was one of the first solicitors to become a judge and is now a wealthy woman. had they had A levels training would have been 4 years and a degree cut this to three.

Today, to become a solicitor, she would first have to go back to college and get A levels, then go to university and get a degree, all of course without earning but taking on a massive debt burden and only when she was nearly 25 would she even begin her professional training.

I think what we need to do is de-graduate most professions, put them back to the time in the past when you could train for them from any education level, do day-release courses, with training length depending on your starting education level. This would open up professions to more young people, with lower education qualifications and who could not afford the burden of debt a university degree now entails

I remember at junior school in the last year before 11 plus, in the last half hour at school everyday we did 50 mental arithmetic in twenty minutes, marvellous training for life, I wish they did it now. There were 3 types of secondary school in those days, grammar, secondary modern and technical college so you went to the one that suited you at that time but there was also a 13 plus for late developers who could then transfer to grammar school. In theory the comprehensives should provide all this by streaming pupils by subject as they did in grammar schools, but streaming seems to be a dirty word these days, they want to keep everybody at the same low level instead of letting people fly. Children are no longer encouraged to compete to achieve, competition is another dirty word now.
I agree better to provide jobs with day release to get qualifications rather than going to Uni, the government should encourage it by tax relief to companies and pay for training, much more productive than wasting time for four years at Uni.

streaming seems to be a dirty word these days, they want to keep everybody at the same low level instead of letting people fly. Children are no longer encouraged to compete to achieve, competition is another dirty word now.

Some comprehensives were like that, but that was some time ago. DGC's comprehensive streams for all the main academic subjects but subjects like history and geogaphy are taught at class level. The school doesn't place children in mark order, but have a system of school wide awards for any child who hands in a piece of outstanding work. Out of school hours it offers a range of opportunities to enrich the curriculum in a range of ways. DGD is in school an hour early twice a week, entirely voluntarily, because she wanted to learn latin and hopes to do a GCSE in it.

The Local Authority and local university run a 'Gifted and Talented program for the really high flyers that runs in the holidays and occasionally at weekends.

Nothing I have heard from friends suggests that her school is at all exceptional.

Actually streaming isn't as much used now as setting which even some large primary schols use. Children are not necessarily good at all subjects so setting allows them to be in different levels for different subjects. So a child may be in top set for English but third set for maths. It means that extensions can be provided for cleverer pupils and the poorer ones can be in smaller groups.
I'd hate to see grammar scools back. I'd like secondary schools to be smaller and as well funded as grammars.

Setting/streaming. essentially different words for the same thing to save embarrassment. It means dividing children by ability and putting them in groups to study maths, english etc with other children of much the same ability.

I am all in favour of it, but while it is nice to think a child may be in top set for English but third set for maths., and that does happen, but most of the time the top and bottom groups, and the ones in between will contain mostly the same children most of the time.

Most of DGD's friends are children who seem to be with her most of the day because they are all in the same level sets across the board.

Looking back to my school days, in a two class non-streamed school. It was easy to identify the bright children in any class because they were consistently at the top in almost any subject and the same applied to those at the bottom of the class.

We were certainly streamed.
3 A classes, 3 B classes and 3 C classes in each year group. You definitely knew whether you were in the A classes (you could take Latin and German as well as French) the B classes (you could take German as well as French) or the C classes (you had to take French).
Children still know where they are in the class hierarchy, but without Grammar or private schools it’s not quite so obvious to everyone else.

But they aren't M0nica Streamingmeans dividing children into classes based on ability for everything. So children will be permanently in a class with bright children or with less clever children even for subjects which require no academic skills like PE.
When schools set children are based in a mixed ability class so mix with different children.They are then "set" for certain subjects but can be class based for others. And some children are very good at some subjects but not at others. It benefits particularly those with a specific learning problem like dyslexia who may be good at maths but not at English.

Yes, but that was many years ago, surely?

These days, as trisher and others have pointed out, there are sets rather than streams. These are not different words for the same thing, and do not put children who are (for example) good at Maths but bad at English into streams which suit one subject and not the other.

My understanding is that this is what was meant by a comprehensive education, although (certainly in my experience) it was not often achieved in the past. Nowadays, however, many schools follow the setting model, and aim to let every child excel at what they are good at and get help with the subjects in which they struggle. Much much better than splitting them off at the age of 11 based on an arbitrary set of tests.

Sorry, that was to Mollygo

Absolutely Doodledog. It referred to me so was definitely many years ago.
Do you think children know their level of ability?

Mollygo

Absolutely Doodledog. It referred to me so was definitely many years ago.
Do you think children know their level of ability?

I don't think that adults know children's ability at the age of 11. Some are more articulate than others, which can make them seem more intelligent, but can also be as a result of being included in adult conversations. Some are late developers, but will never get a chance to develop if they are given a more limited school experience.

I only mentioned the 'years ago' thing, as things have changed so much since 'our day', and most schools now use setting, rather than the streaming you described.

Yes, but Trisher as I agreed with you some children will be in different level sets for different subjects, but generally each level of set will contain much the same children, so the brightest children will effectively be streamed for all the core subjects and so all the way down the ability range. It is only in secondary subjects and practical classes, PE. Craft, Design and Technology, that the children are taught all together.

The problem is those who promote the comprehensive system have never really come to terms with what they want it to do and the measures necessary to achieve it.

Essentially it is meant to give children an equal educational opportunities, offering every child an opportunity to fly while not privileging any group over any other. To do that, all children need to be able to have access to the same lessons and the same level of teaching as every other child. But that is where it comes unstuck. Because in many subjects, especially the more challenging, you simply cannot teach every child equally. The bright will be bored stiff and those struggling will struggle even more without the extra help they need.

This means that however egalitarion comprehensives are meant to be, they soon started putting children in sets, first just maths and then it has spread to an extent that it really is now far closer to streaming than anyone is prepared to admit.

I have never been a supporter of grammar schools, but I do think they were far more socially inclusive than many comprehensives.

Yes Mollygo even in primary, children are aware that they can do some things better than others or that they find certain things more difficult.
Not so noticeable in KS1, but since work is differentiated even in Y1, they do notice. It just isn’t something the children really talk about.
Parents at the gate talk about reading book levels because that’s the only measurable thing they see regularly. In lockdown, when they accessed readers individually via Bug Club comparison wasn’t so easy.

M0nica

Yes, but Trisher as I agreed with you some children will be in different level sets for different subjects, but generally each level of set will contain much the same children, so the brightest children will effectively be streamed for all the core subjects and so all the way down the ability range. It is only in secondary subjects and practical classes, PE. Craft, Design and Technology, that the children are taught all together.

The problem is those who promote the comprehensive system have never really come to terms with what they want it to do and the measures necessary to achieve it.

Essentially it is meant to give children an equal educational opportunities, offering every child an opportunity to fly while not privileging any group over any other. To do that, all children need to be able to have access to the same lessons and the same level of teaching as every other child. But that is where it comes unstuck. Because in many subjects, especially the more challenging, you simply cannot teach every child equally. The bright will be bored stiff and those struggling will struggle even more without the extra help they need.

This means that however egalitarion comprehensives are meant to be, they soon started putting children in sets, first just maths and then it has spread to an extent that it really is now far closer to streaming than anyone is prepared to admit.

I have never been a supporter of grammar schools, but I do think they were far more socially inclusive than many comprehensives.

M0nica Firstly grammar schools never did what many attribute to them. The actual level of working class children achieving was relatively small. Most left with few qualifications.

comprehensivefuture.org.uk/comprehensive-education-has-not-failed-3/

Offering children equal opportunities does not necessarily mean teaching them in exactly the same way for the same subjects. In fact there is considerable research now showing people have different learning styles and offering different ways of accessing knowledge is the best form of teaching.

My dyslexic son was in a bottom set for English and a higher set for maths and he wasn't the only child. Setting provides children with the ability to achieve in subjects they are good at and to mix with other children who have ability. It builds self esteem and confidence. It doesn't condemn children to being stuck in the same class unable to either progress or show their true potential as streaming does.

I still think of a girl at my junior school who ended up at the school that was everyone’s last possible choice. There were a few senior schools besides the grammars, but the mere name of this one made many people shudder.

By mistake she had turned over 2 pages of the 11 plus question booklet together, and so missed a significant number of the questions. And realised too late what she’d done.
It still seems so terribly unfair.
Little wonder that I told dds the sad story before any exam they took. Check, check and check again!


No wonder I