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

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.

It’s simply not right or fair to make such sweeping generalisations about Labour MPs and how they educate tgeir children. The vast majority of them do not game the system and it’s wrong of you to basically imply they do.

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.

My daughter was never tutored to get into the Grammar School, she took the 11+, passed well and got her place in a very much in demand selective School. No money for her education was ever paid out, although as I said up thread I would if I had too.
I am happy with the Selective system.
My daughter is a very respected journalist and her education and personality got her where she is today.
I was a teenage Mother and both her Father and I married young, divorced now, and I am/was grateful for a system that helped her education and got her where she is today. I have a son as well, he did not go to a Grammar School, the idea horrified him. He had no jealousy of his sister and is not a lesser person.
Keeping the Grammar's in my area has my full support.

Pantglas2

And how many of the Labour elite’s kids go to bog standard comps Avalon?

They’re the hypocrites not the Tories - we know they believe in getting the best for their kids and have always been up front about it. Not so the socialists who preach one thing and do another on the sly!

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

Not all grammar schools are in affluent areas. There are some in inner city Birmingham, much sort after as it happens. A very good comprehensive/ academy is the best bet. ( I went to a GS, quite narrow in those days, must be better now. )

They’re the hypocrites not the Tories - we know they believe in getting the best for their kids and have always been up front about it. Not so the socialists who preach one thing and do another on the sly!

See my earlier post Trisher - we know exactly what we get with Tories but Labour do say one thing on education, health - fairness, equality blah Di blah, except when it comes to their own families - hypocrites!

i think in Finalnd, which always comes nearly top in educational achievement, there are no selective state schools, and hardly any private ones.
all extras are free, including food and trips.
there is no uniform.
and, the biggest difference maybe, teaching is a highly respected profession, and all teachers must have masters degrees.
it is harder to get into the teaching course than into law or medicine.

I went to a Girls Grammar School in the 1950s and had an excellent education. My daughter went to a Comprehensive school, as by then the Grammar school became a Comprehensive.
She came out of school with no qualifications at all, but then studied hard outside of school, and is now a nurse, with 3 diplomas

The other technique is to send them to a private junior school which intensively prepare the children for the exam and advertise their success rates.
I'm not sure that is entirely correct suziewoozie. Independent junior schools usually feed into independent secondary schools. The type of preparation is totally different from that required for grammar schools so would not be of much use.
If children from private schools wish to try for grammars, their parents normally pay for a private home tutor.

Muse says"A score in an 11+ exam is not a guarantee of a grammar school place. As far as I am aware there is not a definitive cut off point. It depends on how many places there are and what the demand is."

I may have missed this but I don't think that this has been suggested? My point was that candidates need a very high score to stand a chance of being offered a place.

I like to think that education is about opening the doors of opportunity not closing them and unfortunately the 11+ does close down opportunities. I'm from a working class background but won a free place at a girls independent school, paid for by the LA, my sister failed the 11+ and went to the local secondary mod, transferring at 13 to a Technical School. We have had very different lives partly due to our educational experience, I think.

I went to a Grammar School which became a comprehensive during my time there. It was noticeable that some who started at Grammar did very poorly by the age of 16 and left with hardly a qualification to their name. Some who had been at the Secondary Modern had caught up and took O levels and A-levels and went on to University.
So, no, I am not in favour of Grammar Schools. I wonder how many have had their lives ruined by being set on one path, by one exam at the age of 11?

My children went to Dutch schools which are like Comprehensives and are streamed. My DD was in the top stream which meant she went on to the equivalent of A levels (8 subjects) without doing GCSE's. My DS was not so academic so was in the GCSE stream.
There was a lot of movement within streams and a lot of vocational schools. If they did not pass a year they repeated. It seemed to work well.
Also there were no fee paying schools which made life easier.

Pantglas2

^I've also never had a problem understanding why politicians who support a more equitable education system, such as would be achieved by abolishing selective schools, are criticised for sending their children to the best school for them. While selective schools exist, that choice will always have to be made. Get rid of the selective schools and give everybody a equal chance no matter where they live or who their parents are.^

Labour had 13 years to do that 1997-2010 Allegrias, and hypocrites that they are, they did nothing about it but denied everyone else’s kids an equal chance whilst their own went to selective schools.

I wish Labour had abolished selective schools. However it’s simply not true about Labour MPs in general sending their children to selective schools.80% of leas don’t even have selective schools .

As I posted earlier, I live in a selective area. There is a score the child has to achieve to be accepted for the grammar school, but depending on how many places are available that year, usually the same, it depends how close you live to the school.
If you live in the town, you always get a place, some children live many miles away, but then they aren’t in the catchment area anyhow.
As far as I’m aware, places are not awarded for those who score ‘highest’, as long as you reach the required mark.

Pantglas2

^I've also never had a problem understanding why politicians who support a more equitable education system, such as would be achieved by abolishing selective schools, are criticised for sending their children to the best school for them. While selective schools exist, that choice will always have to be made. Get rid of the selective schools and give everybody a equal chance no matter where they live or who their parents are.^

Labour had 13 years to do that 1997-2010 Allegrias, and hypocrites that they are, they did nothing about it but denied everyone else’s kids an equal chance whilst their own went to selective schools.

Which is of course totally unlike Tory MPs who send their children to expensive private schools and so don't care at all what happens to the state sector.

Don't understand.

Labour did nothing to remove selective schools, but continued sending their own children there. (Well, some of them did) But by not removing selective schools they denied a good education to other people's kids.

No, someone will have to explain that to me. Thank goodness I'm in Scotland.

I've also never had a problem understanding why politicians who support a more equitable education system, such as would be achieved by abolishing selective schools, are criticised for sending their children to the best school for them. While selective schools exist, that choice will always have to be made. Get rid of the selective schools and give everybody a equal chance no matter where they live or who their parents are.

Labour had 13 years to do that 1997-2010 Allegrias, and hypocrites that they are, they did nothing about it but denied everyone else’s kids an equal chance whilst their own went to selective schools.

Are there really schools which don’t set for certain subjects?

From one school’s prospectus

Approximately 1600 children take The *** Grammar Schools Examination, year on year, competing for 360 places across both schools.

The success rate for the exam is less than 22%. The success rate for The ******averages at well over 80%.

I went to a Grammar school and got a good education. My sons were classed Band 1 in the London Reading Test, equal to passing the 11+ but the only options were comprehensives which gave a poor education. They did not have streaming so brighter children were taught at a level of those with learning disabilities or poor English. Children had to be very motivated to overcome this and I don't think my DGC education is much better.

My sister lives in an area where there are grammar schools. If you want your child to be tutored for the exam ( and most are) you practically have to put their name down at birth - well at least 2-3 years in advance. The other technique is to send them to a private junior school which intensively prepare the children for the exam and advertise their success rates. There is today no fair way at all to select at 11 - even if you think it’s a good idea ( which I don’t )

I find this separation into academic and vocational at the age of 11 just horrifying. For anyone to think that at such a young age you can be "directed" into a particular career. Educate them all and then let them choose the work they want!

I've also never had a problem understanding why politicians who support a more equitable education system, such as would be achieved by abolishing selective schools, are criticised for sending their children to the best school for them. While selective schools exist, that choice will always have to be made. Get rid of the selective schools and give everybody a equal chance no matter where they live or who their parents are.

Doodledog

That may well be true, muse, but does not take account of the majority of children who either don't live in an area where this is even an option, or who are young for their school year, or who 'come into their own' aged 12 or 13. They don't even get a chance in the lottery for a place.

My post wasn't meant to Doodledog. I agree that it is a lottery and that's really my argument against selective/grammar education. We should have to gamble with our children's education / life choices.

I lost out of the gamble when I was 11. I don't know how many places there were in 1962 but I failed the 11+. I either had my nose in a book or doing puzzles. I so wanted to go to grammar school. I had two close friends and they did too. They got places. I lost their friendship and my confidence and self esteem to boot.

15 years later I took English and Maths A level and got a place at university and after 4 years got a B.Ed Hons (2.1). This lead to a successful teaching career / Deputy and teaching consultant.

My aim as a consultant was to support teachers to be effective ones both in IQ and EQ.

Grandma70s said: The brightest need very intellectual teachers, the lower streams need a different kind of teaching.
What all children should have are effective teachers.

Giving a child a label (failure) at 11 is not effective.

I would like to see grammar schools continue and in areas where they do not exist, create new ones.

I would also like to see more vocational courses/subjects available in Comprehensive/Secondary Moderns for those pupils who are not as academic. We have a national shortage of skilled, electricians, plumbers, carpenters etc.

And how many of the Labour elite’s kids go to bog standard comps Avalon?

They’re the hypocrites not the Tories - we know they believe in getting the best for their kids and have always been up front about it. Not so the socialists who preach one thing and do another on the sly!