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

There's no doubt that grammar schools in the 50's and 60's contributed greatly to social mobility. I lived in Birmingham and pupils came from different areas of the city whereas now there are only the King Edward Foundation grammar schools and tbh they tend to draw kids from middle class homes or those with very high aspirations for their children's education and the ability to pay for coaching as without it a child, however bright, won't stand much of a chance of getting a high enough score. The comps draw from the local neighbourhood and sadly too often those in middle class areas perform well and those in more disadvantaged areas do less well. Obviously there are exceptions so I am talking generally but I think there probably is less social mobility.
I now live in a rural area, our local comprehensive draws from the local area and is over subscribed but although it does reflect the local population, parents do move to the area to secure a school place for their children and it serves them very well academically. Unsurprisingly, middle class kids still tend to do better. Whatever system we have some parents will use it to gain advantage for their children so perhaps the answer is to keep working to improve all schools?

The only way for education to be fair is for all children to be educated in the same schools, or at least in the same systems, with the same resources going to them all.

'Creaming off' brighter or better off children (not that it is always possible to tell who is bright at the age of 11) is setting up a system of disadvantage, as is allowing those who can afford it (and whose politics allow) to pay to buy their children out of the system altogether.

Couple that with the class system in this country, which equates wealth and privilege with merit, and it is clear why we have a government of people who can point to their degrees from elite universities as 'evidence of their intelligence', whilst others will never know what their potential may have been.

We live in a selective area. Both my GC attend the local grammar school, where I went in the 60’s, and their father in the 80’s.

I was shocked at how many of their peers were tutored to get through the 11+, and was glad DS and DIL felt that wasn’t the way to go, if they passed it was down to them, not coached and then maybe struggle later.

Our local secondary modern is over-subscribed. Having said that, ‘passing’ the 11+ is still very highly prized round here.

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.

TES: Demand for grammars '50% more than places available'

In 2019, for every 15 children whose first choice of secondary school was a grammar, only around 10 places were on offer, according to research published by the Department for Education (DfE). So they are selected from results of 11+ exam. Regardless of their score, compared with other years, 5 will not get a place.

What happens in a year when it's a baby boom year and say 30 children want the 10 places? 20 don't get one, regardless of their score.

What happens in a low birth rate year when there are only 10 children who want the 10 places? All get a place.

This is such an unfair system.

Current figures: DfE research reveals shortfall of 11,959 places in grammar schools last year based on first preferences listed by parents.

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.

It is a myth that you can have grammar schools and comprehensive schools in the same area as grammar schools will cream off the most academically able, reducing the so-called comprehensives to secondary moderns.

How often do you here people campaigning to bring back secondary moderns?

Without the 11+ and the grammar school system I would never have got a decent education. Now everyone is thrown into the melting pot with no opportunity for a better education, unless you are filthy rich of course. How many of the tory “elite” go to the local comp? Not many if any. Names down for Eton at birth. They don’t care what the rest of society do.

I’m not sure why you think you wouldn’t have got a decent education without a grammar school system.

My three children all went to the local comprehensive in an area that didn’t have grammar schools and got excellent education that suited their different abilities and inclinations.

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!

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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%.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

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.