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

I knew nothing about the 11 plus until the day I sat it - and I wasn't clear what it was all about even then.

In my final year in Junior school, the first term had been spent in a government school in Hong Kong, I then missed a terms schooling because first my sister then I got chicken pox and we were waiting to move from Hong Kong to Singapore and I started again in a new school in Singapore in the summer term.

A few weeks in a teacher put his head round the classroom door and said 'Anyone here not done their Moray House? I put my hand up to say 'What is the Moray House?' and was immediately taken out of the classroom with several others and about 6 of us went into a classroom to discover we had to do some tests. The usual maths, English and Verbal reasoning. A few weeks later my parents got a letter to say that I would be going to the army grammar school in September.

No fuss, no bother, no worrying, no practice.

*The Moray House was an 11 plus equivalent set by an educational institute in Edinburgh and taken by children in British style education overseas.

I’d forgotten what the booklets were called. I still have my First Aid in English somewhere.

Iam64

adaunas we weren’t all drilled into how to tackle the 11 plus. Some schools did no preparation

Sorry, drilled is perhaps the wrong word. Depending on your age on here, you’d be familiar with the dreaded Progress Papers and that lovely First Aid in English book. Even if you didn’t, it would be a strange school where you didn’t have frequent tests on tables, mental arithmetic, mechanical arithmetic, spelling and comprehension which had the same effect.

Everyone in my class at school passed the 11plus except one girl who was really upset because she was afraid of what her father would say. Awful for her. I remember hugging her and her crying. We were streamed and no one in the other class passed, they all went to the secondary modern. I have often wondered if they were very good at streaming or ,more likely, the ones in the other class were just fulfilling expectations.

adaunas we weren’t all drilled into how to tackle the 11 plus. Some schools did no preparation

Frogsinmygarden I mostly agree about tutoring children who wouldn’t make to a grammar school without it. Mostly, because some children’s ‘natural ability’ develops later.
Tutoring the way you imply wasn’t mentioned when I was that age. Everyone had to do the 11+ and we were all drilled into how to tackle maths, English and verbal reasoning questions in school. The parents who could have afforded tutoring would probably have sent their children to private schools.

I failed my 11+ but all of my friends passed. Devastating to a shy 11 year old. I went to Sec Mod passed all of my exams. The Grammar girls failed all of theirs (one kept running away from school and never settled there). In actuality the workload was far too much for those girls. It’s fine ‘tutoring’ children to pass the 11+ but without natural ability they are going to struggle.

As we seem to be drawing conclusions from fifty years ago, my second of three secondary level schools was a bilateral school - an early experiment in what became comprehensive education. As pupils came and went in different years, and constantly, everyone was put in middle sets when they arrived. Within the year they were moved into appropriate sets and that certainly didn't look like streaming and worked very successfully. But ... it was a school of 300 pupils with classes of about 20 on a good day. One of are biggest issues is class sizes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry, that was to Mollygo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.