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

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

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.

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!

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. )

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.

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.

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.

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.

rafichagran

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.

Of course not all are tutored but many many are and so the system is intrinsically unfair.

rafichagran posts "Keeping the Grammar's in my area has my full support."

Pity about the grammatical mistake.

I'm sure it can only have been a typo.

I seem to remember Ms Abbot had famously criticised colleagues for using selective or fee paying schools.
She then put her son through City of London an independent school.

suziewoozie

rafichagran

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.

Of course not all are tutored but many many are and so the system is intrinsically unfair.

Not only that, but some of them continue to be tutored once they get to grammar school. I know that because I tutor some of them.

Welbeck I think you are right about Finland.

Fund all schools properly.

Grammar schools by their nature make some children fail before they really begin to develop.

That’s not necessarily true around here, Ellianne.
Quite a few parents are willing to pay junior school fees, in the hope of thereby getting into the grammars.
Senior school fees are typically quite a bit more expensive.

IMO fewer and fewer of the sort of parents who would have paid fees a few decades ago, are now doing so. Fees are relatively considerably more expensive, and of course the cost of housing has also shot up. Many of the sort of people who could once have afforded them - even if it was a struggle - can’t even think of it now.

Our dds both went to a highly selective independent senior day school in London. Most of the parents were certainly not rolling in money. Dds’ former school friends, virtually all graduates, are now nearly all married with school age children and very few of them are going private. If they are, it’s often the grandparents who are funding, or substantially helping with, the fees.

Personally I think it can only be a good thing that so many such parents are sending their children to state schools. Our Gdcs will certainly not be going to independents.

LullyDully

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. )

Four of the six Birmingham KE grammar schools are not in affluent areas but they draw from across the city they do not have a catchment area, the three associated Academies are non selective and do draw from the local area. Comps, whether they are academies or not, also draw first from their catchment area and good schools are always over subscribed. FWIW, academies are not necessarily better than LA schools Better is also quite subjective, a "good" school for one child might not be a "good" school for another.

The truth is that while a minority go to grammar school, the majority don't.

If an area has 25% going to grammar school, it is not true that all those 25% are "academically able". Those at the bottom of the quartile (ie the pupil 25th out of a hundred) are more similar in ability to an average child than the genuinely able.

So where do you draw the line? The one who is 25th will be labelled "academically able". The one who is 26th will be labelled as something else, despite errors in assessment. The reality is they will be almost identical, but one will have opportunities the other won't. Any half-decent comprehensive can be flexible and wouldn't make that sharp divide. It just isn't possible to categorise children at the age of 11.

I went to an extremely selective direct grant grammar school, where 75% of the girls were fee-paying (I had a free place). My children went to a comprehensive, where they did well. I sincerely believe their education was as rigorous as mine was and, on the whole, better.

I think it has also changed in rural areas Witzend

I remember speaking to a farmer's wife forty years ago who told me that her children had to go to private schools because if they went to the village school they would be alongside the farm worker's children and it would be awful if they were not as bright as them.

Fast forward to now. Her son runs the farm and still makes a good living but his children go to local schools, partly because, having spent a million pounds on a state of the art milking parlour, he can't afford private school fees, but also because they no longer employ farm workers so don't need to worry about their clever children!

foxie48

LullyDully

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. )

Four of the six Birmingham KE grammar schools are not in affluent areas but they draw from across the city they do not have a catchment area, the three associated Academies are non selective and do draw from the local area. Comps, whether they are academies or not, also draw first from their catchment area and good schools are always over subscribed. FWIW, academies are not necessarily better than LA schools Better is also quite subjective, a "good" school for one child might not be a "good" school for another.

Of course the academies are selective. They don't have the most able in their intake. They're secondary moderns in all but name.

I agree that academies are not better than LA schools. They're just branded differently and probably have a high-earning CEO.

Bad form to pick up on someones grammar. I dont appreciate the sarcasm.
How are you so sure it's a typo, I dont wax lyrical about how clever I am unlike some.
Like I said I was a very young Mum who wanted a good life for my children and myself, hard work and a good education which my daughter got at the grammar school.
So Varian you can Sod off. That nasty post said more about you than me.

^That’s not necessarily true around here, Ellianne.
Quite a few parents are willing to pay junior school fees, in the hope of thereby getting into the grammars.^
What I said Witzend was that independent junior schools do not intensively prepare children for grammar schools as was suggested. Children who are applying for independent senior schools are given mock interviews, past papers etc. That is very different from the exams set by grammar schools.
Also I beg to differ that it is mainly grandparents who are paying the school fees these days in London. It is the high income people who form the majority.

I agree with you Witzend. I tutor quite a few children of parents who have chosen to send their children to state schools and are using their money on tutoring when it's needed. That's not usually because the teaching is "bad", but pupils just need a bit of confidence or maybe they've been ill and have missed schooling. I tutor modern languages and class sizes are usually too big, so a little one-to-one help works wonders.

PS. I'd love to be able to do what I do for free, but unfortunately I do have bills to pay. I do occasionally help parents I know are struggling financially.

Ellianne

^That’s not necessarily true around here, Ellianne.
Quite a few parents are willing to pay junior school fees, in the hope of thereby getting into the grammars.^
What I said Witzend was that independent junior schools do not intensively prepare children for grammar schools as was suggested. Children who are applying for independent senior schools are given mock interviews, past papers etc. That is very different from the exams set by grammar schools.
Also I beg to differ that it is mainly grandparents who are paying the school fees these days in London. It is the high income people who form the majority.

I guess it depends where you live. In Essex, some of the indie prep schools do prepare children for the four Essex grammar schools.

rafichagran My daughter went to a comprehensive school and, at the age of 28, has a senior job in a respected organisation. She didn't need to go to grammar school. Her best friend from primary school was about the same ability as my daughter, but did go to grammar school. Despite going to different secondary schools, they both achieved almost identical GCSE and A level results in almost identical subjects, went to similar universities to study the same subject. Both are doing well in their almost identical careers, so I can only conclude that going to a grammar school didn't benefit my daughter's friend that much.

I know also two girls like that *growstuff" , contemporaries of one of my children, who were both in the top set at primary school.

One went to the local comprehensive, the other to a private school. Both did well in A-levels and ended up on the same course at the same university where both got identical degrees. I'm not sure what, if anything, that proves.

I failed my 11+, my parents, particularly my dad, were really upset with me, as far as they were concerned, that was it for me, and my dad, who had always encouraged me, and helped me, lost interest overnight.

The sad thing is, to a large extent they were right, I was happy at school, but can’t pretend the standard of education was very good. It was quite a progressive school in many ways, but most pupils still left at fifteen.

So for me it’s a no. I think the grammar schools were excellent for those who attended them, but to tell 10 year old children, that their life choices are limited, because of how well they did or didn’t do in an exam is wrong.