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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message removed as it quotes a post which has been withdrawn.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message removed as it quotes a post which has been withdrawn.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Framilode, good on your brother. I recognise some will accuse me of banging on about ancient history but here I go. Those of us who were told at 11 we were failures, at least had the opportunity to pick up 0 and A levels at f.e college night schools. Minimal fees, opportunities once two or three A levels were in place to go on to do a degree, or professional qualification. The degree was free, grants available. My prof qualification was funded by the home office, which paid me a small salary. I was a single parent. These days I wouldn’t be able to afford the night school fees. To train over two years my course fees would be £20/30,000 - no salary or grant so I’d be paying about 70k to have a very low starting salary .

We need to value education and training/higher Ed for all, not the just the privileged

I meant to also add that we should focus on improving all schools not creating more grammars, which I'd be pleased to see the back of!

I'm not sure the experience of those of us educated pre 1965 is particularly valid. We don't have grammars and secondary moderns these days. Even in those authorities that still have some grammar schools, the majority of children go to comprehensives with full access to the curriculum and the same qualifications. In most comps the top sets have children with a similar ability to those who go to grammar schools. IMO good comps serve their community well and can offer a suitable education for every child. In Saturday's Telegraph there was an interesting article about Oxbridge entrance. Bampton Manor Academy in Newham, which is a comp, got 55 pupils offered places at Oxbridge , whilst Eton got 48! (for the record in case anyone makes a judgement on my political stance, I subscribe to the Telegraph, Guardian and Washington Post as I like a balanced view of the news!)

My secondary school experience echos that of Retired65 and there was no way to make up the shortfall of not having basic maths or science.

My DGD in Buckinghamshire opted not to take her 11 plus as she would have been borderline. She choose to be at the top of a good comprehensive rather than struggle at the bottom of the grammar school. Apparently though resources still seem to be channelled towards the academic "Elite" in the grammar. Its great for those there of course and that has always been so.

My brother failed his 11+. He had one year in a secondary modern school and then my parents sent him to an independent school.

He passed his O levels and A levels and went on to university. After university he became a barrister and eventually a QC.

The point I am making is that if my parents had not had the resources to take him away from the secondary modern would he have eventually succeeded in that career. I think not.

Chardy

So many of the posts are about what happened to our generation half a century ago, or to our children a quarter of a century ago. The OP is interested in her grandchild's future, not ancient history.

Yes, but a lot of posters don't read the threads on here or answer people's questions - we just get anecdotes about their own experiences .

A lot of people have expressed concern for children who are 'not academic', and suggested alternative routes for them. Would anyone who thinks they should be educated separately like to explain how they would decide whether or not a child is 'academic' at the age of 11?

Being good at puzzles in IQ tests is no guide, and general knowledge or ability to spell or do arithmetic just shows what they have been taught, so children from some backgrounds will do better than others. Testing writing ability is also likely to exclude children with dyslexia, for instance, as this is not reliably diagnosed before the age of 11.

A child with parents who are interested in education and have the resources to help them to learn will inevitably do better than one without. That is not always to do with social class, and it most definitely is not to do with intelligence.

Also, intelligence is not the same as academic ability. I have seen a lot of academic 'plodders' get PhD's and a lot of people without who are sharper of wit and faster of brain. An 'academic' approach is suited to postgraduate study, not GCSEs and A levels, which are largely about recollection and the ability to string a sentence together in a coherent manner, and is absolutely not something that an 11 year old is likely to demonstrate.

It is also the case that many, many people become 'academic' in later life, when they are more mature, have less going on in their lives and a better idea of where their interests lie, so basically selecting people for university study at the age of 11 is idiotic.

Some 11 year olds are a mass of hormones, and others are children. Deciding who will become 'academic' would need a crystal ball.

So many of the posts are about what happened to our generation half a century ago, or to our children a quarter of a century ago. The OP is interested in her grandchild's future, not ancient history.

I have found the responses very interesting and surprising.

I still believe grammar schools should remain.

Sadly the SATs and league tables have created a huge divide, there is no measure for the many schools that have got a vast amount of SEN and ESL pupils to a good standard, this is down to amazing teaching and teamwork.
It’s not so hard to educate the top 25% of pupils.

Thankfully we have a choice, as a parent I have experience of public school, independent schools a grammar school and a comprehensive.
We have had highs and lows in every school but they have all had some outstanding staff, the one thing that stood out in all schools was favouritism of certain pupils/families.

Surely secondhand uniform and home made items are/were, certainly in the past, part and parcel of any child's experience. My father was an army officer so we were not poor but I wore secondhand uniform and passed-on uniform, as well as my mother making some items

It was the same with DD. The school uniform providers made a mistake with her skirt when she joined the school at 11 and as they could not rectify it before the beginning of term, DD and I tracked down some identical skirt fabric and a pattern and made one for her.

No one noticed so I cancelled the skirt from the outfitter and for the rest of her school career all her school skirts were home made. I also bought second hand items in secondhand sales.

Most of the army bases we lived on ran Thrift Shops where you could buy and sell clothes and my mother bought and sold clothes for my sisters and I, and I commissioned her to do it on my behalf when I was at uni. I still buy second hand clothes from charity shops and online.

I came from a very working class background with non-academic parents but I got a place at a grammar school back in the late sixties. I hated it. But a lot of that was due to my own issues rather than the school. I didn't get much benefit from it. My daughter went to a comprehensive and did well, went to Uni and now has a law degree. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue now really.

Retired65
Sorry to tell you that CEM produce practice and test papers now, though they may not have done in 2013.

25Avalon

Rubbish Purplepixie. I passed 11 Plus for grammar school. No way were my family elite. We were middle to upper working class. I stayed behind at primary school for homework which no one else did. The school uniform at grammar school was only available from one supplier and was so expensive that most of mine was bought from the school’s second hand shop. All in larger sizes to make it last. Very elite!

My mum won a scholarship in the 1930s to go to a school that was the equivalent of today's grammar school. Her mum had been a dressmaker so her mum went and studied the uniform and proceeded to buy the material and make the school uniform including the blazer!