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

ome grammar schools are academically very good. The problem with grammar schools and that system is children are divided at age 11 into successes and failures.

When I went to school (in the Stone Age) nobody got extra tuition. Nobody went to anything other than the local secondary school, except one person whose parents paid for her to go to a single sex school 40 miles away. We thought that was odd. Anyway....

Out of us state schooled, non-tutored people, we have several PhDs, a couple of doctors, an ex RAF pilot, a diplomat, a few vets, several business people......I could go on.

None of us needed our parents' money either to pay for our education or get tutored so that we could do better. Because we got a proper state education. Free for everybody. It really doesn't seem that difficult a concept to me.

What I thought was really hilarious (sorry!), was that when I did my A-levels' at my local technical college I met a number of people who had been privately educated, failed their O- levels and then went to college to re-take and then do A- levels. I wondered what their parents thought, spending a fortune and getting very little in return.
I went to college BTW as clearly there were no uniforms and the range of subjects suited me. Oh, I hated those uniforms with a vengeance!

Grammar schools are excellent - for those who get to go to them.

They don't create social mobility for those who fail to go to them. It's very hard, if not impossible, for a child to move up, integrate, loose their friends - or for a struggling child to move the other way. Streaming in a comprehensive is much more fluid and flexible.

When I was at the Sec Mod, we were invited to take the 13+, I begged my dad not to make me, and was surprised when he agreed, I think now, he couldn’t have stood the shame of me failing twice.
Two of my friends took it, and one passed, and I think she settled in very happily.

Horses for courses. Some are suited to grammar schools, others not. My 4 daughters all went to the same primary school but 4 different high schools. Three went to private schools, one to a ‘good’ state school. They all went to uni. One went to what you would describe as a ‘posh’ private school on a scholarship. She certainly ended up very self confident and I think this was largely to do with the school and maybe that she was the youngest,too.

I would be interested to know where all those families moving out of London to more rural areas are going to send their children to school. I suspect those from private schools in London might be happy to try state schools in the provinces.

Grammar schools are state schools and I think the basic idea was good. But kids should have been IQ tested early and moved into ability sets at primary to give everyone a chance. I was ridiculously bored at secondary school and left at 16. Years later I discovered I have a high IQ. My school was a grammar; in some ways it did lead to social mobility - my parents had no money and little education. I worked my way up to a very good job and in fact later took an MSc and BSc in different subjects. So I am torn. If I’d have gone to our local comprehensive I am sure I would have got into some serious trouble through sheer boredom!

Razzy If you had gone to your local comprehensive, there is no reason why your ability shouldn't have been recognised and you would have been given adequate challenge. Some people are confusing comprehensives with secondary moderns - Comprehensives are for all abilities. My local comprehensive regulary has over a dozen pupils who go to Oxford and Cambridge, some who go to other prestigious unversities and receive masters degrees and doctorates. The school also produces cracking plumbers and mechanics!

I have written up thread about why I do not support grammar schools. However, they do have some things in their favour.

They did more for social mobility than comprehensives. Children of all backgrounds, could and did get to grammar school. DH's husband worked on a car assembly line, his best friend's father, was a small shopkeeper who went bankrupt and became a farm labourer. Both went to grammar school, both went to university, both had successful careers.

I went to a northern technical university. 90% men, 10% women. The majority of the males students came from working class backgrounds and got to university by passing the 11+ and going to grammar school.

The problem with comprehensives is that they are, generally, only as good as their catchment area. The poorest comprehensive schools are in the poorest and most deprived areas. Yes, some buck the trend, but the majority of top comprehensives are in leafy suburbs

MOnica How did they do more for social mobility that comprehensives? Having taught in comprehensives for over 30 years, I could tell dozens of stories of social mobility. I'm not going to name them in public, but I have taught loads of people who have become very successful, who came from quite modest, unassuming backgrounds. In some cases, this was despite lack of support from home.

It is relative growstuff. the statistics, from Oxbridge colleges in particular, shows that many more working class children got into top universities in the 1950s and 60s than have in recent years.

It is not all or nothing. Many children from poorer or disadvantaged backgrounds do get into top universities from comprehensives. But the majority of comprehensive pupils getting into top universities come from comprehensive schools in wealthier areas.

My DGD goes to just such a school. One of the best schools in the area, situated in the centre of several large affluent suburbs, it sends a significant number of children to top universities. So much easier to do when most of your pupils have graduate parents, live in comfortable houses, where the children do not share bedrooms and have their own computers. yes, there are children from less advantaged homes, but not many. There are not many in the catchment area and children from other areas need to use public transport to reach it, not an expense poorer families can afford to pay.

My sister and I both failed the 11+ our brother passed and went to grammer school. Our parents never made us feel we had failed , my sister had a very senior teaching position . I went into higher education later in life and achieved a first class degree from Manchester university. I retired some years ago after teaching in further education. Failing the 11+ had a profound effect on me , it took me a long time to realize I was not dim !!!
It was a very unfair system to assess children at the age of 11 and send them to schools that have low expectations for their students. The comprehensive system changed things for the better. So providing the comprehensive system does a good job I have no problem with grammer schools running alongside them. Has to be preferable to secondary modern schools!!!! I am now advanced in years and still feel my sister and I were treated very badly .

Where one DD lives there are 2 grammar schools with an entrance exam, 2 Church schools and 6 comprehensives, all called high schools, (though some of the high schools have now gone for academy status), available for local primaries.
As everywhere, some of the high schools have better reputations than others.
Unlike with the 11+, you only take the grammar school entrance exam, at the school, if you want to go there. Thus there are fewer children faced with an exam they have a lower chance of passing.
Primary heads advise parents whether their child is likely to pass, but have no say in whether the child sits the exam.
At least with the internet, results from each school are readily available and visits from parents are arranged before you apply.
I visited schools before sending my children, but finding out results was more complicated back then.

Shelflife

My sister and I both failed the 11+ our brother passed and went to grammer school. Our parents never made us feel we had failed , my sister had a very senior teaching position . I went into higher education later in life and achieved a first class degree from Manchester university. I retired some years ago after teaching in further education. Failing the 11+ had a profound effect on me , it took me a long time to realize I was not dim !!!
It was a very unfair system to assess children at the age of 11 and send them to schools that have low expectations for their students. The comprehensive system changed things for the better. So providing the comprehensive system does a good job I have no problem with grammer schools running alongside them. Has to be preferable to secondary modern schools!!!! I am now advanced in years and still feel my sister and I were treated very badly .

I agree with you totally. It's absolute nonsense to cause such division with a couple of flawed tests at the age of 11.

I can just about accept a system which selects the top 2 or 3%, which Essex does for its four grammar schools. However, a system such as in Kent is rubbish. The ones at the bottom end in grammars schools are more similar to the average in the secondary moderns than they are to the genuinely able at the top, but people have different expectations of them.

Thank goodness the majority of children are not subjected to the same cruelty. Society has changed since the post-war era. The country needs all its citizens to be developed, not just a handful.

The weak link is that some areas still have comprehensives with the most able "creamed" off and some parents have low expectations. Schools in some of the most needy areas are being deprived of funds and there is some evidence this has become worse over the last ten years.

M0nica

It is relative growstuff. the statistics, from Oxbridge colleges in particular, shows that many more working class children got into top universities in the 1950s and 60s than have in recent years.

It is not all or nothing. Many children from poorer or disadvantaged backgrounds do get into top universities from comprehensives. But the majority of comprehensive pupils getting into top universities come from comprehensive schools in wealthier areas.

My DGD goes to just such a school. One of the best schools in the area, situated in the centre of several large affluent suburbs, it sends a significant number of children to top universities. So much easier to do when most of your pupils have graduate parents, live in comfortable houses, where the children do not share bedrooms and have their own computers. yes, there are children from less advantaged homes, but not many. There are not many in the catchment area and children from other areas need to use public transport to reach it, not an expense poorer families can afford to pay.

MOnica I know and agree with you. I live in such an area. My children went to such a comprehensive. It is a 12 form entry school and the top sets are indistinguishable from grammar schools. The results from the top two sets are no different from the grammar schools and the comp actually sends more children to Oxbridge. There's a distance threshold for the 11+ in Essex and we're not allowed to have our children sit the 11+. It would possibly be a different story if they could, but the school has built on its advantages and most people choose to have their children educated here.

It has meant that very "ordinary" children from (so-called) working class backgrounds are educated alongside the children of Cambridge dons, millionaire financiers, hospital consultants, researchers, lawyers, etc etc. My son's best friend was one of those "ordinary" children who went to Cambridge.

The big problem arises when there are "sink" schools - local schools where people generally have low aspirations for their children and the most able have been bussed off elsewhere.

Experience in London has shown that concentrating on those areas can have a positive impact, although the children in many cases are from immigrant families, where there is often a culture of parents' supporting their children's education.

Alexa

ome grammar schools are academically very good. The problem with grammar schools and that system is children are divided at age 11 into successes and failures.

I'd be horrified if grammar schools weren't academically good. Their intake is very able so, of course, they should achieve well. The point is that there is no reason why those very same children couldn't do just as well in a comprehensive school with effective differentiation strategies.

Sago

Alegrias1 How can money buy success?
Our sons went to a public school, many of their peers are not successful.
They have been well educated, disciplined and given a good foundation, the rest is up to them.
I don’t believe the name of the school made any difference on a CV or university application.
It possibly went against them..

Ahem! Sorry, but it does make a difference. I know that from various horses' mouths.

nanna8

I liked the grammar schools ,they had a very high standard of education or at least the one I went to did. There is a certain amount of discrimination against very bright children these days, I see that they are quite disadvantaged, particularly if they are not particularly outspoken. Subtle but definitely there. Reverse of what things used to be I think.

Please could you give some discrimination against very bright children. I must admit I haven't seen any.

Shelflife
I agree with you, not only for myself, but there were some very bright children in our form, who probably should have been at a grammar school.
I’m not sure grammar school would have suited me, I did a lot of pushing boundaries, and questioning rules, and there would probably been a lot more rules to question there.
But I did feel a failure, my parents were gutted, and no matter how well I did at the SM, it would never be enough.

Thankyou growstuff and saral1954. Our parents were amazing ,we were fortunate. During my degree study the subject of assessment was discussed. Our tutor said that in the north of England boys were far more likely to pass the 11+ than girls. He thought this was because post war our industry needed rebuilding , girls were needed and expected to work in mills and factories to get the country back on its feet! Boys of course we're considered to be more important and to take more academic/ professional
roles in the work place. Even after all those years since I ' failed' that exam those words were
music to my ears, I felt vindicated!!! I imagine that the process of selection at 11 years age happened across the country. I left secondary school aged 15 with no qualifications , a very low self esteem and a 'stamp' on my forehead saying
' looser' All three of our children attended a comprehensive school and did well. I feel sure that if any of them had proved to be not very academic they would have been in the best place and we would have dealt with that in the best way possible. I think grammer schools may have their place as long as comprehensive schools do not become the next Secondary Modern schools! Hopefully that will not happen as entry to the comprehensive system is not dependent on a childs performance during one exam or on its gender !
Rant over ! Sorry for that but my feelings of injustice are deep rooted and serve to illustrate just how such an assessment

has lasting consequences. I am of course not opposed to children being assessed in the appropriate way .

Shelflife
That’s very interesting, I wish my dad was still alive, so I could tell him why my rather dim cousin managed to pass.
I was always sat helping him while he snivelled and said he couldn’t do it, even I was surprised he managed to make his way to grammar school, but he’d done very well, so perhaps he was just a slow starter.
I left at the end of fourth year with my whole class and went on to college, the secondary modern gave way to big shiny new comprehensive, so my younger brother never had to go through it.
All a very long time ago, but it still casts a shadow.

"The weak link is that some areas still have comprehensives with the most able "creamed" off and some parents have low expectations. Schools in some of the most needy areas are being deprived of funds and there is some evidence this has become worse over the last ten years." says growstuff

Actually if you look at the relative per pupil allocation for all of the local authorities, there is a huge disparity in central funding with cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester receiving much money per pupil than the leafy rural areas like Surrey, Sussex Worcestershire etc add to that the pupil premium funding there is a further disparity despite there being a high level of rural poverty based on minimum wage levels rather than unemployment. Despite govt initiatives to even out school funding there is a huge gap. For me one of the biggest problems is that staffing costs are paid out of each school's allocation, schools with a settled staff find they are paying a bigger % of their budget on staffing with each year, every time there is a pay increase for teachers, it whacks the school budget, every time there is a change in NI contributions, it whacks the school budget etc and these increases are never fully funded by an increase in annual funding. The charge for the apprenticeship scheme took money out of schools but put nothing back. Balancing the books for most schools is tricky when most will have well over 80% of the budget going on staffing. Unfortunately the general public don't realise this. Sorry bit of a hobby horse for me!

A shadow indeed! However it is water under the bridge and the most important issue is that such a deplorable assessment method is never repeated. Saral 1954 hope the story from my tutor regarding grammer school selection in the post war years serves to soften the blow of your 11+ result! Be happy ?