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

I won a free scholarship to a grammar school and had a first class education. It wasn't that I was super bright but I really wanted to learn. I could read and write and do simple maths before I started school (not unusual in those days) and I can remember thinking school was heaven when I got there! People wanting to teach me something I didn't know were wonderful beings to me. My two boys couldn't have cared less about school - life was all about playing sport and having fun to them. They turned down places at good universities and both started their own businesses and are hugely successful now. But one of my grandsons is just like I used to be; I recognise the same desire to learn in him. So, yes, more grammar schools would be wonderful, I think.

Perhaps interestingly (I am not sure) the Technical High School that I went to, which had one very specific aim, to save the dockyard apprentices in the large naval dockyard in the closely adjoining town to shave a whole year off their apprenticeship, is now called a Grammar. The girls, and very few boys, who went to the Grammar when I was at school (1962-69) were very much seen locally as an elite, although the only lad I knew who went to university was David Frost, yes that one, son of the local Methodist (I think, ^non-conformist anyway^) Minister.

We moved to an area with grammars when our children were in years 7 and 9. We moved due to a job change but it was an aspect that we felt positive about as both my children were academically able and benefitted. However it isn't for everyone. Parents who have their children tutored to get them in may not be doing them any favours as they may struggle along in bottom sets whereas in a non-selective school they would be comfortable near the top.

Where I grew up our town had a 3 tier system - a boys' and a girls' grammar, a technical high school (co-ed) and a number of secondary moderns. I went to the grammar from my primary with one other girl who was tutored to get her there. Most of my friends from primary school went to the technical high. The tutored girl lived right next to the technical high and I'm sure she'd have been better suited to it as she was in the bottom sets at the grammar whereas I was in top or second sets.

One of the biggest problems in the education system, in my opinion, is the national curriculum, which forces everyone to follow an academic route for which many are not suited. After training as a teacher, in recent years I worked as a learning support assistant in a special needs department. Many of our less able students took less GCSE's than the more able students and some got the oportunity to do more vocational courses, but they were still expected to do all the 'core' subjects including English literature, hardly an essential for their future needs. They would benefit far more from more practical/vocational courses as were once provided by secondary modern schools. Equality of opportunity is not the same as identical provision, as not all children are the same, nor are their needs. Michael Gove has a lot to answer for!

You cannot have Grammar schools and comprehensive in the same area. By definition a comprehensive takes all students of all abilities. If you cream off the most able then the other school becomes a secondary school.
I don't like grammar schools for 3 main reasons.
1. They often focus so much on the academic subjects that students miss out on a lot of other experiences.
2. They attract more highly qualified teachers leaving the surrounding schools with less effective teaching.
3. They can create a two tier system where some students feel superior /inferior to others.

Actually Jilly, my question was rhetorical- expecting Tony Blair to abolish them was a non starter given his educational background.

I loved Thatcher’s retort about Grammar schools, that they’d enabled her to match the education received by Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn!

Our four children all attended same-sex grammar schools in our county, and benefitted from university educations, one at Oxford. Two have Masters degrees.

My husband and I are not privileged, elitist, or academic. We are what used to be known as 'working class'.

My father had little education. My mother went into 'service' aged 13. I attended a girls' secondary modern school during the 60s until I was 16. There was no money for further education. Neither my husband nor I had university educations.

Our children went to the local village state school. They took the 11+ back in the day before preparation, coaching and private tuition were encouraged, if not expected. In fact, the day of the test was kept secret, so that children would not feel anxious beforehand. There were a few test papers completed at school, to give pupils a rough idea of what to expect, but that was all. It was never seen to be the 'big deal' that it appears to be nowadays. It was viewed as a measure of the child's intelligence, and whether or not a grammar school would suit their level of intelligence .

This is where, I believe, the grammar system is no longer a level playing field. Those who have the financial means can ensure that their children get a head start by paying for private tuition. The actual method for passing the test can certainly be taught; however, this does not help a child who may then struggle with the expectations that a grammar school may impose.

In essence, I do feel that areas that still support the grammar system help to elevate the standard of local schools generally; primary, middle and secondary. Our children's state primary and middle schools were/are excellent, possibly, in part, due to an ethic of encouragement and the will to see all pupils achieve their best.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I passed the exam for grammar school on my second attempt at 13 years old. The local education authority would not allow me to go to the school I wanted so I stayed at the local secondary modern. I received a good education there due, I think, to small classes of 20 or less so we all received a lot of individual attention from our teachers. I just wish all schools were excellent whether they be grammar or comprehensive.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Alegrias1

I'm in Scotland so I don't have direct experience of the Grammar School system and I've never worked in education. It seems to me that separating children at age 11 and basing their future life chances on an assessment done that early is not the right thing to do.

I went to a large secondary school where all subjects were streamed. If you were good at Match but not so good at English you went into the relevant stream for each one - you could be in Steam A for Maths and Stream G for English. So you got the level of teaching that was right for you and nobody got left out.

Its probably a utopian dream but I think all schools should be run that way

That seems to be the ideal. But in these days of not expecting children to strive to be the best it probably wouldn’t be approved in today’s climate of non competitiveness.

They should never have been changed

You have put that very tactfully, Pippa ?. I can't help seeing it as 'I did it that way and was part of an elite. If others are allowed to do it too, I won't be elite any more.'

The same applies to expansion of university places -'Some people' should train to be plumbers, but obviously that didn't apply to me/doesn't apply to my children/grandchildren.'

I'm not sure you need grammar schools to get a good education. What you need is a school that works for the academic together with one which works for those with vocational aspirations and a fluidity which will allow for all children to have an education that suits them. It would be expensive to set up but could revolutionise, keeping disengaged youth engaged and help our industry at the same time. There will always be children that fail at academia, there are bright children who will not necessarily rise to the challenge of an academic education but the best learning takes place when there is an interest in the subject they are studying. I hated history, geography and science at school but loved more practical stuff. Now I've grown up (I think) I love history and some science. We don't all engage with subject areas at the same age so I have wasted years of learning time when I could have been enthused.

Although this is very nice thread "the story of my education" is, by the very fact that we are on "Gransnet", history.

Education has changed so much and, unless you have recently been teaching we probably know very little about it. I know I'm lucky with where I live and where my children went to school as we have very good comprehensives and the snobs still got the opportunity to send their children to our local "Grammar School", still called that although it is a Comprehensive. We also have some good Independent schools. Three of the schools in the area are faith-based. We were able to get our children to the schools we thought suited them best.

But ... this too is history. When I hear about my GCs education it's amazing. When I hear about my friends GCs education it to is amazing and yet when we have a thread about how we go forward we hear all about education 50 or 60 years ago.

Time has moved on. If we are looking to improve education shouldn't we be looking forward rather than backwards? The future always demands different skills to the past but then, when they said we should teach all children to read people probably looked back and thought it was better when they were part of a small group that had that privilege; after all, it doesn't suit everyone to be able to read does it?

Aepgirl

It was just jealousy and lowering of standards that were the demise of grammar schools. What is wrong with having schools for the more academically able and schools for those with practical and craft skills? We used to be a nation of manufacturing but now because all youngsters deem it their right to go to university, even if they are not suited to that, we have few who want to go into manufacturing.

Did you, and/or your children go to grammar schools and/or university?

Sorry - got to ask - why did you not want to take Higher Maths?

In 1952, I sat the Qualifying Exam (known as the Qually) and proceeded to the A stream in the local authority Academy in my Scottish homeland. The main difference between the A and B streams was that the A class did Latin. There was some fluidity between streams. A friend who failed the Qually, despite being expected to do well, arrived in the A class after just one term and learnt as much Latin in a few weeks as we had in a full term. After three years we were sorted into subject sets and were able to take extra languages - at least, German or Greek. Pupils from the B stream who were good at Maths, for example, found themselves in the top set. I was in the middle set and managed to get out of taking Higher Maths, by deliberately failing the prelim (mock) exam. I am grateful for the education I received from committed teachers in this otherwise undistinguished Academy on the west coast of Scotland.

The more academically inclined could gravitate to the Grammar School, the more practical or technically gifted could gain a sound education in the Comprehensive School.

That more or less sums up the old tripartite system from the 1944 Education Act, in which vast numbers of children were labelled as failures at the age of eleven. The post-war baby boom (my generation) highlighted the inequity of this. The number of grammar school places stayed the same, while the number of 11 year olds increased. It doesn’t take a selective education to work out why this approach was failing society and harming children.

langelei

I was very fortunate to be in the position of attending a secondary modern that had a grammar streaming attachment. This meant that as I managed to progress through the years of schooling I had the privilege of achieving that degree of education I would not have had the experience of otherwise. And for that I am so grateful. Just wish there were more of these still being used and being available for more rounded education for late achievers such as myself. ??‍♀️

But there are! They're called comprehensives.

Iam64

I’m curious that the pro selection posters believe comprehensive education means bright pupils aren’t stretched. Comprehensives stream for academic ability.

Exactly! People are mainly talking about a time when there were secondary moderns. Comprehensives are for all abilities and are not the same as secondary moderns. A decent comprehensive most certainly does "stretch" the most able.

Very few children from disadvantaged homes in Essex attend grammar schools.

A few years ago, I asked for a FoI request, asking how many pupils in all four Essex grammar schools received free school meals. There were 11 - out of a total of over 3,000 pupils. That's about 0.3%. Compare that with averages in other schools, which are usually about 10% and much higher in some areas.

I’m curious that the pro selection posters believe comprehensive education means bright pupils aren’t stretched. Comprehensives stream for academic ability.

I think that there is far too much focus on academic subjects these days. It’s reaching the point where one needs a degree for almost any job, no matter how menial.
My GS is intelligent, but not interested in going to Uni. All he wants to do is to train as a plumber. Instead of being forced to sit GCEs he would have been far better off in a technical college, from around 14.
I went to a girls’ grammar school. I was painfully shy, and the lack of male contact blighted my social confidence and led me to marry the first man who asked me!
My parents took no interest in my education, and resented their limited income being spent on expensive uniforms and equipment. They insisted that I left at 16, so I gained no advantage from going there.
Although grammar schools can be a big plus for some pupils, I think that pupils gain much more from being ‘set’ in groups according to their abilities, with flexibility to move to a different set, as needed.

Where I grew up, for those who passed the 11+, there was an option of a Grammar School OR a Technical School.

As a child, I always wanted to go to the Grammar School - which I DID do. The Education that I received was excellent, BUT, thinking back ...................... I would have been better at the Technical School.

I think I must have read far too many Enid Blyton books in 'my formative years' - my Grammar School was like a 'snobbish version of St.Trinian's' with a building that looked like something out of Harry Potter .

I was very fortunate to be in the position of attending a secondary modern that had a grammar streaming attachment. This meant that as I managed to progress through the years of schooling I had the privilege of achieving that degree of education I would not have had the experience of otherwise. And for that I am so grateful. Just wish there were more of these still being used and being available for more rounded education for late achievers such as myself. ??‍♀️