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

What happens here is the private schools offer scholarships to very bright students and that lifts their results so parents think they have a higher standard than state schools. A very bright state school pupil will quite likely be poached and offered at least a half scholarship. Very tempting when these schools have lovely surrounds, indoor pools, theatres etc.

Thankyou Shelflife
You to.

i feel very ambivalent. Both DH and I went to grammarars.
Both my elder children went to grammar school in Kent where there still is the "Kent Test" - 11+ by any other name. The younger went to an excellent comprehensive as the local Secondary modern was dire.
What worries me is that intellignet/academic children need to be stretched, and non-academic children need to be nurtured. The two don't really mix as the less academic/intelligent tend to be disruptive.
Ditto for single sex/mixed schools - boys do better in mixed, girls in single sex.
So what is the answer?

Balancing the books for most schools is tricky when most will have well over 80% of the budget going on staffing.
Pretty much the same in an independent school foxie. Staff are your biggest asset too.

Our local grammar school teaches their pupils, that they are above everyone else. Which is bad for both grammar school pupils and us other less mortals

Ellianne

^Balancing the books for most schools is tricky when most will have well over 80% of the budget going on staffing.^
Pretty much the same in an independent school foxie. Staff are your biggest asset too.

No doubt but there is a huge difference in per pupil finding, however for comparison, the funding in Worcestershire per secondary pupil has just been increased to £5,180 per year, the basic fees at the Royal Grammar School, Worcester are £14,178 per year. You can buy quite a few teachers, resources etc with an extra £8,998 for each pupil! Also, you can employ teachers without QTS and use your own pay scales.

I came from a very ordinary background - no money, a tied cottage with neither bathroom nor flush toilet - but both my parents had matriculated, which seems to have been a sort of O Level equivalent in the 20s. I went to a small village primary school - fewer than 100 pupils - in Mid-Surrey. But the headteacher believed passionately that the 11+ was a life-changer, and so I and one or two others were pushed quite hard. I took my 11+ a year early, and was somewhat taken aback to arrive at Grammar School and discover I was quite ordinary.

I left with a modest haul of O Levels and a couple of A levels, joining a nationalised industry. The local secondary modern was divided in two the year I started Grammar School, with the girls having a new school next door to ours. When I entered the 6th Form, a girl from the SM school joined us - she had 9 O Levels, got 3 A Levels, went on to study Architecture at Newcastle Uni. Failing the 11+ was not the end of the line even then.

The day I started primary school my twin brothers were born, which was a bit tough. When they started school, the old headmistress had retired, so the pushing days were over, but they both went to the same Grammar School as I (and DW Ashcombe) had. One became Head Boy, went to Cambridge where he got his PhD, retired a few years back as Head of Department at the Uni of Marseille. The other, sadly no longer with us, was Captain of First Eleven, graduated from Durham Uni, became a social worker, reflecting his political beliefs.

I believe that civilisation got where it has by giving people their head. Thus state Grammar Schools cater for those who, at 11, are able to step up to them. But, as I showed above, late-flowering talent can still out from a secondary modern school. They are not a dustbin, and with decent teaching pupils can still excel and fulfil their potential.

I live in Northern Ireland. Two of my children went to grammar school, my youngest didn’t. My youngest received as good an education as his 2 older siblings. He now has a better job and earns much more than the other 2. If a child has the ability and wants to work hard, does it really matter what type of school they go to?

I think that comprehensive education is the biggest mistake ever made in edfucation, forcing all children into a one size fits all education is not equal opportunity, it forces the less academically able to attempt to equal their more able peers, and the most able to be held back to the level of the less able. That is not fair on either, equal opportunity is allowing the best traits of each pupil to be channeled into the type of education that suits their abilities so that they don't fell so pressured to perform. the levels of child mental health problems, disruption in classrooms and the need for special education centres for disruptive pupils proves that what we have now is not working.

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.

I failed my 11+ 60 years ago after being told I would pass. I did fine at a progressive secondary modern and did my O levels, but the shame of being called a failure at 11 has never left me. It’s a terrible system.

I went to a grammar school and found it did not suit me. I have a technical bent so I never did well at school. I loved college and the open university. The latter allowed me to look at technology. I think 11 is too young to separate kids. If it is to happen then the age should be 13, especially now most kids are expected to stay in education till 18

I think that the two tier system has had its day. An excellent standard of education should be offered to all children. Children who I know who have passed their 11 plus exams in recent years were heavily coached so I am not sure what that actually proves. I also know people with first class degrees who have managed to get to their mid twenties and never carried out a days work in their lives. I think its just a perpetuation of the class system that we seem to hold so dear in this country. The leg up should be available to all.

I attended a grammar school just as the 3 tier system came into being.
I can't say that it really benefitted myself any more than my friends that were at Secondary Modern schools.
Some people that I know have a problem with the teachers, the uniform, subjects taught etc - in fact anything connected with the school at all (funnily, they are all male!) but I can't see how they can complain when they have no idea what the alternative schooling was at that time!
As our headmaster used to say, at the beginning of every term "Life is what you make it"

coming in at the end of this conversation (yet again)

to answer the question at the beginning

YES! council house, working class, I went to a Grammar School, the best years ever,, lifted me into another social class! (sorry! I do not believe in class, but it exists)

so YES!

I ‘passed’ the 11+ and went to Grammar school in the 50s when there were a lot more Grammar schools. The only reason I got in was because my primary school focussed purely on getting children through this exam rather than teaching a wider curriculum. But it wasn’t a good experience for me as I’ve never really been an academic so I came out of school passing no GCEs and feeling like a complete failure. I think age 11 is far too young to decide on a person’s future.
There are a few Grammar school left in the West Midlands but I understand the only way children get in is if they are privately coached to pass the exam. After my experience I didn’t want my children to go to a Grammar school and they did perfectly well in comprehensive education.
So no I’m not in favour of there being more of these schools.

Lizj
Same for me, I was only ten when I took the exam, like thousands of others.
Separating children at that age, based solely on a couple of days of tests is shameful.
The combined disappointment of my parents and grandparents, was very hard to handle, and I’m ashamed to say, I’m still slightly reluctant to admit I went to the SecMod.

I passed my 11 plus and went to a technical high as did my sister. My two brothers went to grammar school. The system now does allow for equality in education but I think some schools are just too big and I think some children go through them faceless and lost.

I would love to see them back but I intensely dislike the brouhaha over ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ the 11+. It should never be seen as a fail the process should be a way of pointing the child in the right direction to maximise their talents and potential

Caro
But would it work?
Wouldn’t there still be a stigma attached to being pointed in the direction of vocational work?
I still feel that’s it’s much too young to be pointed in any direction.

I was offered a place at our local grammar school, but told I would be in the "lower classes". My parents & I had a chat and decided it would be better for me to go to the comprehensive instead. I stayed in the top class, A stream, and got all my exams. If I had of gone to the grammar I think I would of struggled and felt I'd let myself and my parents down. Glad I took the comprehensive route, saved my parents a fortune too as the school uniform and things you needed for the grammer school would of bankrupt them!

I went to Grammar school in 1969, and can still remember the teacher's constantly saying if you don't pass the year, you will be 'kept down' to repeat the year. I worked very very hard as I was terrified it would happen to me. My friend was kept down, and was always a year behind everyone else because of it.

I passed my 11+ and went to a grammar school, where I struggled for four out of five years. I left with three O levels and three CSEs (remember them?). The teachers made no attempt to help those who were struggling, they were only interested in those who would probably go on to university. The only thing I got out of grammar school was some still enduring friendships. The Scottish system of ‘setting’ is a better one, but even that is going downhill.
One thing no one has mentioned is 14+, where someone who failed at eleven could try again and get to grammar school, but of course no one who struggled could transfer to secondary modern.

My DH is a quiet, very serious, studious, unsociable man and I know he was much the same as a boy. He was brought up in a very poor , rough and working class area where the lads were expected to go to work on the docks ( as my FiL did) or into the factories. My DD went to a small school with an inspirational teacher. He passed his 11plus and went to the grammar school and then into university. Had there not been a grammar school system he would have gone to the local comprehensive where he would doubtless have been bullied and would have had a torrid time. At least with the grammar school system some of the children managed to escape. It was only a couple of years after he left that our city scrapped the 11 plus and all the schools went comprehensive. He had a narrow escape.

Interesting that many comments here talk about failing or passing the 11+. Those very words stigmatise children at the age of 10 or 11 as having failed or succeeded. I think that exactly says why Grammar schools should be abolished. Children do not necessarily develop their abilities by the age of 10 so are condemned to a school life of second best. Schools should offer equal opportunities for all, no matter what their background, and they should be able to reach their full potential no matter what their ability.