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

Where I live we have always had Grammer Schools, nowadays children do not have to sit the 11 plus, my Grandaughter decided not too, and is in top stream at an excellent Academy. My friends Grandaughter took it and starts at Grammer School in September, So it’s down to choices, we’ve had children, can’t stand word kids, who have gone to Medical School, Oxford, Cambridge from both schools. Can’t see what the fuss is about.

My son's teacher recommended him to take the entrance exam for our local boys grammar. On the day of the exam we were shown into a waiting room where other children with parents were waiting. Many of these children were wearing uniforms from some of the top private primary schools in the area. I know that these children are rigourously trained in taking entrance exams to top schools and I couldn't help thinking that poorer children from the local primary schools might not have that advantage. Grammar schools are really good IMO for very bright children from the state sector, but if parents of posh kids who can well afford fees for private schools choose the Grammar state funded route as the cheap option then it really defeats the object of poorer kids getting in.

Flo53
One of my daughters spent a year in a very good girls school, we loved it when we looked around, we thought it would suit her very well.
We knew it was academically very good, but thought that as long as she passed the entrance exam, she’d be fine.
We were wrong, she struggled academically right from the start, the only help they could offer was for her to give up everything else, and concentrate on her school work.
I will always remember her spending the Christmas holidays on a project, doing lots of research, and presenting it well, only to have it rubbished by her teacher.
It was a great school in many ways, lots of girls did amazingly well, but her next school had their work cut out building her confidence back up.

My daughter is at a super-selective grammar school (no defined catchment so families move from all over the country to help their children achieve a place). She is registered blind, adopted from the UK care system and has a diagnosis of neo-natal abstinence syndrome due to her exposure to heroin and methadone in the womb. I am a single parent and my daughter is on free school meals because we’re a very low income family. She had no tutoring for the 11+ exam because I couldn’t afford it at £35 an hour.

I am grateful every single day that her grammar school exists and that she has a place, mainly because, regardless of the academics, the pastoral care is so wonderful. My daughter has experienced and continues to experience much disadvantage in her day-to-day life so I have no qualms in evening up the balance and sending her to the very best school for her.

I went to a Girls Grammar and definitely support them. Our sons went to a former grammar school which had gone independent, so we had to pay for the same education I got for free. We consequently drove beaten up cars and had no savings until they left school but it was worth it.

grandMattie

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?

The two groups can be taught in the same school. Most comprehensives have some form of setting, so pupils are not taught in mixed ability classes.

It is not unknown for able pupils to be disruptive and they can be very clever about it. A decent discipline system should sort them all out, although this needs proper resourcing and leadership.

The system in Scotland where I happened to be when 11 years was the High School or Secondary school. You had to pass your qualify exam at a certain level to go to the High School, considered as more academic and where you could sit the Higher exams required for University entry.For those not making the grade the secondary school offered much more in the way of technical/commercial skills culminating in a Leaving Certificate. The secondary was organised in groups eg A,B,C, those in A being the brightest and the studies graded accordingly. Anyone in a B, C group showing aptitude would be moved up a level to achieve potential. After 3 years this could be followed by Technical College and eventually Uni. There was a stigma attached to the Secondary v High School system and when the comprehensive system was adopted this was hoped to lessen the stigmatisation of children academically. Unfortunately the comprehensive system has it's own faults eg mixed level classes or streaming according to ability. The grammar school system openly perpetuates academic divide.

Sara1954

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.

Yes to see my strong Mum crying because I “failed” will stay with me forever.

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.

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.

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.

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 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!

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 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

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.

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’ 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.

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 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"

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 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 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.

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 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.