Is selective education being reintroduced by the back door?

pursue

I don't think that many people get over being classed a failure at 10/11yrs maryEJB. I know that I was successful, and it shouldn't matter but I find it still does when I read the rubbish on here that 'children are not devastated they were just hyped up by their parents'. I was devastated and I was most definitely not 'hyped' up by my parents who just told me to try my best.
My brother failed at 11yrs, passed at 12 yrs and was in the express stream of the grammar school at 13yrs. He was the same child.

Exactly Ana but then if you had been at a sec mod and have had to wait until you were 16yrs to get a grammar school place you might well take the view that you could have used their place and they could have got O'levels in your place!
I call it unfair.

I went to a Grammar school, DH Secondary Mod. DS also went to a Grammar school, DDiL to a Comprehensive.
I am a great believer in selective education, but ultimately it's up to the child, some fight harder because they didn't get to Grammar, and others at Grammar choose to sit back and 'coast'!

I don't understand what you mean, Leticia. Both Grammar and Secondary Moderns took 'O' levels at 16, didn't they? I can't remember when the school leaving age changed from 15 to 16 but they didn't throw pupils out of Sec Moderns as soon as they reached that age...

And they could always do 'A' levels at FE College.

And you could easily have done your O'levels at secondary modern school Ana if you were not going to take A'levels.
They didn't throw pupils out of sec mods but they never had 6th forms.
I took the path that many of us took from the sec mod- that was to take O'levels and then go into the grammar school 6th form for A'levels. It was at that point that it was irritating to find that many grammar school pupils had gone and so hadn't really needed the place- we would have been better suited to it.
It is the patronising ' you can always take A'levels at FE college ' that annoyed me at 11yrs. Why? I knew at 11yrs that I was going to take A'levels so why not put me in the right school from the start? Especially since my primary Headmaster said that I was suited to a grammar school.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be patronising. But you have to admit that most children of 11 don't know whether they're going to want to take 'A' levels or not - or at least they didn't in the 60s.

It may have been an unfair system, but I can't see that comprehensives for all has worked all that well either.

I was something of a celeb in my street, being the only child within living memory to go to a grammar school. On my first day, many of the neighbours stood on the doorsteps to watch me go off in my oversized gabardine mac (room for growth) and with my new (to me) leather satchel. I loved the school and really wanted to go on to Training College to become a teacher. The thought of a working class kid like myself going to University at that time was virtually unheard of. Unfortunately, my parents felt they had given me a flying start by allowing me to stay at school until I was 16 and Sixth Form wasn't for me. The statutory leaving age in those days was 15. I did eventually, after many years working, go to University, encouraged by my DLH, and graduated with a good degree, aged almost 50.
I will always be grateful to the teachers at my Grammar School for awakening a love of education in me which has lasted until this day. I tried to give something back by working in Adult Basic Education classes until my retirement.
Those in positions of influence within education bleat on about achieving 'parity of esteem' between different types of schools. I fear that, as many OPs have pointed out, parental attitudes towards the importance of education and the ability, and willingness, of parents to pay for private education or extra tuition etc. remain an important factor in children's achievements. IMO it is as influential as selective education.

I'm ex grammar school. I was a boarder. The 5 most miserable years of my life. I left after my o levels and went to tech for my As.
I feel very ambivalent about selection now.

As we've had this discussion several times before, I though some posters might like this useful link from the October 2015 thread (not the latest thread btw) -

Grammar School Myths

Comprehensive Schools were introduced so that pupils could be "streamed" in each subject according to their ability in each. So you could be in an "A" stream for one subject and a "C" for another. No-one would be considered a failure as most people are good at something. But streaming was politically unacceptable for some, and so it was dropped. Result: muddle.

At a risk of getting drawn into a disagreement about what is and is not meant by "Bucks" I used to live in the Unitary Authority of Milton Keynes (not selective) but some children living there used to sit the 11 plus in the neighbouring local authority Bucks County Council. Always seemed to me a strange arrangement but anyway... there was a LOT of coaching going on, plus a prep school or two, with some parents doing their all to get their kids into Bucks grammar schools. I knew of several families where the kids (and parents) got very stressed about this. The local area comprehensives for these children were excellent.
My friend was stressing out because she wasn't subjecting her daughter to this (while some friends were). I reassured her that the schools were very good and she was doing the right thing.
Her daughter achieved 13A* GCSEs plus an A grade in an AS level (youngest in her year too!). She also took part in lots of other activities. The kids next door used to leave the house about 7.30 to get the grammar school bus and get home about 5 in the evening.
We certainly don't need more of this kind of thing - far more children go to university these days than would ever have fitted into old-style grammar schools - a vindication of the comprehensive system if ever there was one.

Is it though? Are standards as high these days? Some graduates are apparently virtually unemployable in the field in they wish to work because of poor literacy and numeracy skills.

I don't think anyone took more than 7 or 8 'O' Levels in my day - there wouldn't have been enough time to study for more.

Fran 0251, I do so agree with you. I passed the 11+ 60 odd years ago and went to a grammar school. In the second year we had an intake of the top girls from the secondary modern, who were well up to a grammar school education, so it wasn't fixed in stone that if you failed the 11+ you were forever at the bottom of the heap and couldn't better yourself. My boyfriend want to the Sec Mod and got exactly the same number of GCEs as I did and in academic subjects, so it really didn't matter too much if you were in a grammar or a Sec Mod, if you wanted to succeed, you could. he went on to get a good job. In addition, there were the technical schools, which provided a middle way.

I spent all my working life teaching in comprehensive schools and the trouble with them is that, while they are great in theory, they just don't work as well as the old system, as they are far too big and the staff can't possibly know all the pupils, so the naughty ones can get away with murder (not literally!) In most comprehensives there is streaming, which shows up the differences between the children's ability even more than if they were in different schools. If the children aren't streamed, the clever ones tend to be neglected as the teacher has to give all their time to helping the ones who are struggling and the clever ones are often given extra work to do on their own while the others get all the attention. The old system of different schools was much better as it didn't hold back the brightest pupils and everyone was on a level playing-field. The children got much more individual attention as the schools were much smaller and everyone was known by name, so you could keep an eye on every individual pupil.

You are talking as if all comprehensives were the same Phoebes - whereas they are all very different and there are small ones too.
I much preferred having all 3 children at the same school and they all got what they needed - the academic one a RG university, the practical one an apprenticeship and the artistic one a university with an art course.
I can't see why my DS who left at 16yrs needed to be separated from his friends who stayed on, or a different sort of school to his wife who is very academic.

I think you and I agree Leticia! My oldest grandson lives in Kent where they still have the 11 plus and has recently passed and got into a prestigious grammar school. While I am Pleased that he has got his first choice of school I think he would do equally well at the good local comprehensive where his siblings would be able to join him later. However Of course Im glad that he has done so well at his local state primary school and wouldnt want to spoil everyones happiness!

All comprehensives are not the same and there are some very good ones about, like our local one which gets excellent results. Not all are like failing inner city schools!

A few years ago some sixth form students from the local comp did an exchange with a well known public school in the area. All agreed that the standard of teaching was very similar but the public school children were quite unable to organise themselves to do homework in private homes as they were used to supervised 'prep'!

I think that people get their ideas about comprehensive schools from the ones that they see on TV. They don't seem to appreciate that in the vast areas of the country that don't have grammar schools all the grammar school ability children are in the comprehensive and quietly getting good results and into the best universities. My eldest did a science subject at a RG university and he wasn't one of the really high flyers in the school.
There are only a tiny number of grammar schools left, I think it is 163 or 4.

Perhaps someone pro grammar schools could give me a reason why my sons, with very different abilities, can't be in the same school? Bearing in mind that the school was able to meet the needs of them all.

many of the 'passes' who wasted their place by leaving at 16 yrs.

It is very unfair to say that someone was wasting a space at a grammar school only to leave at 16 and that a secondary modern school pupil could have profited from that place.

This was probably in the 1960s - when only about 5% of girls went on to University. Lots left, went on to FE colleges, joined the Civil Service (you needed 5 'O' levels to enter, and for Local Government). There were lots of openings for jobs at 16 which offered considerable further training, but you needed those 'O' levels to get in.

If a high school was disparaging towards its brightest A stream pupils because they did not want to teach then the best thing to do was go on to FE College.

Exactly my point, Jalima. And I certainly haven't got my ideas about comprehensive schools from the tv.

No Ana, not all sec mods did O level, in fact when I was in 4th and 5th year, my school was the only sec mod in the area where pupils were able to study and take 5 O levels. I was predicted good grades but we moved just over half way through the course. None of the sec mods in our new ('middle class') area allowed pupils to study O levels. Girls studied secretarial subjects in 5th year, boys did tech drawing/woodwork.

It's offensive to suggest that those of us who remember how hard it was to be labeled 'failures' at 11 take a 'hard cheese' approach and blame this on their lack of success in later life. (I'm misquoting Teacher 11 but that's the gist of her post as I read it). I was on holiday with a group of around 25 friends 10 years ago. Only 2 of us hadn't been to grammar school and then on to university at 18. Both of us had achieved well academically, going on to university in our 20's after which we had successful professional careers. The sense of injustice though hadn't left either of us. Yes, we laughed about it and no we aren't bitter, victim like individuals but we retain the belief that it's wrong to label 11 year olds as successes or failures.

And I certainly haven't got my ideas about comprehensive schools from the tv.

lol Wasn't your DC at Grange Hill with mine?

Yes, I understand Iam64 but I think that it wasn't just secondary modern schools that were like that - high schools could make their pupils feel very small indeed - one friend of mine (High school, top stream) was told her career ideas were ridiculous and she had best leave at 16. So she did, went to Technical College (as did I) and eventually became a professor working on one of the most important breakthroughs in modern science.
Our local secondary modern school was very good and the girls were encouraged to do their very best - achieving good results.

Schools are different everywhere - they should not be but they were and they are. A lot depends on whether teachers are inspirational or disillusioned.

My secondary school didn't do o levels. I had to get mine at night school in 1994 onwards. (Just for my own edification!)

GCSE,s I meant.