Is selective education being reintroduced by the back door?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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'!

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 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.

pursue

Goodness, the Grammar School I attended never made pupils think they had 'wasted' their place if they left at 16!

Not everyone in those days wanted to go to university (and indeed, only a minority went from my year, even though it was a very good school), and there was an excellent College of FE nearby for those who decided to purue vocational training.

I don't believe a good education is ever 'wasted', however many years it lasts.

Why on earth would you have mixed ability in the same class Fran0251? In the comprehensive you set and someone can be in the top set for Maths but a lower set in English etc and there is movement up and down the sets so that children can be taught at the correct level for them. That level is not static.
Grammar schools go by the number of places and it is quite possible that the marks someone gets one year would be a failure the next.
I moved away from an 11+ area before my eldest was 11yrs and it was the best thing that I did. The comprehensive served all 3 of my children well and they wouldn't have done better anywhere.
I know hoards of 'failures' who have done very well in careers despite their poor start - much better than many of the 'passes' who wasted their place by leaving at 16 yrs.

Thank you. Just interested as my GD1 may do 11+ next year

Sorry lots of typos sbove - forgot to check. I meAnt the same APPLIED to me! My fingers are too fat to type on my iphone! I can write properly really!

I think that was alwAys the case. But if youve been told youve passed they havevto give you a place. the same gappwned to me: inpassed in derbyshire but was sent to avprivate school. When my parents realised how rubbish it was they took me away. By that rime we had moved to hampshire and i was offerred a placw at the local grammar which was certainly better than my boarding school (academically) but still not as goid as many of the comprehensives ive taught in. Though they do vary of course! I myst say i loved boarding school but was WAY behind when i transferred to the grammar.

MaryEJB, you say that now you could pass 11+ in one area and not another. Does that mean that the examination has changed? I passed the 11+ many years ago in S. Wales and had a definite place at a grammar school Before I could take it up we moved. My father got a teaching job in Hertfordshire. I was given a place at the local grammar school straight away.
Is it all different now then?

Well I don't agree with teacher 11, having gone both to a mediocre public school and a mediocre grammar school in the 1950s and 1960s. The results at my grammar school were appalling; very few girls stayed on the the 6th form to do Alevels or went to university. My husband and I both taught in comprehensives, and the standard of teaching was hugely higher than in either of my secondary schools. All 3 of our children went to comprehensives and they all got strings of As at GCSEs and at A level. My eldest son got a first at Sheffiled, my other son and daughter went to Oxford, and my daughter also went on to get a PhD. In what way was my education superior to theirs? At my husbands school (where he taught and our children attended) a far greater proportion of children got high results than in either of the grammar schools we went to as children. No way do teachers teach to the average - there are usually 'sets' in each subject, so that a pupil who is good at English but not at maths, say, can be in the appropriate groups. Movement between groups is easy and frequent from year to year.

I appreciate that there are poor comprehensives with bad behaviour etc, but there are plenty of poor private schools too. There are good and bad in all sectors. My husband worked as a sort of trouble shooter in both sectors after his retirement and was appalled by some of the private schools he visited. He found many grammar school teachers to be arrogant or complacent. It's much easier to get good results if you select the brightest in the first place. The question is would those children have done equally well in a comprehensive? I think they would, and also be more rounded people with an appreciation of all walks of society instead of a superior attitude.

We have several friends in their 70s like us who failed the 11 plus but managed to do well in life despite this, but ALL are very conscious of being classed as failures at 11.

I think the 11 plus is divisive and a retrograde step. Whether you pass or fail is dependent on the numer of grammar school places available not on your ability- people who fail in one area would pass in another. I feel very strongly about this!!

I feel ambivalent about grammar schools as I taught in state comprehensives and paid for prep schools and and used single sex state grammar schools for my own children.

My view is that grammar schools are unfair, yes, but they are transparently so and 'do what they say on the tin', offer a fast paced, academic education to those who are equipped to deal with it. Comprehensives are supposed to be fair but they are opaque and biased. Those outside the system do not see how the comprehensive system is gamed by insiders:- the middle classes and teachers. Private tutoring, exam resits and remarks, appeals, financial donations and direct debit contributions and extra classes and activities all ensure that the top sets are packed with Emilys, Sebastians and Krishnas and the bottom sets with Kais, Chardonnays and Mohammeds. Teachers mark their own kids' coursework or do a swap arrangement with colleagues and the teachers' favourites get the 'killer personal statement' and 'word on the side' for university entrance.

Grammar schools give bright children of any social class the chance to learn, study and shine. Often in comprehensives it is the teacher's favourites or those the state has identified as 'special' and more deserving than the rest who are prioritised. In this respect grammars are far fairer.

Another point in favour of grammars is that bright children need fast paced and stretching education. If those in the bottom sets can be catered for individually then so can the able. Think what a disaster it would be for the country if the potential Nobel prize winner or the cancer curer were idling in a mixed ability set where discipline was poor.

Also, there is a lot of 'hard cheese' talk amongst those who failed their eleven plus and use it to blame and excuse everything they don't like about life forever more. My husband failed his eleven plus and he's one of the brightest people I know. He didn't mope about it but got on with life and did very well indeed. He got the A level grades for Durham and would have gone to university had his parents agreed to him going.

Here in Buckinghamshire where most of the county has grammars the overall A-C GCSE rate is ten per cent above surrounding counties which do not and this is because everyone does better whether they are in the grammars or secondaries. Selection ups everyone's game.

Finally, if we don't like our schools how is it going to help to target the best ones with the best results? Better to have some terrific schools with able, well motivated children and good, academic subject teaching than none.

My father, who died last year aged 80, was still embittered as, even though he passed the 11+, was denied a place at the Grammar School as 'some officials' decided his mother wouldn't be able to afford the uniform. (His father had died when he was three). He spent his secondary education in the school next door to the grammar. He used to snort with derision when anyone spoke about Grammar Schools offering opportunity to those who could not afford private education. He eventually got an Open University degree in the 1980s.

I do hope selective education is being re-introduced. The bright & not so bright being taught side by side is a big problem for the teacher. She/he will not be fast enough for the bright so they are bord and above the head of the not so bright so they are lost.

I know of a comprehensive that needed rebuilding and three teaching blocks were built + IT/design block. One teaching block was openly called the grammer stream and the other two mixed. Transfer between blocks is possible and done.

Exam results have improved, so has moral and achievement. Comprehensive education is a wonderful idea, but it doesn't work. The bright get frustrated and the slow learners are left behind. Teachers have to teach to the average. Are we advocating deliberately having to ignore our bright or slow learners. Both have special needs.

Please do consider this.

These days it is far worse as money buys a place- competition is so intense that even the brightest will disadvantaged if they haven't had tutors.

All it can do is a crude divide between top and bottom, but in the middle you have to draw a line between children of equal ability.