Social mobility and grammar schools

oops 1947 , I did grow up lol

Well I "passed " the 11+ and went to Grammar School in 1937 , I was 10 yrs old . My Sister and Brother both followed and passed it too . I went on the 3rd level , they both dropped out at 15 even though they were as clever as the rest . One worked in a shop the other finally got into Nursing but was thrown out for being drunk , so maybe the 11+ wasn't helpful , but I certainly made the most of my education . My DC all passed it too and went on to 3rd level , all lovely sane people

We don't need to return to the grammar school, secondary modern era to offer good apprenticeships. The large, local engineering firms where many young men were apprenticed are largely a thing of the past. Sixth form colleges offer excellent courses for apprentices. The realissue is finding yourself an employer though things do seem to be improving.

I'm opposed to any moves towards the reimposition of grammar schools for all the reasons given above. Granny2016, you're right that the curriculum doesn't suit everyone. It never did but today is much better than yesterday. It's just wrong to put 80percent of children in a box that suggests they aren't very bright, based on one short and frankly odd exam, at the age of eleven.

Anniebach....I did say in my original post that 11 was too young and suggested 13.
I think all pupils should be given the opportunity to develop before being tested.It is a big leap from primary to secondary education,and a time of significant personal changes.

Children today are monitored on their development and progress from nursery into primary and are tested many times with SATS before they even reach 11.That is extremely hard on some young children.
My younger daughter did work placement with pre schoolers.
She asked me why they could,t be allowed to "just be children".

Grammars give some pupils the opportunity of a different education.
A good deal of our university spaces are taken by pupils from comprehensives, My daughter and sister were two of them.

Though very bright,I was practical rather than academic.It was very hard for me at the grammar,often I didn,t like it and was pleased to leave,but feel I would have achieved far less without the constant pushing I received.
Looking at a list of current grammar schools,they seem to be concentrated in quite limited areas.
Expansive changes would possibly meet with strong opposition.

You are speaking of two Granny2016, how many the same year your brothers failed who were affected in a very negative way? It suited you and your brothers , it badly affected the lives of so many children

Anniebach, both of my brothers failed the 11 plus and at no time did they feel that they were failures.They enjoyed their secondary school,there was lots of sport and practical subjects which suited them .They were very intelligent boys.
Neither was there any difference of feeling at home while I was at the grammar school.In fact,I think they pitied me the amount of homework.

They also benefitted from a widespread apprenticeship scheme,which is sadly lacking.

The curriculum today is far more suited to some than others.
I have concerns that there are many pupils not interested academically,who would benefit/enjoy an education centred more on practical skills which would help them into suitable work.

I

No I am so against grammer schools Granny2016, children should not have their future decided on one exam. And for a child to feel a failure when only eleven is brutal .

Oh Anniebach,of course there will be some.

I take it you do not support grammar schools.

Trisher that was the case 50 years ago but it's not now. Comprehensive schools and grammar schools will have similar class sizes and both deliver a full range of subjects for GCSE with qualified subject teachers. Most comprehensives also have large sixth forms, although grammar schools might offer a different range to some.
Grammar schools will have exactly the same funding per pupil as other schools.
And yes anniebach my DH went to a boys grammar where some teachers got a terrible time from their classes.

Also, there are children who shrug their shoulders and think - what's the point of studying because they have been judged a failure when only age eleven

Sheilasue,

My younger daughter went to work after O levels,took a typing course,learnt on the job and was a junior manager before setting up as self employed.
I agree completely that experience at work can be more valuable in life than an extended education.
My degree was a 4 years course,and I learnt far more in the first year that I went out to work in industry.I may not have got the job without it,but feel the course could have been 2 years.

I don,t agree about the school though.Pupils can learn better in a class ,and teachers can teach better in a class without constant interruptions and unruly behaviour.
I think time has made a difference too.
When the comps were first introduced,they were a follow on from the grammar/secondary system and I do not remember the same amount of social problems as we have now.
I can,t think of one nasty family on the council estate where I lived in the 50,s and 60,s.A couple of families were considered a 'bit rough' but they were decent people.

But the grammar school pupils aren't in large classes niggly. Large classes are in the other schools where as you say some children don't want to learn. So the child who just fails the 11+ doesn't deserve the support his peers in the grammar school get? In my opinion he needs more support not less.

You can teach a large class of young people without any problems if they all want to learn. A class of young people who don't want to learn is an uphill battle however small that class is. Most young people attending Grammar Schools want to learn, which gives them and their tutors an immediate advantage, as well as the financial one. I think there are pros and cons, and its difficult to say whether or not they should be re introduced in areas where they now don't exist.

Granny2016, so grammer schools never have pupils who are ill mannered / never had cause to expel a pupil / never have pupils who make less than polite comments ?

One of the problems with grammar schools is that they are expensive to run and therefore less is spent on the ordinary secondary school. Certainly my grammar school had specialist teachers for most subjects whereas the sec mod had a class teacher who covered a lot of subjects and a few specialists like woodwork teachers. I would imagine that this has changed but there is still a danger that smaller classes and better teachers are part of the grammar school system and the reason children do better there. If the same spending was introduced for a comprehensive system all children would benefit.

@ Iam 64

I did not say that there were not good teachers in more deprived areas.
I did say that there WERE teachers at my daughters school and in others,who were not able to work as they wish,due to the problems in that school.I have not said that there are good teachers only in better areas,but that better areas will attract good teachers.
I do have experience of teaching part time in a comp,in a very mixed in-take area,and know from discussions in the staff room ,of the problems some teachers were facing.
I would say that they were all dedicated to their subject,but were having some difficulties in the classroom,which were serious distractions for other pupils.

I have had several friends who are/have been teachers in comps.
One was pinned against a wall during class and her family threatened,the other very recently spat at and has loud comments made about her large bust (bust being my polite word )while teaching.
These two are both extremely dedicated teachers.

There is no doubt,that some schools have a far easier time in delivering the curriculum than others.
It is my main reason for supporting the grammar schools.

I left school at 15 my family need my sister and my brother to go out and earn a wage.i feel I learnt a lot more from leaving school and going out in the big wide world. Don't think whatever school you go to makes a difference I went to a comprehensive school first one built in SE London in fact and my daughter went to the same school. I believe it's about good teaching and if pupils want to learn they will.

Granny2016, yours was a heart felt post and I don't mean to quibble but here I go. You comment that schools in 'good areas' will always attract good teachers. I have friends and family who teach in deprived areas. They are excellent, dedicated teachers. My experience of working with children and families was that all to often, the schools in 'good' areas didn't give the same attention to pastoral care as those in the less affluent areas.
Very often, professionals who choose to work in 'deprived' areas are equally good at their work, in addition to which, they are dedicated to going that extra mile for those in greater need.

Oh dear....I didn,t realise how long that was !!!!

My young sister went to a comp in a good area.She was exceptionally clever,10 O levels and several A.s,two degrees.She has her own legal practise.
My parents relocated to move into the catchment area.

I was surprised to pass the 11 plus.
I went to a girls grammar school,where I was the quietest and weakest in class.I lacked confidence as the only pupil from a council estate.There were 32 in class and I came 32nd.
Shame got me into gear and I worked my way up to 7th.
I did my A levels in one year and started a degree course at 17.I had fantastic teachers and small classes.The head lived on the premises and taught English literature.When she broke her leg,she taught us from her bed,
My confidence and independence soared in that school,enough to be told in the lower 6th that I was rebellious ,though I didn,t feel it.I believe I would not have got on well without that education and that I could have been left behind in a large comp.

My own daughters went to a comp in an area with social problems.If a window was broken,it would be replaced with perspex,and after they left, an outdoor team was brought in to maintain pupil order.

Daughter no1 Gregarious and academic,pushed hard and went to Uni.
Daughter no.2 Clever,practical and quiet ,suffered severe bullying resulting in GP care and removal to a comp in a 'nice' area.She was a completely different girl and thrived in her new school.
My daughters succeeded despite that school and not because of it.
There were some good teachers,but they could not function fully in that environment.
Dedicated friends of my daughters teaching today have very different experiences.Some are able to deliver their lessons to willing pupils, whereas others deal with the disruptive.
Schools in good areas will always attract good teachers.
Sadly there are good teachers in some school who just have it tough.

I have never been in favour of a single system of state education.
Pupils and their aspirations vary and one size does not fit all.

I would love to see more grammar schools with flexible entry levels .11 is too young to be the cut off age.
Before comps,there were plans to build more technical schools.
These were to teach skills such as engineering,technical drawing, and mechanics. My husband went to one and became a furniture designer.They would suit many young people and supply them will skills compatible with industry.

@Gettingonabit

I once worked in a private school. All pupils are not from well off homes.I knew of one mum who sold some of her furniture to keep her dyslexic daughter in the school.We taught the national curriculum and took in pupils from state schools who were struggling in large classes.
We also had second hand uniform sales so that parents could buy cheaper than the school outfitters.
Most of the teachers had also taught in the state system and were able to deliver their lessons more easily and with time for individual pupils.
Private school is not always for the well healed and the brightest children,though we did have one whose home had 5 bathrooms.
Nice girl,who lost her exam work when it fell behind the fitted wardrobes.
She was in deep water when I asked her dad if he could somehow retrieve it as it was late for marking.
They didn,t have fitted wardrobes !!!!

Leticia I feel I was 'vastly handicapped' by getting a place at grammar school. I had no idea what the 11+ was for - I thought it was just a school test. The expectations of my parents made life almost unbearable for me from 11 to 16 years old and I hated every minute of it. My (younger) sister went to the sec modern and enjoyed her days much more without that pressure but learned just as much - except for the compulsory Latin which I finally managed to drop after failing the mock GCE.

My primary schooling had been in a small village with one infant teacher and one junior teacher educating 27 children between them. Absolutely brilliant. Unfortunately we had to move when I was 9 and I was thrust into inner city life and class sizes of 35-40 pupils. To my mind small class size is the key to good education.

no one has yet explained to me why my children need to be in a different school (which is what would have happened ).

75-80% (ie 'the rest') covers an incredibly wide ability range, especially now so many children with learning difficulties attend mainstream schools. I've always found it baffling that one size is supposed to fit all of them. The key is differentiation, so why not include all pupils?

The important thing is that all schools should be properly funded and managed, I taught at a secondary modern in the 70s and the discrepancy between our capitation per pupil and that of the grammar school was disgraceful. Now we see millions being spent on free schools instead of improving those schools which most need it.

Of course everyone can come up with a story of someone who benefitted from a grammar school place BUT there are many more who were vastly handicapped by not getting a place.