Social mobility and grammar schools

75% of parents who have children in comprehensive schools are not going to accept it quietly if they have 25% creamed off and find they are in a secondary modern.

Another one on the reality of grammar school education as opposed to the nostalgia of a golden age that never existed

If you read my 11myths of grammar schools with the actual statistics * MOnica* you would see that it didn't do anything for social mobility, and why.

I suppose it depends what one means by "fulfilling potential". I'm beginning to wonder if academic success is necessary at all.

For example, we are apparently desperately short of skilled trades but you rarely see angst about it.

Personally I think GSchools are outdated now. I'd also phase out private schools, and invest properly in EVERY child.

@GrandmaMoira

I'm not a fan of mixed ability classes either, but most comprehensives set pupils by ability wherever possible.

I still don't think that 3 years at University is necessary for a person to fulfill their potential.
Many of the courses seem to be a waste of time, and the whole thing just puts off the evil day when you have to go out there and fend for yourself.

I went to grammar school from the mid sixties to the early seventies and to university in the seventies and I can honestly say I don't remember any working class pupils/students. By then, their parents (who had possibly been working class) would have been the ones who benefited from the free grammar schools after the 1944 Education Act, had gone into white collar jobs and become 'middle class'.

I went to university in the north of England in the early 1960s. Most of my fellow students, especially the men, came from working class/just above working class backgrounds and they were all there because they had passed their 11+ and gone to Grammar School. If it hadn't been for the 11+ few, including DH, would have got to university.

As with any system of education the 11+ system wasn't perfect, and could have been improved but I think it did more for social mobility than our present system where the comprehensive schools in good areas are so much better than comprehensives in poor areas and as a result bright working class children have so little chance to escape mand fuldill their potential. Far more children from 'good' comprehensive schools in affluent areas go to university than bright children from poorer schools in disadvantaged areas.

I think it was called "sitzen bleiben"

Do they have repeating the school year if you fail in Germany Margaret? I could never work out whether that was a good thing in France or not.

Social mobilty was also marrying upwards. Nurses wanted to marry a doctor , others wanted to marry the curate or some other professional man. Sounds a bit like a romantic novel now but that was what it was like in the 50s and 60s.

I passed the 11+ amd went to grammar school. There were only 3 girls' grammar schools and another 3 which took girls as well as boys in Sheffield(500,000 population) My best friend failed but became a teacher in her twenties and another boy failed - a boyfriend I had later- and he said he was taken out of the secondary modern and given another chance and moved into grammar school at the age of 13. My best friend.- a girl wasn't given this second chance.
All in all it was a good education -and I learned to play match tennis, but at 16 it was over. I think only about 6 girls managed university after 6th form, but my father died when I was 17 and as nobody helped or encouraged me or gave us information about grants, I went into the steel works which were good employers in those days.

How can they bring grammar schools back now, when the prime minister went to a comprehensive school. Surely the GCSE exams are the same?
In Germany we still have grammar schools but no 11+. Actually the children are only 10 when they go and 8 years later they take the Abitur. There is no exam before that. Others can move over at 16 if they want to take the Abitur and many do. Some parts of Germany have comprehensives, but not where I live so I can't compare.

Comprehensive schools can provide a good education but not all do. I feel very strongly that the mixed ability classes some have provide a very poor education.

Of course a good comprehensive sets children - how on earth would they cope with the child who will do maths at Cambridge and the one who won't get a C in GCSE in the same class?!

11 myths of grammar schools here
Why, oh why, are they always calling for a return to grammar schools and never the most important first - the return of the secondary modern? The most important because 80% of our children would be sent to one.
Social mobility is a nostalgia (through the odd individual story) of a time that never was. The reality was that in 1959 only 0.3% of unskilled worker's children got 2 or more A'levels. Luckily we only have 164 grammar schools left and less than 10% of those attending are on FSM- some have less than 1%.
Those who want them back assume their child would be at one!! If a secondary modern is not good enough for their own child it certainly isn't good enough for anyone else's child.
If you read MumsNet there is terrible angst about it and tutoring is a huge business. If someone thinks there child won't get in they never think 'they are not suited to a grammar school' they think 'must get a tutor by year 4'!
We do not want them back. They cut right through families, even twins got either side of the divide.
Over 90 % are lucky enough to be in a comprehensive area with opportunities for social mobility for all- why would 80% want to swap it for a secondary modern?
I have never got my head around the fact that only the very academic are supposed to have social mobility - the rest are expected to know their place and keep to it!
I can see why 20% love it- they get the equivalent of a private education for free and can tell themselves that it is open to all when they hold all the advantages!

Most counties don't have any grammar schools and kids can do very well in comprehensive schools. My young friend got 13A*s and an AS a grade and youngest in her year. Once you start filtering off kids into grammars I think it makes it more likely that other parents will worry about the comprehensive system and start considering private schools. Before you know it you could have the Australian-style chaos-system whereby most middle class kids go to private secondary schools (after state primary) with a small amount of selective provision for the very brightest. This leaves the comprehensives for the poorer families who can't afford fees.

For those of you talking about the 11+ exam, one day, and children feeling a failure...can I just point out that some counties do not even have the 11+ as they do not have grammar schools, and in those counties where the 11+ is available, it is not compulsory, no child is made to sit the exam, and the exam is held on a Saturday morning. No more of the whole school sitting the exam and then finding out who had 'passed' and who had 'failed'. The decision to sit the 11+ exam, if it is available, is a decision between parents/child/school who will generally advise whether it is in the child's interest. This of course is within state primaries, not prep schools who often spend the bulk of year 5 cramming the children for the 11+ exam.

Nothing much may have been made in school, or by many parents, if the 11plus. Much was made of if afterwards.
Anniebach us correct, comprehensive schools stream children, appropriately. So the argument that less able children won't be engaged or more academic children held back without grammar schools is not correct.

I went to a grammar school. At the same time Pam Ayres went to the local secondary modern. I will leave you to guess who is the most talented ! Unrecognised talent.

Our local grammar school has over 500 applicants each year for 90 places. Would you put your child through that ?

When I took the 11+ nothing much was made of it. It was just another exercise on just another day. DH tells me he was late for his ! No pressure then.

Things have moved on Nanna, children are not confined to one class, at our comp the children are placed into classes , if good at English but struggling at maths they are placed in one class for English , a different class for maths , if they do well they move into a different class, if struggling then the same , moved to a different class. This means they can study not according to age but how good or not so good they are coping with each subject . My youngest grandchild always had problems with maths at junior school, when she went to the comp she was placed in maths 4, she moved up grades when she was ready and is now sitting A level maths , each child is looked on as an individual not one pupil in a class on twenty . Is she had sat the 11+ she would have failed and been placed in a sec mod

That's just it Daphnedill Im not sure we could because however much we try and achieve it one size doesn't fit all. We could have all reached a certain level that's for sure.

But I might have been in a class and held back by less able children, my brother ( for whom anything academic was a struggle) might have been bored and unengaged by my lessons,

As it was we both had room to grow to our potential . I had access to lessons that stretched me and my brother had access to a lot more non academic learning than I did.

I should also mention I went to an all girls Grammar school and fell that I benefitted from that.

Maybe somebody has said this already but we are not comparing like with like are we?
I think there is little doubt that many of our grammar school politicians, leaders of industry , writers , academics who came from " humble" backgrounds in the past, made that leap because their education enabled them to realise their potential and in most cases go to university in a time when only the rich had that advantage.
However, "social mobility" (whatever that really is) is a world away from that of the 40's or 50's . More teenagers than ever of whatever background go to university and people are not defined (OK by some they are) by what school they went to.

I have already used 2 terms which make me uncomfortable and which should be consigned to the sociological dustbin
"humble backgrounds" and "social mobility"
How outdated are these?
We need to promote a true meritocracy, to provide the best education we can for ALL our young people and to ditch forever the social prejudices which underlying notions like social class.

I didn't pass the 11 plus, but in our area there was a girls' school which you could take an Sam for at thirteen. Passed that. (Interview too! managed to convince them I was a good, hard-working gal)

Glad I got that education though. A good education is life enhancing.

"If it is really inherent academic ability that enables children to pass the 11+, then why do so many parents feel it necessary to pay for private tuition/coaching?"

Good question! Maybe because some parents think that it's some kind of competition, which undermines the 'inherent ability' argument. Some parents seem to think that a child's achievement (or lack of) reflects on them.

I didn't pass the 11+. Of course, all children are different but, for me, it gave me an enormous feeling of inferiority and a belief that I was incapable of achieving very much at all. I imagine it would have the same effect on at least some of the children who don't pass.

When I met my husband he suggested we go to evening classes to do an A level. He was amazed when I said that I could not possibly do such a thing because I wasn't clever enough. It was only his reassurance that I was perfectly capable that enabled me to go on and, through the years, improve my education.

I think it is absolutely wrong to test a child at such a young age and possibly greatly affect their sense of self-worth. I accept that not everybody wants to follow the academic path but children develop at different rates and have different life experiences which can impact upon their sense of self worth and, thus, their expectations and motivation. I don't think the education system should reinforce these negative feelings but should support everybody in achieving their potential.

Of course, there were and are always examples of children who come from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds who still manage to pass the 11+ or go on to high flying careers. But the statistics show that they are not typical.

If it is really inherent academic ability that enables children to pass the 11+, then why do so many parents feel it necessary to pay for private tuition/coaching?

Mmm......shouldn't we want what's best for ALL children?

The GS system is no longer about social mobility. It's about the privileged few, and that's not on in a society such as ours.

Many state secondaries are brilliant. Many are not. Surely we should be putting our resources into the ones that-whatever the reason- aren't great.

Your birth circumstances should not dictate your right to s decent education.