Social mobility and grammar schools

Daphnedill...yes it would have been the scholarship exam for dad and I was born in the late 40.s.I remember mum telling dad that I had passed my scholarship rather than the 11 plus !
It is not a subject I asked him much about,but knowledge that we grew up with.

I could not afford the fees for my daughter,which were not terribly high,but at that point I was not an average earner either.Could I have raised it on credit ,I would have done so.
I taught several pupils who were floundering in the state system,and others assessed as dyslexic,whose parents wanted them in a closer environment.
Some sold belongings to pay fees.
How on earth can you be critical of that?

You don,t seem to be talking about the same disruptive children as myself.
I am not referring to those with learning difficulties or recognised behavioural problems who would have gone to 'special schools' as children called them.
I am referring to deliberately unruly pupils,who have full capacity to learn and prefer to indulge in bravado.

All good comprehensives with smaller classes across the board would be excellent.
How do you envisage that happening without a large injection of funding,bearing in mind that the government are encouraging academies?

Until such time,parents will want choices,and rightly so.

From the sublime to the ridiculous - yes one- and perhaps 'a few' will make it- but proportionally very small.

The implications for social cohesions are also huge- where kids from different education systems hardly or perhaps never meet.

Jealousy? Can't remember who said this. Certainly not me, nor DH- as we both went to Grammar schools (or equivalent for me, abroad)and on to University and great careers. Our DDs went to the local excellent comprehensives, and have achieved in education and in their careers, much better than many of their friends and relatives who went to Grammar schools, and top private or so called 'Public' schools.

Granjura
It was me who mentioned 'jealousy'.
What I mean is that the vast majority of people who object to Grammar schools are those who either wanted to go to a Grammar and (for whatever reason) didn't, or their children or grandchildren didn't get the chance either.
Those of us who have seen our children attend the same Grammar schools we did (although obviously I attended the girl's school, which is next door to the boys) are almost always in favour of the selective education system!
I fervently hope that the Grammar schools where we and DS and DDiL live survive and thrive, as I'd love my future grandchildren to have the same opportunity as their father and grandmother before them!

This from 2011:

^From 1964-97, every British Prime Minister, from Harold Wilson to John Major, was grammar-school educated. Gordon Brown was the first university-educated Prime Minister not to go to Oxford or Cambridge. (Although, of course, the public-school, Oxbridge-educated politician never went away during those decades. Dozens of Cabinet ministers, in both parties, were from that background; they just never got the top job.)
But now the tide has well and truly turned; and it looks as if it'll remain that way. If you look at the Coalition, and the new intake of MPs, the probable successors to Cameron and Miliband are likely to come from the same gilt-edged pipeline.^
Half of the Cabinet and a third of all MPs went to private school; there are 20 Old Etonians in the Commons, eight of them in the Government. Of the 119 ministers in the Coalition, two thirds were privately educated.

Probably not - both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn went to grammar schools, as did Tim Farron.

We still called it a scholarship in the 1950s - just a hangover from the old days I suppose.

I don't think it's jealousy, but why should the vast majority have an inferior education? According to Liam Fox (when talking about the referendum) this is the age of the Peasants' Revolt.

There is no reason why your grandchildren shouldn't have the same opportunities in a comprehensive school. My children did.

What will happen, Juggernaut, if your grandchildren aren't very bright? Will you change your mind when they get sent to a school with the 'goats' and don't get the opportunity to study a full range of academic subjects?

PS. At least you can't accuse ME of jealousy!

Of course they went to grammar schools, Jalima. That was the system in the 1950s and 1960s. If they had been born later, they would probably have gone to comprehensives and been in top sets, unless their parents sent them to independents. Theresa May's school apparently converted to a comprehensive while she was there.

PS. My mother (born 1931) still calls the 11+ 'the scholarship', so I guess it is a hang over. However, they were very different. The 11+ was state-funded, whereas scholarships were paid by the schools, usually from interest on endowments. They varied from one area to another, which meant their availability was patchy. That was one reason the 11+ was introduced, although it wasn't very successful in achieving that goal, because places still varied considerably between counties. There was also a huge variation between the standards achieved by the grammar schools themselves.

@Granny2016

Independent school fees are typically about £20,000pa (more for the most prestigious schools). How many bits and pieces do you have to sell to be able to afford that? Most people don't even earn £20,000 after tax. That's why I'm critical. It really isn't a choice for the vast majority of people.

And, yes, I am talking about the same kind of disruptive pupils. Before the 1980s/1990s, they would have been in special schools (aka approved schools or some such name) for EBD pupils. These schools were closed, mainly because they were dreadful and expensive, but very little provision was made for them in mainstream schools. Teachers didn't know how to cope with them and they were just expected to be integrated as if by magic. I am all in favour of zero tolerance of poor behaviour, but that has nothing to do with grammar schools.

@Juggernaut

That is one child. He would no doubt have achieved highly in a comprehensive school.

King Edward IV Grammar School in Chelmsford has 11 pupils out of 977 who are eligible for the pupil premium. That's just over 1% compared with over 30% nationally. There is no way that it can be claimed that school is taking in pupils from all backgrounds.

daphnedill
I suppose it's always a possibility that my future grandchildren won't be very bright, (DS and DDiL have IQs of 139 and 137 respectively, I'm below both of them on 134, so we're hoping they'll be bright) but no matter what the future holds, I'm still in favour of Grammar schools and nothing will ever change that!
At no point have I, or my DS ever referred to children who didn't pass the 11+ as 'goats', that's your word, not mine!

I know it's my word, but that's how they're treated. I assume you don't care much about them.

PS. Your future grandchildren will only have a quarter of your genes and might not live in the same area as you.

PPS. I've never had my IQ tested and am always surprised that people bother so much about it. Presumably you realise that the results vary depending which test you take and there's a margin of error anyway. It seems a perverse sort of system which rewards people for inborn traits without having to make any effort. Many psychologists would argue that emotional intelligence is more important anyway - and that can be taught.

daphnedill
I'm completely in the dark where schools in Essex are concerned, so can't comment about any school in Chelmsford.
What I do know is that many of the students at our local Grammar school here in the north west, (both girls and boys) are from homes with neither parent working.
Money may be in short supply in these families, but they have high aspirations for their children.

it's a political and social choice- and as said, when those who make the choices can opt out, one way or another - then they mostly fail to fight for a system that is best for all. See the NHS currently.

Take your eyes of the individual who are your loved ones- and see the effect on society as a whole. We will reap what we sow for all, not just our lvoed ones. When a society is broken- and people who are more affluent have to live behind electric fences, carry guns and have body guards- it is in no-one's interest, truly.

I am indeed very pleased our children grew up with the comprehensive system- the only Grammar School being independent. They really had an excellent education- and their ability to be able to mix with all sorts of people, adjust, adapt, etc- has also hugely contributed.

Some of our friends really criticised us for 'sacrificing our children for our principles' - but when I look at the current situation, I am proud to say our kids really benefited and have been hugely successful.

My DS went to the local comprehensive. He'd been interested in learning at his junior school and had been a bright and happy boy. All that changed at senior school (as it was known then) as he was bored while the teacher taught to the lowest level in the class. Boredom led to disruption to absenteeism, which I knew nothing about till called for an interview with the headmaster about my son wearing black corduroy trousers in school rather than the regulation uniform black material! I argued that corduroy was more hard-wearing but my real anger with the head was that his school was letting my son down. They did nothing to help him learn, to interest him in any way and he left school with no qualifications at all. The fact he now holds a prestigious position with a national company has been down to his own inherent ability and determination, with acceptance and encouragement from both parents. I firmly believe good education comes with small classes where teachers have opportunity to teach individuals

If it's one of the areas in the North West where there is still a grammar school system, the grammar schools aren't particularly selective. I come from the North West, so have always followed the systems quite closely. There will be pupils in those schools who are no better than 'average'. The difference is that the grammar school pupils are in schools where there are few poorly motivated pupils - that's what parents really want. A comprehensive can achieve the same, if it's allowed to exclude unruly pupils.

Somebody at the beginning of this thread stated that we're not talking about the same kind of grammar schools and that's true.

daphnedill

What makes you think I don't care about children who don't pass their 11+?
I have three God children, two boys and a girl, none of whom passed for the Grammar schools, I don't consider them to be in any way less important in this world than my own DS.

As my DS is the senior partner in his own law firm, I think he'll be staying in this area, so my grandchildren will probably live locally to me.

My IQ was tested when I was at the Grammar school myself, as I was streaking ahead of the rest of my year group. I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know that the test I was sitting was, in fact, an IQ test.

There's nothing wrong with my emotional intelligence either, and I wasn't 'taught' per se, just brought up properly by strict, but loving parents!

@Swanny

My guess is that was some time ago. Only 2% of pupils leave school with no qualifications at all. Any school which only achieved a 2% pass rate would have been closed down years ago.

In some areas comprehensives were little better than secondary mods, especially where parents who knew how to play the system found places in neighbouring areas or independents. Even then, nearly all pupils achieve some kind of qualification.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, my DGS is autistic. He spent Reception Year in mainstream but was moved during Year 1 to the school's specialist learning centre. He still spent an hour or so each day with his original class and at the end of term his mainstream teacher told DiL that she had learned a lot from him that would be helpful to her future!

Swanny, I'd agree with that:

'I firmly believe good education comes with small classes where teachers have opportunity to teach individuals'

and thereforeI believe we should make the political and social choice to achieve this for all. Many countries choose to do so, including some which are very much poorer than the UK- who choose to spend up to double and perhaps more, what the UK pays per student. As said, the choice for some parents to opt out- mostly results in the education of the rest not being a priority. At the individual level- it is pretty bad for those who are failed by the system - as a society as a whole, it is a disaster in the making.

daphnedil This was in the early 80's. The school building had originally housed one of two grammar schools in the city, both of which had become comprehensives by then, along with the two secondary moderns. There was a local independent boys school in the area but I could not afford that nor could I afford to move out of area to a better school.

The UK spends about the same per pupil as Bulgaria- whereas Slovenia, Poland spend much much more. This taking into account that the current UK figures include the massive sums spent on Academies for a few?

Political choice- up to us to say NO, and insist on good schools for all- via a great comprehensive system as in Finland and other northern countries.

@Juggernaut

Sorry to tell you this, but 130 is usually considered the minimum for being considered genuinely gifted and, therefore, needing any special provision.

In all the comprehensives I worked, we tested children on entry using CATs tests, which give similar results to IQ tests. These were genuine comprehensives, so we always had about 3-4% who scored over 130 and a couple who were off the scale at 140+. These pupils were tracked throughout their time at school to make sure they were being given extra challenges and were achieving in line with their abilities. Sure enough, most of them went on to Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, etc and/or studied the more prestigious subjects such as Law or Medicine. Many of them also excelled in music, sport or some other extra-curricular activity.

Of course they went to grammar schools, Jalima
No of course dd - I am pointing out that they were not the products of Eton, St Paul's etc.
And Jeremy Corbyn was hardly a shining start at his grammar school. Some people are late developers - and achieved much having gone to a good secondary modern school.

shining star!! not shining start