Social mobility and grammar schools

Strange statement, Jalima. I would think that all schools that are not outstanding must be making progress towards the new outstanding grade.

Where we used to live the Grammar School had begun in 1658, closed for a few years then re-opened in 1921 and did not become a comprehensive until about 1984.
It is now an Academy.
Ofsted (2012) recognised that against the very tough new inspection criteria that the school is making strong progress towards the new outstanding grade.

I attended an Anglesey Comp from 1957-1963. It had been a comp for a few years then (started in 1953 I think). It was far from being a true comp; divided into Grammar and Sec Mod 'streams', only the A stream sat 'O'levels and were 'allowed' to use the library, the A stream studied latin and had extra maths lessons with only a term each of dom science and what is now called technology. There were 4 large Comps on the island so I suppose geography/logistics had a lot to do with the decision at the time.
As long as they close all 'Free' schools and remove 'Academy' status from others, I would consider that a step in the right direction. As for opening new grammar schools, will they too be 'free'?

trisher I think the Welsh comprehensive system started in about the mid-60s. Lots of the big "high" schools date from then, I think. And the setting up of the first Welsh-medium schools date from then, too. They were Comps, of course.

My own Grammar turned comprehensive in 1973, as did most others.

There were comps before that, wiki lists one in Wales and there was of course the controversial Rising Hill. 1960-65 f you are interested they have a website www.risinghill.co.uk/

My sister was one of the first ones in that system, Tricia.
From Thomas Stratten, she went to Thoresby junior high, then to Wyke Hall.
Four of us, twelve years difference in age, all went to same primary but different secondary schools. My brother went to Riley Tech, I went to Tranby Croft, middle sister passed 11+ to go to Kelvin, and youngest was the only one who never took 11+. She was the one who enjoyed her schooling most.

I've been refreshing my memory of those days. It was in Hull, where they started the Comp. system in 1969, but tried to soften the blow by creating 3 tiers ie Junior High schools at 11-13. There was chaos for a year or 2, everyone re-applying for their jobs, new Headships created etc. Some so-called GSs remained.
On top of that was Local Govt. re-organisation in 1974 when Hull became part of Humberside.
Hull had one of the highest proportions of statemented children in England.

Arrgghh! How did that appear twice?

All the comprehensives where I've worked have treated special needs children very well and the provision has improved tremendously over the years. There is usually a special needs base, which the pupils see as a retreat and an army of TAs who know them extremely well and whom they regard as second parents.

The school my children attended has over 2000 pupils and many of the new pupils come from rural primaries with a hundred or so pupils. The school knows that the change could be traumatic, so puts a lot of effort into the transition. The new pupils each have a Sixth Form buddy, who show them round for the first few days and answer questions. I've asked some of them how they coped and all seem quite happy. Most of them say they enjoy the new opportunities and facilities. I think they have begun to find small primaries quite claustrophobic.

On the other hand, I know that some of the highest achieving so-called comprehensives actually advertise the fact that they make no extra provision for SN pupils as a way of deterring parents from sending their children to the schools.

All the comprehensives where I've worked have treated special needs children very well and the provision has improved tremendously over the years. There is usually a special needs base, which the pupils see as a retreat and an army of TAs who know them extremely well and whom they regard as second parents.

The school my children attended has over 2000 pupils and many of the new pupils come from rural primaries with a hundred or so pupils. The school knows that the change could be traumatic, so puts a lot of effort into the transition. The new pupils each have a Sixth Form buddy, who show them round for the first few days and answer questions. I've asked some of them how they coped and all seem quite happy. Most of them say they enjoy the new opportunities and facilities. I think they have begun to find small primaries quite claustrophobic.

On the other hand, I know that some of the highest achieving so-called comprehensives actually advertise the fact that they make no extra provision for SN pupils as a way of deterring parents from sending their children to the schools.

Some Primary schools are less than 100 - more like a cosy family atmosphere.
Going to on to a comprehensive of 1,00 - 2,000 must be very daunting, particularly as they mix the children up so that they are not in the same form as their old school mates and may know no-one at all.

When Comp.ed. was first introduced I was working in the Special Ed. service and saw how traumatic the transfer was for children with learning difficulties. Maybe things have changed now.

Not at all - where do you get that from? Nothing to do with clever or not.
Quite the opposite - I've never liked the huge size of comps. Earlier I've been arguing against GSs, just thought of one point in their favour.

Does that mean there aren't any shy pupils in comps or who don't pass the exam to get into grammar school. Or are you saying they don't deserve the same consideration because they're not as clever?

One advantage of GS over CS, which I don't think has been mentioned, is the size ie number of pupils.
For a shy or nervous child it must be very difficult to suddenly move from a PS of a few hundred to a CS of thousands with so many unfamiliar faces. GSs are usually smaller.
The fear of the transfer sometimes leads to school refusal.

Ah yes, agreed. As said, I became a secondary teacher/6th Form specialist and my kids went to school, in Leics which was fully Comprehensive. Well not fully, especially in my last school, as it was a small University town with 3 secondary schools with 6th Forms- so the creaming effect was very much there. Ours was Comprehensive but there was a Catholic School across the road (and I know that many who attended were 'Catholic' only due to grandparents- and only attended Church so that kids could access the school) - and a private school with a long tradition.

Our school had a huge mixture- and thank goodness, some very bright students from academic parents from the Uni across the road. The school would have been much better without the 'creaming' effect. So yes, I can see how, where Grammar schools are still present in the State Sector, that would be even more so.

Part of the problem is that if people live in fully selective areas, the remaining schools are secondary moderns, although sometimes they're called comprehensives. It's almost as bad in areas, especially on county borders, where there are a number of faith, partially selective and independent schools.

Parents play the system and send their offspring over county borders, even if their own area is comprehensive. This leaves the remaining schools without their most able pupils. It's particularly bad round London - read some 'Mumsnet' threads to see what kind of 'angst' this causes.

A school is only really comprehensive if it takes a full range of abilities at 11.

It seems to me that often people who talk about Comprehensives have no experience of them at all- there is a feeling that they are sort of, Sec Mods for all, somehow.

At the last school I taught- there was a team dedicated at looking at all the bright kids who were under-achieving- finding the reasons why, and giving them support in order to remedy the situation- that was especially boys- with great success.

Good comprehensives cater extremely well for the brightest children.
My DG2 is in a grammar school area and will take the exam in September. Many of her class have had four years of expensive private coaching.
She is a very bright child and has got high marks in practice papers. She will almost certainly pass, but will choose to go to the local Academy, which is an outstanding school with a challenging mixed-ability intake. She didn't like the rather precious, single-sex atmosphere of the grammar schools she visited.
It is a very different world from the grammar schools of our generation.

Oh, I'm sure comprehensives could manage that!

Anything else?

Give a sense of superiority?

Sorry to bomb the thread with posts, but thinking about the German economy, because I know Margaret lives there. It's generally recognised that the backbone of the Germany economy is skilled engineering and its apprenticeship system. Isn't that more a result of the 'Realschulen' and subsequent training than the grammar school (Gymnasium) pupils?

What do grammar schools do that comprehensive schools can't provide?

Unfortunately, the UK doesn't have enough factories for the 'others'.

@Margaret

I actually mentioned that to show how perverse the system is. I didn't work hard at school, but somehow managed to blag my way through exams. I don't think I actually deserved any reward, such as going to grammar school.

Comprehensive schools also look after the brightest, as I've witnessed with my own children.