Social mobility and grammar schools

we didn't learn to type at my school

My first teaching job was in a school which had converted to a comprehensive just five years previously. The staff came from the former grammar school and secondary mod. The sixth form was still the grammar school intake. Generally speaking the former grammar school staff just didn't know how to cope with the new intake of all-ability pupils. They had been used to well-behaved, motivated pupils and could expel to the secondary mod those who didn't tow the line. Suddenly they couldn't expel anybody and had to learn how to motivate pupils. They only really cared about those capable of O levels (about 20%) and didn't bother much with the rest, who took CSEs (or nothing). About 40% left with no qualifications, because there weren't any appropriate exams. For some years, comprehensives were watered down grammar schools, providing an inappropriate education to the majority. Many teachers took early retirement. The situation is very different now.

We didn't learn to type or do any non-academic subjects at my school.

We did once go on a school trip to what was then the Giro Centre in Bootle to see what computers were. They had huge air-conditioned rooms with massive mainframes, which stored less data than the average smartphone does - and didn't take selfies .

@Jalima

Apologies! I see what you mean.

I do remember when we got to know someone who moved to our area years ago because he was told the local grammar school was becoming a comprehensive (he had taken a job teaching there). However, they LA dragged their heels and he was becoming very frustrated as it took years. BUT another neighbour (and friend) noticed the difference in the teaching between her two children, one of whom went through the school as the last of the grammar school intake and the younger as one of the new comprehensive intake. It may have been the difference between the two children, who knows.
We had moved before then.

My husband went to grammar school and maintains he had a fantastic education. I didn't pass the 11 plus and went to a convent school that was like some archaic throwback to a bygone era. My husband thinks I didn't pass the 11 plus because I went to a Catholic junior school and my brain was clearly paralysed by too much mumbo jumbo such as learning catechism by rote. His point being that the Catholic child's time at school back then was tied up with too much time wasting nonsense. Conversely now of course Catholic schools are some of the best. Nevertheless, I think he's being kind, if I were my 11 year old self again, I'm still not sure I'd pass the 11 plus, with or without my brain being numbed by drivel.

Our children went to the local comprehensive which performs well above the national average. I think the school liked to "big" itself up somewhat. There was a Hollywood A lister there who rubbished it in the national press when she became famous. My husband thought it vastly inferior to his grammar school. I sometimes find the children of friends who went to single sex private schools on occasions have had problems when they leave their sheltered environment and have to face the reality of the outside world. I think my children found this aspect easier.

The state grammars, few and far between, where I live are generally monopolised by those who spend a lot of money on private tutors preparing their offspring for the entrance exam. I'm not sure a bright child who hasn't been hot housed for a few years prior would stand a chance in gaining a place there. The intake is overwhelmingly Asian, this is an observation and is very evident when the pupils are massing outside the school.

Thinking back, my first school took a few years to get used to being a comprehensive. The head had been the former grammar school head and I don't think that he realised that a grammar school curriculum and ethos just wasn't appropriate for the majority. We had a top stream for the ones who would probably have passed the 11+, but the rest were just all mixed up. There was no provision for the more able amongst the remaining 80% nor was there any proper special needs provision. We still had the cane, so 'naughty boys' (and it was only boys) were caned and often expelled for the local authority to pick up the pieces.

After a couple of years, that head retired and we had a new head, who believed in comprehensive schools. He made a massive difference to the school and, to this day, it is still a successful, genuinely comprehensive school, which I read in the paper sends a handful of pupils to Oxford and Cambridge and achieves GCSE and A level results above the national average.

There was such a choice of secondary schools where we lived before, about 11 in the borough and one C of E school outside it; however when we moved we had Hobson's Choice for the DC and some teachers were brilliant, others should have been compulsorily retired.
My DC seemed to have the latter ones in the main.

daphnedill,

The fees were in the lower order ,certainly not £20,000.It was popular because of its size,ratio of teachers to pupils,and good exam results.There were several wealthy parents,but on the whole fairly average, a few not well off at all.We had a family of pupils from Yugoslavia,whose relatives had been murdered,so fled to the UK.They would not have coped in a large school.Many days their mother kept them home as she was afraid to let them out.
I have had experience of a low income.I pay an agent as well as the tax man and have been responsible for my daughters upbringing over many years.But at no time ever could I have begrudged another parent spending their own money on their own childs education.The fact that I was not able to do the same for mine should make no difference to their choices.
We have free education available to all children here,others have none .
Many progress to Uni ,jobs and further Ed.
Yes,of course there is much room for improvement,but it badly needs funding which is not forthcoming.
According to Wikipeadia ,650,000 children in the UK are independently educated.
That is 650,000 not needing to be accommodated in our state schools.

It never ceases to amaze me that they have done well in their chosen fields - despite the school they went to.

That is 650,000 not needing to be accommodated in our state schools.
That is many thousands of parents paying tax towards the education budget at the same time as paying for their own DC to be educated privately, thus providing more funds for the state education of other people's children.
Nothing to complain about there.

daphnedill
Well, considering that DS, DDiL and I all have IQ scores in the 98th percentile, I don't think we're doing too badly!
My dinner guests are due here in less than fifteen minutes, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on Grammar schools, gifted and talented young people, and IQ tests!

Goodness, you have dinner late!

Ana!

My grammar school (which I hated) focused entirely on academic subjects. No metalwork or woodwork (not that the girls would have been allowed to do them) and only technical drawing for the boys. For the girls there was needlework and home economics (one subject) for which we made a cookery apron with cross stitching embellishment to wear when making biscuits. We must have done more but nothing comes to mind, other than moving round to a different cooker each week (there were eight, all electric) so we could cope with manufacturer's differences . I left school in early 60's when it was still the norm for girls to get a 'little job' before marrying, then having babies and being a housewife. Universities were for the boys or 'bookish' girls - not my sentiments, just how it was then.

The school was founded in 1958 so didn't have decades of tradition and considered itself forward thinking - we covered sexual reproduction by dissecting frogs! 'Rugger' was considered elitist so the boys did football in winter but the girls equivalent was lacrosse

We didn't do needlework or home economics (which would have been very useful!)

Ana
Just a 'quicky' from the kitchen.......All the men amongst our dinner guests are ex colleagues of my DH. They worked shifts together for almost thirty years, so meal times are what they always were, odd
This 'gathering' will break up at about 2-30 a.m. tomorrow!

daphnedill- your post really resonates- my second job was in a school where a Sec Mod and a Grammar S had amalgamated the previous year- with buildings next to each other. The atmosphere was poisonous- the Head and most of the Senior Staff, Heads of Dpt, were appointed from the Grammar side above the ones from the sec mod- despite many of them being much better teachers. I left after one year- it was unbearable- but things did improve with passing years and the older staff retired.

Nothing to do with jealousy or 'begrudging' others spending the money at all. We could have afforded to send our children to independent schools (as there were no Grammar Schools in Leics at all, apart from private) - we CHOSE not to.

@Jaslima

I've learnt all the home economics, needlework and typing I need for life since leaving school. I'm very glad I didn't waste my time doing any of that stuff at school. Neither of my children did any of it at a comprehensive either.

oops Jalima (don't know where the 's' came from0

There's always M&S

Much of the rationale for selective education is based on a supposed "golden age" when the the educational outcomes for most (though not all) grammar/technical school children were likely to be superior to that of secondary modern pupils.

Secondary modern schools got around one-third of the resources that were allocated to grammars. Grammar schools were much more likely to have spacious, purpose built facilities and larger and better equipped sports and science facilities. The curriculum at secondary modern schools was limited and study at A Level was generally not available. The pay scale for teachers was based on a teacher's qualifications and the number of children in a school at a given age - with more points given for the oldest children. The majority of secondary modern school pupils left school at 15 and so the teacher pay scale in those schools was lower. Therefore, grammar schools tended to attract higher qualified teachers, with specialist degrees.

In the days when selective secondary education was the norm, there were also many anomalies. The availability of grammar school places varied widely according to location and, to some extent, to gender - there were fewer places for girls than boys.

It could therefore be argued that a system that was unequally administered and resourced, aside from being unfair, does not provide very reliable evidence on which to base educational policy.

Even if all these anamolies could be ironed out - and I doubt that they would be - it seems to me that to subject 10 year olds to a process whereby the majority of them will be deemed to be "failures" is one which does have a touch of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" about it.

The rationale for having a selective system is largely based on the idea that certain children are inately more academically able/intelligent. If that is truly the case, why do parents - many of whose children are more likely to benefit from educational advantages that are not available to less well off children - feel it necessary to pay for private coaching to prepare them for the 11+?

In a country that seems to be increasingly divided, is this really the time to resurrect a system that further entrenches division and limits the opportunities and aspirations of the majority of young people?

Aha! Interesting! Leicestershire was one of the first authorities to go comprehensive. A friend of my father worked for the LEA at the time and was initially full of doom and gloom about it all. The problem was the pressure from the growing number of middle class parents, who couldn't get places for their children at grammar schools.

There were all sorts of temporary solutions, such as 'grammar school streams' in the secondary mods, but the vocal parents still weren't happy, until somebody came up with the idea of abolishing grammar schools and secondary mods and sending all secondary school children to the same school.

Initially, the grammar school parents were up in arms about having to send their offspring to the same school as the 'great unwashed' but over the years Leicestershire schools started outperforming many others and the experiment was gradually adopted by most counties.

Especially as it coincided with the arrival of a large number of Asians expelled by Idi Amin from Uganda- and the children bused to suburban schools so the inner City schools were not 'swamped' - interesting times indeed.

@Juggernaut

I really don't know what my IQ is, but as I won one of 25 places at a direct grant school out of 2000 who took the exam, I don't suppose it's that low.

One thing I did learn at school was how to be lazy. I was lucky enough to be born with whatever intelligence I have and managed to pass exams without making much effort. Having to find a job in the big wide world was all a bit of a shock! I don't think that's much of a recommendation for elitist education, which should be about much more than academic force feeding.

As I've written before, my children were the first in my family not to go to a grammar or independent school. The schools they went to were genuine comprehensives, because there are very few alternative places available in my area and most people (even those who can afford independents) send their children to the local comprehensives.

I don't know my daughter's IQ, although it's probably quite high. Her real strengths are her emotional intelligence and resilience. I know my son's CATs core is over 140, because I was working in the school where the test was administered and saw the result. I don't want to sound like a Mumsnetter and boast about his results, but he'd beat most grammar school and independent school pupils hands down. I'm more worried (but not much) about his social skills, because he's an academic nerd. At least he's had the opportunity at a comprehensive school to meet pupils less intelligent than he is, which would not have happened if he'd been at a grammar school.