Social mobility and grammar schools

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Jalima

Apologies! I see what you mean.

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 .

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 at my school

shining star!! not shining start

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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!

@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.