If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

@fungipie Sorry but yes.
I was streamed in those sets and most of school was an utter waste of my time. I could have been backpacking around Europe or something else far more enriching for years and scored the same results.

Sorry, but no. All main subjects are 'setted' to ensure this is not the case.

Sutton trust: more outreach work needs to be done because it's too reliant on parents at the moment.
Go back to mix of the old system.

Half agree.

I agree with evaluating children but I am also somewhat opposed to have the 11+ as the measuring stick as it is limiting.

A better option would be to maintain the core subjects but make them elective GCSEs. So everyone has to be taught the subjects but the focus is on GCSEs the kids actually want to do. That would enable more enriched GCSE choices and you could for example have a child electing to do Design Tech, Modern Art, Fashion and Retail and not worry so much about having to sit a biology exam.

I think part of the problem on threads about grammar schools is that many posters are talking from either personal or second hand or imagined exoerience from a long time ago. A time when secondary modern schools produced blue collar workers, grammar schools middle managers and private schools the officer and professional classes. The clever child of the footman at the Big House being lent books by the vicar to read by the light of a candle end Rich man in his castle, poor man at the gate. All that sort of thing. NOT EVERYONE before you come at me. But there is a lot it rose tinted retrospecttroscope viewing going on.

In the early 1960s when I started school, it was in Wiltshire. But then the family moved to rural west Cornwall where there was no Montessori option, and everyone went to the local primary. At six, my reading age was three years ahead. But every class did the same work and everyone sat the 10+, then the 11+. Three or four of my year passed (out of about 37) but the senior schools were merged into one comprehensive school.

I sat the scholarship exams for a boarding school (father in the navy) but didn't succeed because I had no knowledge of how or what to prepare, but was awarded an assisted place to ensure continuity of education.

@cantkeepawayforever That suggests the issue is less the idea of different schools (which should be equally valued) catering for different abilities, academic or vocational, and more that if that's the case then the 11+ might need to to tweaked.

Also why allowing movement between academic and vocational schools at later stages, if appropriate for a child, is a good idea.

I was talking to a friend this morning. She went to a grammar in the late 80s. Out of area but she lived close to the border and it was nearer her home than many comps in her area. Even then some parents paid for tutors to prepare for the 11+. However is that because the 11+ was by then no longer universal and only some grammars still existed? I understand from my FIL that when he went in the 50s tutoring wasn't a thing. Although he was working class and grew up on a social housing estate so perhaps middle class parents did have tutors? He can't remember if state primaries prepared kids for the 11+. Maybe someone else here knows.

"More generally, I recoil still at a system which essentially labels the majority of 11 year-olds as failures."

10 year olds, actually!

Surely removing the 11+ defeats the whole purpose of grammar schools? They're meant to be selective, by academic ability.

The thing is, you have conflated two different things, assuming that the 11+ is a good measure of academic ability.

It’s pretty obvious that this is not the case:

• In many areas, the 11+ is a measure of Verbal Reasoning / NVR, which does not correlate particularly strongly with academic ability across curriculum subjects.
• It is coachable, so it is not a measure of underlying ability.
• It is dependent on previous education, so it is a measure of to an extent of training / education not ability.
• It is not reproducible - slight variation in tests will order candidates differently.
• It is a single measure on a single day - the headteacher appeal mechanism in grammar counties is testament to its known problems as a selection tool

The 11+ is a ‘good enough’ test to select some of the more generally able / amenable / easy to train / advantaged children within a cohort. It is NOT a good measure of actual academic ability.

Surely removing the 11+ defeats the whole purpose of grammar schools? They're meant to be selective, by academic ability.

This quote from your 1st link highlights the real issue.
More generally, I recoil still at a system which essentially labels the majority of 11 year-olds as failures.

That's the problem. The German model doesn't, from what I understand, label vocational and less academic ability as failure. They're simply different but equally valued abilities.

The grammar system in the UK went wrong because the 11+ became something seen as 'passing' or 'failing' and secondary moderns came to be seen as lesser.

What should've happened instead imo is equal value placed on vocational skills and training and opportunities, with the 11+ something simply to determine which type of equally valued school would best fit each individual child. (Also needed flexibility to move between academic and vocational schools at later stages if appropriate for the child).

Legislation for ballots to remove local selection (as introduced by the last Labour period in Government) still seem to exist. Only one ballot was ever held.

Comprehensive Future is, as the name suggest, not a lobby group for Grammars; however their relatively recent (2022) article is a not wholly unreasonable summary. https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/the-flawed-grammar-school-ballot-rules-discussed-in-the-lords/

and the BBC report on the only local ballot ever undertaken

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/673218.stm

That actually highlights the real issue with inequality. Not private school versus state or comp versus grammar, but housing unaffordability and, linked to that, poverty. Both are the real causes of inequality.

London is a good example. It's the most extreme but it's becoming a problem elsewhere too. Average income households can no longer afford to live in London and have been forced out (hence why there's so many threads complaining about London 'blow-ins'). Only the wealthy can afford to stay or move there, unless one of the fortunate few to get social housing (I know people from London and social housing wait lists there can be 15 years).

Although that situation is most extreme in London, it is beginning to happen in other parts of the country to. Not everywhere but it's happening. But really the main thing to take from that is it's exactly what the poster you replied to says. The issue with inequality is less about state comp versus private or grammar. It's about the real causes of inequality, and housing is a big one.

To tackle it, we need more social housing (to include average income households, especially in places with extreme housing unaffordability like London). And ensure that social housing is spread evenly across all areas. That would ensure a better mix at schools, and in society in general. Also need to address poverty. Often linked to housing, but other needs are good job and training opportunities, supportive benefits system, improved child support system, and well funded public services. Everywhere in the UK.

I think the ability to permanently expel disruptive kids from schools would do more to encourage motivated parents to try nonselective state school. In some areas gang members rule the roost and it’s so frustrating and frightening for parents that without the option of state grammar they leave.

A good example is Milton Keynes - the gang violence that occured there a few years ago was centred around state schools in the nicest areas. So parents with means were aiming for private or the buckinghamshre / aylesbury grammars - when the grammar option became unachievable due to stricter catchments the motivated parents left to move into catchments or try for private. These weren’t rich people but often people who centred their finances around tutoring / private school.

Some basic stats on Grammars in England from the House of Commons Library, from March 2023. % at Grammar marginally higher than I thought - 5.3%; I incorrectly guesstimated 4-45.%

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07070/#:~:text=In%20January%202022%2C%20around%20188%2C000,in%20just%2011%20local%20authorities.

Then this is the link to the full report

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07070/SN07070.pdf

Then a slightly older one from 2020 which includes a brief history of grammar introduction and numbers.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01398/SN01398.pdf

Sort of related, HOCL published a report on Faith Schools (again England only) just last week. Stats - eg overall numbers; local concentrations, fsm %- start on page 18
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06972/SN06972.pdf

She says she failed two particular subjects. I assume she passed the others, as her post implies she went straight from school to university.

Separately though, there used to be a lot more adult education colleges. Low cost, many part-time, evening or weekend, sometimes free and sometimes funded by employers who also offered day release.

They offered both vocational and academic courses. Some people did them simply for enjoyment, others did it for a career change including people who wanted to go on to university after the course.

There were courses for people who wanted to go to university but hadn't passed or taken O Levels, CSEs, or GCSEs. There was also the Open University. It used to be much cheaper and with much more flexible options than it offers now. People could dip in and out and if studying for a degree they could do it in stages, sometimes taking years to complete (by their own choice).

If grammars were ‘good’, then grammar areas would perform better at a whole cohort level than comprehensive areas.

Comparison across areas of matched socio-economics but different systems shows that there is no advantage at a whole cohort level.

Exactly. We need more choice not less. 1 size fits all has proven not to work.

This only works if all types of school have the same status and prestige.

We shout ‘keep grammars’, but we don’t shout ‘keep secondary moderns’.

We shout ‘Keep private schools’ but we don’t shout ‘Hugely expand Special Schools / Expand the range of PRUs’

While there are differences in the value people ascribe to different types of school, variety does not help.

Rubbish, the Labour Party abolished them because they were perceived to be elitist and allowed children to outperform others.

Yep. I don't for one minute think thqt schools are "bad" because of bad teachers - I have friends who teach in such schools who are excellent. But whst they have to put up with from some (most) parents and pupils is disgusting. We can throw as much money at those schools as we like but until the parents and pupils improve their attitude then nothing will change.

Well said.

Exactly. We need more choice not less. 1 size fits all has proven not to work.

Yes, I’ve heard that too but speak to any teacher and you’ll hear a different story. You can’t teach properly to the top end when you have illiterate children at the bottom end. You can’t teach to the bottom end because the top end are bored and unfulfilled. You end up teaching to the middle and the only ones that is suitable for is the middle. If you’re lucky enough to have a TA then you teach to the top. It very much depends on the makeup of the class and the area the school is in. You can manage if everyone is at least a 5 when they come in. If they range between a 2 and a 9 and you have 30 odd of them in your own, it’s impossible to teach properly for everyone. It also necessarily means you teach to the test.

I actually think there needs to be more variety of schools to suit different children. Special schools, academic and high pressure schools, mixed ability schools, small schools, online schools, sporty schools, large schools with lots of subject options. Children might be happier if they could go to the school that suits them rather than head off to private schools. I get that there is a funding issue with this though!

IIRC research suggests that it's only the very top (1%??) of the ability range who do better in sets (except maths). Other factors (such as good teaching) make much more of a difference.

My DC went to a school that taught mixed ability (except maths) throughout. A neighbouring school with similar socio economic profile and ability intake had a policy of "set for everything from Day 1". The GCSE results (allowing for some interpretation - for example neighbouring school only allowed top 10% to sit triple science) were virtually identical.

Setting is pretty much universal ime. Streaming is rare, rightly so. Why should children only do PE with those who are had similar Maths exam results as them? It makes no sense.