New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

I think in an ideal world all schools would be high standard and equitable. Realistically, I think Grammar schools should have a quota of 80% children who would qualify for the Pupil Premium (low income households)…weren’t they initially set up so bright poor children could have a top class education?

Bad idea. Would be better to have well funded comprehensives with sets. No child told at 11 they are a failure. possibility to move up a set with hard work or down if you struggle.
Grammar schools affect the local area in a negative way as the rich tutor the poor can't and the alternative to the Grammer will always perform badly and have more behavior problems.
We have non grammar areas of this country with high performing comps so the evidence exists to support this.
The negatives of grammar areas are also well proven and very very obvious in a grammar area.
Or is the plan that every single child attends a Grammer school?

In Bucks which is a grammar county, there are no real sink secondary schools.

A quick look at the league tables shows that the top schools for progress are all grammar and the bottom are all non-selective. The worst one had to be closed in 2019.

Take a look at Kent, which is also a grammar county.

I went to a similarly “high performing” Leeds comprehensive school at the same time that Liz Truss was at hers. I feel very let down by my old school and the following comments from a former pupil at Roundhay school, which I recently read in the Yorkshire Post, resonate with me:

“I felt let down by the nasty, destructive culture that thrived among the pupils. I failed to pretend convincingly that I did not want to achieve anything, and the worst thing you could do was let on that you were willing to try. It was, as I discovered, social suicide."

My own DCs have a very different educational experience. One is at a top ten “superselective” grammar. Being successful is celebrated. It’s not something that is used as a weapon against high performing pupils.

I don’t know what Liz Truss personal experience was at school, but a successful outcome is not just about results. The fact that she went to Oxford does not mean that everything was great at school for her. The seven years that I experienced were the most miserable of my life and I have suffered MH problems as a result. The environment was toxic and not conducive to learning.

How do you know which "box" to put them in at 11? Decisions made at 11 mean they can never be a nerd or a swot?

I went to a grammar school in the 70s and 80s. I'm from a FSM family and had no coaching although others may have.

The benefits were no-one was bullied for being a nerd or a swot. There was no disruption. People actually wanted to learn, they were enthusiastic in the subjects taught. Teachers could teach at a much faster pace, go into far more detail. No-one got bored. I loved it. The school turned out a lot of scientists, doctors, vets, teachers, dentists.

My ds was bored stupid at primary school. By year 6 he was already angry and alienated. I looked at our catchment senior school but it had a 41% pass rate for boys for GCSE maths. It offered no choice of languages in years 7-9. it had no library. It just wasn't going to be enough for DS. I spent most lunchtimes in our library just browsing. The internet doesn't prompt that.

So although I'm a single mum, DS goes to the local independent - half fees, half maths scholarship. He is happy and absorbed, his maths is better than mine at 14. If I couldn't offer DS an education at least as good as I had, I would feel like I'd failed him. Even if it costs me my pension.

Grammar schools should be for the nerds & swots. They are not a social statement or something to coach for. They do not make other schools or pupils less valid. They should be for those who genuinely want to spend their time researching the bacteria growing in the boys changing rooms 😀

Grammar schools are not the problem, it is people's attitude to them that is wrong.

I have recently changed my view on this

i passed 11+ and went to grammar school ( was from a poor background) & then went to Uni on full grant and worked in a high paying job ever since.

I was always a supporter because of the education I received.

However my DS1 who is very severely dyslexic was at the local secretary and although bright was put into bottom sets due to his learning difficulties. The mental impact of being in those bottom sets was significant. We spent 2 years of his GCSEs telling him everyday he’s wasn’t thick! He wrote himself off at that point & we worked hard to get that self belief back.

He graduated recently from a top 10 Uni with a 1st and starts a demanding job soon.

One of his 1st responses on hearing the exams results was - I wish I could go back to school & show them this.

We need to improve educational attainment for all , not write students off at a young age.

You can’t tell children at 11 they are a write off & set the course of their life based on that.

I get why people want them though when we have private schools plus lots of the excellent non grammars near me are prohibitive due to house prices.

I get why people want them though when we have private schools plus lots of the excellent non grammars near me are prohibitive due to house prices.

I get why people want them though when we have private schools plus lots of the excellent non grammars near me are prohibitive due to house prices.

That’s exactly the problem. I believe all children should be given the opportunity to have the same level of education and age 10 or 11 is much too early to essentially close some doors to them.

My dd, for example, was judged to be fairly “average” at the end of primary school. A few years made all the difference and she is excelling academically.

We should focus on improving standards at all schools. And we also need to focus on changing attitudes to education, as there is definitely a culture of low expectations in the UK.

That’s exactly the problem. I believe all children should be given the opportunity to have the same level of education and age 10 or 11 is much too early to essentially close some doors to them.

My dd, for example, was judged to be fairly “average” at the end of primary school. A few years made all the difference and she is excelling academically.

We should focus on improving standards at all schools. And we also need to focus on changing attitudes to education, as there is definitely a culture of low expectations in the UK.

That’s exactly the problem. I believe all children should be given the opportunity to have the same level of education and age 10 or 11 is much too early to essentially close some doors to them.

My dd, for example, was judged to be fairly “average” at the end of primary school. A few years made all the difference and she is excelling academically.

We should focus on improving standards at all schools. And we also need to focus on changing attitudes to education, as there is definitely a culture of low expectations in the UK.

In Bucks which is a grammar county, there are no real sink secondary schools. Several could do better but the vast majority are decent schools and have results and progress better than the uk average which is, of course, mostly comprehensive. Therefore they are not, by any definition, sink schools. In fact the vast majority are liked by parents and DC who support them.

I agree that the grammars have a wider curriculum offering but I suspect MFL is not taken up enthusiastically by many of the 70% not in the grammar schools. Judging by MN posts, MFL is the first subject to be ditched for GCSEs. I do think the arts and applied sciences should be available in more schools but many teach vocational subjects as well as academic ones.

I don’t recognise the implied failure if DC don’t get 8 or above in a Bucks grammar either. None of my neighbours DC who went to Aylesbury and Chesham grammars got a string of 8s snd 9s. The Bucks grammars are not super selective snd have always had quite a few DC who are 6 and 7 level in some subjects. No one thought they were failures and they went to good universities. As indeed have the Dc who went to the secondary moderns. Their destinations included Exeter snd Nottingham. Some Secondary moderns here have over 30% high achievers and that compares very well with many comps.

However if schools are built, they probably shouldn’t be grammars. They would destabilize existing schools. The existing schools should (snd mostly do) cater for bright DC.

Changing schools at 14 is disruptive. It’s not much different to being segregated at 11 but somehow justified on vocational grounds. Vocational courses should be available at comps. There should be technical comps. Our old Technical High school (now a grammar) used to teach shorthand and typing! All sorts of modern skills could be taught alongside GCSEs. But it takes money and imagination. Few have the latter and there’s definitely not the former!

My grandfather and my mum credit Grammar Schools with getting them out of poverty. But in those days there were far more schools and a greater chance of getting in. Nobody was tutored. Same when I did the 11+ . Unfortunately because there are now so few of them, it is much more competitive so people pay for tutors if they can afford them.

There are several Grammar schools where we are, but also some excellent High Schools too. Plenty of DC's friends went to the local High School and are now at Russell Group Universities.

But that shouldn't be the only measure. We are too focused on academics. We need to start really appreciating the trades. DH gets a Building magazine monthly and regularly sends tables about salaries to his friend who is a careers advisor. But it is falling on deaf ears - university or bust unfortunately.

I was reading about Germany, I think, where when students graduate from the local technical colleges, the whole town celebrates with them. It made it sound like students there have proper choices and opportunities to work to their strengths.

My children are in (or have been in) a Bucks Grammar from years 7-13. They have been fortunate to have been at an outstanding school. Not just in terms of academics but also the access to music, drama, dance, sport, leadership opportunities in the 6th form running academic societies, primary school mentoring and much much more. They are fortunate- both they and I know this. The downside is that selective schools are a lot of pressure - a 7 at GCSE is viewed as something of a disaster.

I disagree with grammar schools on balance as I feel every child deserves the opportunities they have had especially with the extra curricular stuff but also with language tuition (everyone learns 2 languages and has to do at least one to gcse) and the breadth of the curriculum they benefitted from not just at gcse but also at a level.

the upper school where we live is equally impressive academically but less so in its music / arts provision but still a fantastic school. Not all upper schools are as good. More children will not qualify for grammar then will. In wealthy areas many of those who don’t qualify will then go to independent schools which can have the effect of making the upper schools somewhat secondary class citizens. That said students from all different schools are in the same hockey, netball, football clubs out of school and there is no us and them.

But no educational opportunities should be equal for all and I don’t think selective schools promote equality- they are the privilege of the middle classes although that is finally being addressed with lower qualification scores for pp students although it remains to be seen if this will really make any difference.

More funding to all comprehensive schools to create a flexible programme of "grammar stream" and "skills and vocations” options would be better, with it being easy to move between streams and for students who are very strong in some subjects but needing support in others to be accommodated and to thrive. These things aren’t possible when everything is pared to the bone. Flexibility requires there to be spare capacity. The grammar system can be wonderful for those blessed to be selected but if that blessing can be bought then the main families who will benefit from any expansion will be those who currently pay fees and spot an opportunity to save some cash. Many such will be tory voters of course. As pp have already said, expansion of grammar means expansion of the sink schools that have to mop up those who don’t pass the 11+. They don’t magically become better than the failed “secondary moderns” just because they are called “academy" instead.

I don't think I am in favour of the idea of grammar schools in theory. However, the area you live in can determine how good a comprehensive school you end up in. So a comprehensive school can still be selective by whether or not you can afford to live nearby. I don't know how you fix that.

DS sat the test for the local super selective because of the reputation of the other local schools. Maybe the grammar made the other schools worse, I don't know. We are a low income, single parent family, all I did is buy a workbook and left him to it, then took him for the test and he got in. Many of the other parents do seem middle class though.

@noblegiraffe I think it's a shame the UTC's haven't really worked out. Although from talking to people (or even many threads here on Mumsnet) I find a lot of parents have never heard of them or don't really understand what they are.
They have (in my opinion) been very poorly promoted.
If it was standard for 14 year olds to choose and move to a specialist school - either academic or more vocational (or in the case of large secondary schools choose a stream) then the UTC's would maybe be more successful.
If I was in charge I would have something like everyone goes to a community (ie local) primary then several primaries feed into comprehensive community Lower Secondary and then at 14 plus it becomes specialist - including a form of grammar school.

Malfunctioning post button

More funding to all comprehensive schools tp create a flexible programme of "grammar stream" and "skills and vocations

@noblegiraffe
The UTCs were, for many, another round of failure for DC. These schools were often used for the non academic and they were largely dire. What was needed was first class provision at 16 via colleges of FE. They were starved of money. The utcs were pointless. In 1944 the Education Act established technical schools. Where did they go? We had them once in the tripartite system.

Liz Truss keeps saying her comp failed pupils despite her going to Oxford. Alumni of her school in Roundhay Leeds refute this. It was a former grammar. She’s not honest about her school and it wasn’t failing.

Although Hampshire currently has only one secondary school performing at well above average. Bucks has 12 with half the number of schools. Bucks has 3 at well below average and Hampshire has none. I’ve excluded special schools.

That's been tried - the University Technical Colleges and studio schools introduced in the Gove era. Kids selected to go there at 14, they specialised in various areas like engineering, or media.

They've been pretty much a failure, poor results, half empty schools. A lot closed shortly after opening.

There's a problem with schools from age 14 and that's that they mainly appeal to kids who are extremely dissatisfied with their current school. Kids who are enjoying secondary school and doing well generally don't want to leave.

Also unless you look at the background of every child and every piece of data, comparisons don’t really stack up. Both areas are mainly middle class with lots of well educated parents. A few less good areas and both have private schools. I don’t think anyone thinks either LA is failing pupils.