New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

Super-selective grammar schools swap pupils amongst themselves at 6th form (there is a definite 'pecking order'), discard pupils they don't want (ie where the 11+ failed in its job) to the non-grammars and take in some of the non-grammars' highest attainers.
Obviously even the brightest at age 11 may lack motivation for academics later or have personal circumstances that hinder them reaching their potential. The eleven plus is not a crystal ball just a snapshot of attainment.

So in your region cantkeepawayforever very good comprehensives don’t suffice for the ambitions of some of their pupils. Pupils are actively wanting to transfer when they can. for a reason. Maybe it is just status but I somehow doubt it. There is a parallel with universities. Many universities have comparable funding but different strengths according to available courses and the academics they employ. Students (and their parents) will choose accordingly to suit their individual needs and academic level. Again that choice is on the basis of a snapshot of attainment, this time age 18 but still not a crystal ball for achieving full potential.

Also how many do triple science and carpentry ?

Well thats not the case around here at all. Plus I just don't see the point of GCSEs. My ds2 was told he could only do English and maths (he didn't pass maths ) because he was on the pathway for vocational subjects based on year 6 SATS it didn't matter that he was actually really keen on other subjects. Anyway he wouldn't have been able to stay at school for 6th form because he didn't have high enough grades .

three subjects at A level is ridiculous, we need students to have a broad base of subjects and experience. My ds3 really wanted to carry on with his sciences but he also wanted to do english and history too. He also wanted to be at school with his brother but as above he was kicked out becasue they didn't deem him academic enough.

If we had a system of credits over the four years and two semesters a year then they could have a broad curriculum and be able to find where their talents lie and also do a much broader range of subjects. You might have 19 A level choices but people can only do 3 or 4 of those .

Oh and at 16 they have a choice of 19 A levels and 7 level 3 and many more level 2 BTECs.

@cyclamenqueen yes it is. At 14, all students take maths, English and some kind of science (ELC for some). We then send some to college to do mechanics, beauty, carpentry, plumbing, construction etc. They might also do a few other GCSEs but will also get some qualifications in their trade.
Others will do 5-7 GCSEs, spending more time doing extra English and maths. Combined with the Princes Trust award in leadership. Others will do 9-10'GCSEs.
Everyone has the chance to study textiles, DT, food, graphics, astronomy either as a GCSE or as a twilight subject.
That is what a comprehensive school can do, if fully funded. Most aren't.

@mumsneedwine no it isn't.

I mean a completely different structure so a common curriculum until 14 and then a modular credit system from 14 to 18 . As far as i am aware the only courses offered in comprehensive schools end in exams at 16, or 18. I would abolish GCSEs and students would accumulate credits which would be a mixture of core subjects at appropriate levels. So for example my dyscalculic ds could have done basic maths until year 13 but his brother at the same age could do advanced maths, ( our local school only offers maths at year 12 if you are doing A level or resitting GCSE) alongside his higher level maths he could have done a language module one year and European history another and maybe a food tech module because he's a good cook etc instead of only 3 A levels. DS2 could have done IT and because he is a good reader despite his dyscalculia and dyspraxia he could still have done a literature module at a higher level . Credits would be given, and crucially be on your transcript, for non academic achievement for example team sports, extra curriculars and volunteering. The system would be completely different and not just based on exams and narrow academic academic achievement.

In my experience students have very little choice in English comprehensives, how many top set english students are also doing a term of dance or a term of motor mechanics ? everyone does the same narrow choice of GCSEs or BTECS , maybe if lucky they might get a day a week at the local agricultural college but that will only be for the lower set dc. At our local comprehensive you need 7 GCSEs at grade 6 or above to get into the sixth form and the nearest alternative is 10 miles away so its impossible to mix academic and vocational and its hugely divisive at 16. Those who can stay those who can't go to the college in the local town and do hair and beauty or travel and tourism or IT or they travel further to do A levels elsewhere.

@cyclamenqueen that's what comprehensive schools do !

@thing47 won't work as most Unis look at a lot more than what school you go to. And this comp is not on any contextual list anyway - too successful

Yeah, you're right. It would just ramp up the pressure over SATS.

I think getting rid of the grammar schools would be a much better option!

If SATS were the admission mechanism there would be even more pressure on primary schools to get good SATS results and become "SATS factories". Too many schools already drop pretty much everything other than constant maths and English practice in Year 6. And, based on MN threads, whilst everyone wants their child to get into the school with the best results, they don't want this to be at the detriment of a broad, less SATS focused education in Year 6.

The biggest problem is not the 'school system' as such it's the curriculum. Effectively we try to teach a narrow 'grammar school' curriculum to all, when it clearly is unsuitable, and worse uninteresting, for many. It is an appalling inditement of our education system that so many children emerge with nothing concrete to show for 12 years of compulsory education. They may have turned up on time ,played in the school teams , been in orchestra or school council but only have the option to take exams which involve a turgid uninteresting curriculum and exams which are predicated on at least one third having to 'fail'.

I would like to see a system where the education post 14 is more like the states (which I know is not perfect) but is one where everyone attends the same High School but where there is a lot of choice of curriculum and where 'credit' can be obtained for a huge variety of activities and subjects. My god daughter in California is very academic but has also been able to take courses in more practical subjects and also artistic ones, none of this will preclude her getting the academic credits that she needs for pre med .

Of course there are core subjects that people have to take but if you can obtain credit not just for raw scores but for participation as well and everyone is able to operate at their own level the students would be so much more motivated. So as long as you get standard level maths and english etc you could also do motor mechanics, dance , advanced literature, public health or a language , astronomy or whatever floats your boat. This would give our young people a much more stimulating education where all could find something to excel and achieve at, would give them more choice and control over their school curriculum and arguably greater rigour because classes would self select and teachers could teach to the childrens' potential.

I realise this is somewhat Utopian but as the mother of three very different dc two at each end of the extremes and one with a very spikey profile I have found the narrowness of our education system so frustrating, it values conformity over potential and has more than a passing resemblance to a sausage factory.

My DDs comp gets many private (including from the posh one down the road beginning with E) students in the 6th form. Assume because there are so many subjects offered and results are great. And it's free.

Agree re using SATS for admissions to the existing grammars, and scrapping the 11+. The private schools could decide to opt into SATS or opt out of sending kids to the grammar system. That would be fairer than what we have in place at the moment!

Even very well funded and respected comprehensive schools lose pupils to super selective grammar school sixth forms

Not if there aren't any.....

I live in an area where exactly this happens. Super-selective grammar schools swap pupils amongst themselves at 6th form (there is a definite 'pecking order'), discard pupils they don't want (ie where the 11+ failed in its job) to the non-grammars and take in some of the non-grammars' highest attainers.

I have less objection to the varied post-16 destinations for which young people are 'selected' than I do to the 11+, for reasons others have given upthread:

• The selection is on the basis of GCSE results, a universal national exam system that the whole education system is geared towards and which is an adequate indicator of likely A-level performance (not a minority, largely irrelevant test based on VR and NVR)


• By 16, most young people are fairly clear in terms of their overall direction and aptitudes


• 16-18 has many more alternative pathways (apprenticeships, FE colleges, sixth form colleges, school 6th forms etc) so it genuinely is more likely that a young person can obtain an education 'appropriate to their interests and aptitudes'.

I now, know, the private primary 'grammar crammers' don't choose to take SATs. I can't help but see having to take them as a side benefit, especially as it might well put paid to many of the 'private is always best' statements....

The word "system" appears many times on this page, and it seems that many posters are conflating opening up a few more grammar schools in the 2020s with something of a return to the post-war decades. This is rubbish, of course.

The old tripartite setup, with secondary moderns, technical schools, and grammars; with variable leaving school ages [14 to 18]; and with different qualification levels [nowt/CSEs/O-levels], for all its faults and unfairnesses, that was a 'system', designed to select a very modest number of people for cognitively challenging work by getting them to sit the most difficult exams.

Modern grammars practice segregation for segregation's sake. Segregation isn't a means to an end, it's the means and the end, it's the whole point of it. Near enough everyone sits GCSEs at the end of it, most people sit A levels. That's not a 'system', it's just some local authorities for whatever reason mandating segregation by [ultimately] social class. I repeat, not a 'system'.

No one school can be all desired things to all pupils and prospective teachers. Even if a single comprehensive school were large enough to provide the whole spectrum of subject and teacher choice at the right academic level then it would probably be criticised for being too large and therefore unable to allow sufficient students opportunities in the first sport teams or school plays or just overwhelming for a shy pupil.
Even very well funded and respected comprehensive schools lose pupils to super selective grammar school sixth forms as the latter may provide something which is regarded as helpful at that stage. Or very good teachers decide they would rather teach there.

Ideally, education should be designed in such a way that the architects of the system would be happy for their own kids to go through that system no matter where they happened to fall on the spectrum of academic ability.

I really like this, this is so well put, and should be the litmus test of lots of policies.

I would love to claim credit for this, but it isn't really my idea, unfortunately. It's basically nicked from Rawl's veil of ignorance - he argues that, if we really want to create a fair society, when we are designing social policy, we should imagine that we are wearing a veil of ignorance that means we don't have any knowledge of our position in that society. So we imagine that we have no concept of our own intelligence, ability, race, gender, class, socio-economic status etc. If we did that, we would probably seek to ensure that the least advantaged people were looked out for, because who knows, that might be us! I think it's a pretty sound principle but one that is rarely applied in practice by our uber privileged policy makers.

This is a good post, and I agree with you overall. It is never possible to find a system that suits everyone. It's about trying to find the best balance between what works for the individual and what works for the population as a whole. Personally, I think comprehensive schools with good setting offer that best balance, and the best chance for the maximum number of people to succeed, but of course, there will always be some who would thrive more in another setting.

My problem with the grammar system is that I think it is stacked heavily in favour of the kids who are already privileged - predominantly bright, middle class kids with parents who care about their education. The vast majority of those kids will still do very well in the comprehensive system.

it’s just a case of when you think kids can mature and Rates of skill growth. Some people won’t have bothered for gcses (like you didn’t for 11+), but focus at a levels. For others it will be degree, for others postgrad or retraining.

@Namenic , I don't agree that it's just a case of when kids mature, though that's a part of it. It's fundamentally different because all kids are taught to prepare for GCSEs and A-levels, whereas many are given no preparation whatsoever for the 11+. The ones who get in are typically the ones who have been extensively prepared for it.

It wasn't a case of me "not bothering" with the 11+. I had simply never been exposed to questions like that before and it took me a little while to figure out what they were getting at. I distinctly remember looking at one of the verbal reasoning questions in the exam, and thinking about how bizarre and pointless it was - not least because the answer was so blindingly obvious to me that I had started to second guess whether I was missing the point. Speed is absolutely of the essence in those tests, so had I been used to the question type, I could have very quickly moved on to the next one. Instead, I spent a little longer trying to process it to work out what they wanted. I had never done a single practice paper - my parents didn't want me to go to the grammar school in any case, and I think I had been absent for the only practice paper that we did in school. My friend, on the other hand, had been doing weekly 11+ practice with her dad for the last 4 years. Of course she knew what she was doing with it!

I was no late bloomer. I knew at the time, without question, that I was the cleverest kid in my primary school class. My teachers knew it too, which is why they had moved me up to work with an older year group for much of my time at primary school (terrible idea, but again, that's another thread!). So I was a little confused when I didn't get into the grammar school and a few of my less able peers did. They were confused too. Thankfully, I wasn't traumatised by it, as my parents were very clear that they thought the comprehensive school was the better option in any case. They weren't wrong - I think I received a better and more rounded education as a result of going to the comp. However, it did highlight for me that the 11+ was more about preparation than ability.

One solution to all of that would be to have state schools do more 11+ prep for all children, to at least level the playing field a bit. However, so much of the 11+ is about practice, and if they spent loads of time on preparing for a pointless exam that wasn't relevant or important for the majority of kids in the class, then the opportunity to do other important stuff would be lost. Personally, I don't think selective education is important enough to warrant that, so I would save the time and let everyone go to a comprehensive school instead.

The perenial issue here is that what is best for the population as a whole is not always best for the many of the individuals within the population.

Within the broad cohort of school aged children across the whole population, the best educational outcomes will be achieved with a truly comprehensive system where all the cohort are educated together in a school which has the resources to support excellence for those pupils with the capacity to excel, and and to give extra help to those who need it so that no one is left behind.

It is also known that girls tend to have better outcomes if they are in a single-sex environment, but boys do better in a mix-sex environment, so on average everyone does better if schools are mixed, but that population benefit is bought at the cost of some girls not achieving what they might have.

Some very bright and able students are able to thrive in a mixed ability environment but others will only reach their full potential if they are in a selective environment among others of similar ability. It's best for the population as a whole if for the schools to be mixed ability but that good for the whole population is bought at the cost of some very able children not achieving what they might have.

This tension between the good of the many vs the good of the individual can't be resolved. It's natural and obvious that generally politicians who are in charge of the strategic decisions for how education should be managed for the whole population will have different priorities than the individual parents whose children are in the system. When a politician is a parent it is perfectly natural for them to want a different solution for their individual child than the thing that is best for the whole population.

The "problem" here is the fundamental nature of humanity - here we are, a species evolved via survival of the fittest and so with natural tendencies to prioritise our own well-being and that of our offspring over the wellbeing of unrelated individuals, but a species which has evolved sufficient intelligence to discover "enlightened self interest" and devise a society which functions overall for the good of the many rather than the individual. Across numerous topics including gun control, socialised healthcare, justice, education, tax and dozens of other areas, we give up our individual freedoms for the good of the whole but each individual stands to gain or lose a different amount from that trade off, and there are always some who have a bit more to lose that baulk at the cost of prioritising the many over their own best interests. That is never going to change. Even in totalitarian socialist regiemes where individual freedoms are supposed to be totally surrendered to the good of the whole, individuals find ways to advance their own (and their family's) self-interest.

@Anothernamechangeplease - it’s just a case of when you think kids can mature and Rates of skill growth. Some people won’t have bothered for gcses (like you didn’t for 11+), but focus at a levels. For others it will be degree, for others postgrad or retraining. An extra foundation year for uni prep for kids who were disadvantaged at a levels may also help.

actually for many school systems, I think probably what is more important is staff resources and discipline. I don’t have a problem with comprehensives if they do setting, but I do think a more flexible approach (timing of exams) and wider range of subjects would help. also, more opportunities for kids to work and train at 16.

In a truly comprehensive system, there is really no reason why the top sets couldn't work at the same pace as the top streams of the grammar schools. Fund it so that they can have slightly smaller class sizes if there is really so much angst about kids not being able to keep up. As for keeping pace with academic private schools, I think the gap is massively overblown, but that's a whole other thread!!

Smaller class sizes for the lower sets would also be helpful. We just need to be willing to pay for it.

As for selection at 16 or later on for university, I am not too bothered by that. The impact of disadvantage will not have been erased for the poorest kids, by any means, but it's probably too late to try to address it via the school system at this stage. Most kids will have matured and found their level by that age. Also, sixth-form and university selection is mostly done on the basis of public exams such as GCSEs or A-levels, which the poorer kids have at least been taught to prepare for - it's rather different from the spurious 11+ tests that private schools and 1:1 tutors cram for while the poorer kids are left without a clue what they're supposed to be doing.