New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

Which children do you think it doesn't work for? The ones who would go to grammar or the ones who would go to the secondary modern? What do you think is currently missing in the comprehensive system?

It doesn't work for those who have lower academic ability. They are forced to do a great deal of academic study that bores them and they do not engage with, causing disruption and exclusions.

It doesn't work for people who have more practical abilities and need education that supports them to develop those practical skills into technical qualifications and apprenticeships and careers.

It doesn't work for people with one specific heightened talent, as they get very little specialist tuition and little time to focus on it.

It doesn't work for the generally more academically able in most subjects as they are held back and bored by the incredibly slow pace due to lack of setting and streaming in most schools.

It doesn't work for most children with SEN.

You're missing the key words "invest" and "really good". Comprehensive schools these days are starved of money and expected to be all things to all people. Have we ever had a time when comprehensive education was properly invested in?

Blair threw money at it. And it was still appalling.

www.dur.ac.uk/news/allnews/thoughtleadership/?itemno=28879#:~:text=Japan%20and%20South%20Korea%20do,a%20%E2%80%9Cchoice%E2%80%9D%20of%20school.

This makes quite an interesting read. It doesn't seem to support the idea of selective schools based on what happens overseas. I'm sure that there are many more studies looking into this issue, this is just the first one that came up when I searched.

@TurquoisePterodactyl if our education system is so rubbish, why do so many people send their children here from abroad ? Everyone sits the same exams so they must like the process.
And our Unis are full of international students who value a British education, so much so many Unis have set up satellite sites abroad.
Comps work, if properly funded. Mine gets loads of money as our area is so poor, so we can fully resource and offer amazing extras. We teach Latin, every student gets free music tuition for 2 years, we have free weeks at outward bound places every year. And we have simple expectations of behaviour (but have funding to support the reasons behind bad behaviour and a separate unit fully staffed with counsellors).
Weirdly, many of the middle class parents nearby have noticed our results and what's on offer, and are now trying to get in. This will involve them moving to one of 3 v large council estates full of 60s high rises so I'm not sure many will do that. But, good comp schools are possible if fully staffed with good teachers. Less and less easy as there are so few teachers - because under funding is making the job harder every year.

I totally agree that we should make evidence-based decisions and that we should learn from the experience of other countries. Which countries' systems in particular do you think we should emulate?

@TurquoisePterodactyl at 11 no one knows who will choose academic or vocational careers. Many children develop later, or decide they'll work their butts off to achieve a specific goal. Or decide they want to be a carpenter despite having perfect GCSEs and A levels (I have had one of those - he is an amazing carpenter !).
Every child should have the opportunity to try every subject. Then decide at 14 what they like, what they enjoy, whether that is Maths or Textiles. I know some grammar schools that don't teach Food or DT as they are not 'academic'. That is bonkers and denies those students opportunities to discover their talent.
Again, have yet to hear from a secondary modern parent that grammar schools are great.

Fundamentally, there is no need for us to reinvent the wheel in "splendid British isolation".

We should be making evidence-based policy. There is plenty of data. Our education system has appalling outcomes compared to comparable countries, just like our healthcare system and pensions system. All are far superior in most European countries.

We should be looking around at other systems and what works and what doesn't. The data is all there, recorded for many years. We can reconstruct our systems based on this so they optimal outcomes. It isn't rocket science, or a guessing game.

Which children do you think it doesn't work for? The ones who would go to grammar or the ones who would go to the secondary modern? What do you think is currently missing in the comprehensive system?

I don't think there is any evidence that comps can't work. I do think there is far too little investment in education, that comprehensive schools could be dramatically improved and that we should review the current curriculum and system of qualifications to ensure that we are meeting the needs of all children. I don't see how more grammar schools will provide any solutions at all to the problems that we're currently facing.

You're missing the key words "invest" and "really good". Comprehensive schools these days are starved of money and expected to be all things to all people. Have we ever had a time when comprehensive education was properly invested in?

Wouldn't it be better to invest in really good comprehensive schools that are able to cater effectively for all levels of ability?

Many years of this experiment have proved it does not work for many, many children.

Telling some they are not good enough at 11 is not great for self esteem. Telling them they are capable of anything at 11 seems much healthier to me.

I think that's completely misunderstanding it. It's not about "not being good enough". It's about creating a system where all different talents are recognised and developed.

I'm absolutely useless at practical stuff. I am good at academic stuff. Some kids are astonishing at music and art. Others at tech. We need a system that doesn't waste hundreds of hours forcing kids to focus on subjects they have no interest in and will never be much good at, and let the focus primarily on their talents. It's not offensive to recognise that everyone's natural skills and talents are different

In many countries there are selective state schools that focus on a particular area and children apply to the ones that suit their interests/ abilities the best. They still do the other subjects, but spend more time on what they enjoy and are good at and therefore leave school with their skills in those areas more highly developed, as well as a standard education in all key areas.

It would also likely result in better behaviour and less disruption in school because children would enjoy it more. The "one size fits all" model does not work. People may come out of it doing fine - I have - but I could have done SO much better in another environment that I didn't loathe going to every day.

Totally agree @mumsneedwine. I think investing in high quality comprehensive education would result in better outcomes for more children, and better social mobility in the longer term. There is no need to divide kids off at 11 years old.

There can be more modern assessment methods with teacher involvement to compensate for those who struggle with exams.

If we are going to have teacher involvement in the assessment process, then I think we would need to see children attending private primary schools excluded from the admissions process. We already know from what happened with teacher assessment during Covid that some private schools will happily inflate teacher assessed grades in order to give parents the advantages that they are paying for. So people wanting to take advantage of the grammar school system would need to go through the state system from the start.

None of my students are tutored outside school. None could afford it - most have jobs from 15/16 to ensure they can stay on for 6th form. They haven't needed a grammar school to 'reach their potential'. They've done that in our v non leafy, v concrete high rise comp. A lot of this is seeing it is possible so we have a strong alumni who come back and speak to the kids about what going to Uni can offer. That and good teachers who believe in them but set clear, strict boundaries.
However we also produce many plumbers, carpenters, carers, shop assistants, hairdressers. People we all rely on but who just don't particularly like school or exams.
Both sets of kids have 'reached their potential' as they have found careers where they are happy. They make the school community a diverse place to be with all kids growing up knowing they have worth. Telling some they are not good enough at 11 is not great for self esteem. Telling them they are capable of anything at 11 seems much healthier to me.

When exactly were all of these plentiful places available? My mother did not get a grammar school place back in the supposed heyday of the grammar school system, despite being exceptionally academically able.

As things turned out, she got a fully paid scholarship to a private convent school instead - this opportunity was flagged to her parents by the someone at the church they attended, but otherwise, she would have gone to the local secondary modern.

There will always be a scarcity of places, as, if you expand the number of places available, the next tier of slightly less able middle class kids will simply be pushed towards the grammar schools in order to fill those places. It's all very well saying that you need "proper assessment methods", but what would those actually look like and how would you adjust to eliminate the advantages enjoyed by children from better off families?

Wouldn't it be better to invest in really good comprehensive schools that are able to cater effectively for all levels of ability?

Agree with your latter points but the assessment system doesn't have to remain that way. There can be more modern assessment methods with teacher involvement to compensate for those who struggle with exams. We could have schools like in many European countries where some have more of a STEM focus and others on arts or languages so all children can thrive based on their individual talents rather than "one size fits all". There can be a system designed with fluidity so "late bloomers" can move when a different school focus suits them better. It's not very difficult to see how it could work far better than the current setup that fails all children except those right in the middle of the spectrum of ability.

•No they wouldn't, there'd just be MC people in all towns paying for tutors to make sure their DC got in.

There might be a small handful of naturally very bright children who manage to get in without coaching, but it certainly wouldn't "massively benefit" poor people.

Nope. Not with proper assessment methods and enough places for all academic kids. They used to be everywhere. It is scarcity of places that drives the issues you have described. As I said I had many family members go to grammar school from extremely deprived backgrounds when they existed in large numbers. None had tutoring. The idea would have been laughed at. In fact many of their parents though they were mad for studying.

Interestingly the data shows that 11+ results have very little bearing on GCSE results. There's no direct correlation between a high 11+ score and top GCSE grades. DCs at grammar schools tend to do better at GCSE for a whole host of reasons, but those reasons do not include 'doing well at the 11+'. Perhaps that's because, as various PPs have said, the 11+ isn't curriculum based and is limited and specific in what it tests?

Just picking up on a couple of points raised, the notion that grammar schools aid social mobility just is not true, in Bucks, at least. They do the exact opposite. I think this might have been the original, and laudable, aim, but it is not how they function these days.

Again this is because of the distortions I've described due to scarcity of places even in areas that have them. They have not been allowed to expand in years so there aren't enough places for all of the children who would benefit, and then it becomes competitive based on housing/ catchments/ tutoring. These distortions would be removed if far more grammar schools were opened, and vocational training/ apprenticeships leading to proper careers were improved alongside.

No they wouldn't, there'd just be MC people in all towns paying for tutors to make sure their DC got in.

There might be a small handful of naturally very bright children who manage to get in without coaching, but it certainly wouldn't "massively benefit" poor people.

And then you have the issue of the schools where everyone else goes. If all the bright kids with involved parents have been siphoned off, what will the schools the rest (still the majority) go to be like?

MNetters seem to assume that their DC will be in that top 20% (or whatever) percent 😆

There were enough of them that places were available to all who were capable. Obviously if they are only in selected areas it leads to this scarcity where house prices in catchments rocket and people do tutoring etc hence it is not the most academically able who get in. Just like with private schools. If they are in every town and available to all then they serve their purpose and provide an academic education for all children who are that way inclined.

Obviously the 11+ assessment system had (and has) its faults and these days a more holistic assessment system could be implemented to allow some teacher assessment etc as well, to account for what we now know about some kids struggling with exams etc. And it doesn't have to be a "you can only get in at 11 or not at all" thing: the system could be modernised.

However I think it is utter nonsense to suggest that providing a more academic education to those who would thrive from it regardless of means, and far better vocational and skills-based education for those who are better suited to that (as they do successfully in many countries, with industry on board and high quality apprenticeships leading to real qualifications and good, well-paid careers) would overall be a bad thing.

I have lived in two grammar school areas previously. The grammar schools were packed with the children of middle class parents with sharp elbows.

That's the case now because there are so few of them. When they were in every town, they benefitted poor people massively, and would do so again. I have several family members from very deprived backgrounds who went to grammar schools and on to Oxford and Cambridge in the 60s.

The 11 plus was always reasonably arbitrary in selecting kids around the lower ability intake. There were always kids who were tutored although smaller numbers. What did happen was some preparation and practice at primary which I think no longer does. If you’re at the top ability of their intake you would pass without tutoring and I don’t believe that has changed. It’s not all about tutoring, it’s an unfair system because there are many kids who are late bloomers, many kids who are very good at academic subjects not measured by the test, work ethic is very important to eventual success.

I have lived in two grammar school areas previously. The grammar schools were packed with the children of middle class parents with sharp elbows.

Lots of the children went to private primary schools that marketed themselves on the basis of providing excellent preparation for the 11+. Most of the kids who went to state primary schools had been tutored heavily.

Yes, there might have been a small handful of kids from lower income backgrounds who miraculously managed to get through without this kind of support, but if they existed at all, they were few and far between. Meanwhile, the other poorer kids, many of whom were probably just as innately intelligent as some of their heavily tutored middle class counterparts, ended up in the secondary modern schools instead.

So, unless someone can come up with a selection system that genuinely doesn't offer any advantage to the children from weather families who can afford to prep their kids for the test, I personally don't see how grammar schools are going to make any meaningful contribution to social mobility at all. What would make a difference would be greater investment in comprehensive schools so that all children have the best possible opportunities.

Social mobility and the chance for academically able children from deprived backgrounds to reach their potential was trashed by removing them.

The thing is, comparison of the socio-economic backgrounds of those in grammars and non-grammars in areas which still have them makes it absolutely clear that any role that grammars had in the past in increasing social mobility has long gone.

I am the beneficiary of the historic effect of grammars on social mobility. My grandfather learned to read and write properly in his late teens, having had to support his mother in exceptionally deprived circumstances as a child rather than attend school regularly, while my mum went to grammar school and on to Oxbridge. A cursory examination of the Pupil Premium statistics for grammars vs non-grammars serving the same areas of e.g. Kent show that rather than promoting social mobility, grammars actually entrench privilege. Even more so in partial grammar counties, where the conveyor belt of private primaries into grammar schools is well-established.

Another 'pie in the sky' condition for creating more grammar schools: the socio-economic mix of any grammar MUST match that of its catchment. So while the school can select, it must select the most able from each group rather than simply taking the most able overall.