To think that condemming the grammar school system , because it cannot give 100% of pupils a brilliant education is wrong.

[sunshield]

I was watching the 'Secret life of the Grammar School' on BBC four last night and it occurred to me that the majority were successful because of a grammar school education. The debate on grammar schools is centred around the 75% or so who don't pass. The ideology expressed from many, is that if 100% of children can't get a highly academic education either though ability or resources than no one should have the chance. This is surely wrong and ultimately does not do the less academic any favours yet it significantly reduces the chances for bright children, who may need a structured and highly 'disciplined' environment to achieve.

I know many people on this site will disagree with this post and will cite the excellent 'comprehensives' their children attend. The truth is the best comprehensive schools are 'covert' grammar schools operating a more 'acceptable' form of selection .

The grammar school system needs to be applauded for its contribution to the United kingdom from politics , commerce to science and engineering . There is no part of life in the UK that has not been influenced or improved by grammar school educated people.

However, if you read the constant 'diatribes' of people on the left you would believe that grammar schools are worse than 'public schools' in their effect on society. Grammar schools have provided the backbone to society for over 70 years. I believe that it is morally wrong to prevent academic children from all sectors of society a 'grammar ' education just on the basis of it not being available to all.

These debates never end well.

In this city, the %age FSM at the state grammars (super-selectives) is lower than the %FSM at the private schools.

Fifty years ago, the vast majority of parents would have left school at fourteen (1964, children born 1953, parents born 1930). A minute proportion would have been educated in grammar schools and done school certificate, but free grammar education to sixteen (free, apart from parents needing to need and clothe, which was a major disincentive) was only made available by the '44 Act and was turned down by a lot of parents anyway before of the indirect cost.

The issue of preparation for the 11+ by parents, and the disparities that caused, was therefore at a tiny level. In the state system education 5 to 11 was roughly comparable over schools, and parents were not in a position to engage substantially.

By the 1970s, not so much. The issue of educated parents making grammar schools self-perpetuating was much bigger. It's handily forgotten that the vast majority of grammar school closures during the main period of comprehensive conversion were signed off by a Conservative education secretary, one Margaret Thatcher, and were wildly popular with Conservative voters, which is why she did it. Suddenly, the grammar schools, which had been nice old middle-class enclaves (to the point that when post-war slim clearance was done grammars weren't provided on the new estates) were starting to be populated by the aspirational new middle classes, the product of the '44 Act, and there started to be a serious risk that Jemima (Jennifer, back then) might have to go to the secondary moderns.

There is no part of life in the UK that has not been influenced or improved by comprehensive or private school educated people, too.

I don't understand how anyone can love the grammar system unless you also love elitism and privilege.

I wish that all secondary school were excellent and helped the more academic pupils to the extent that Grammar schools died out. I also wish that I felt that my child would achieve as much at the average/poor secondary school than she would at Grammar or private. I wish my DD wasn't taking exams at 10 that could affect the rest of her life.
However, until that day comes ( which it won't) then it's Grammar or Private for us.
I don't love the system at all but while it's there I will use it.

I suspect that the reality is that many parents want their little Jennifer to avoid being taught with the bottom 5% who distrupt every lesson. The well behaved middle class child who is slightly dim does not cause problems. Infact lots of private schools cater for the nice but slightly dim.

Do we favour the top 25%, 5% or the bottom 2%. There is always compromises in life. Maybe children in the top 2% fail to reach their true potential, but you have to balance their needs with the other 98%.

The grammar school system is divisive. There is little evidence that Kent children do better academically than children in non grammar school areas. Certainly making 75% of the population feel like a failure has massive disadvantages. The old grammar/ secondary modern system destroyed a lot of children's confidence at an early age.

Comprehensive schools use lots of different strageries for differentiation. We need more educational research to see which methods produce the best results for the greatest number of children. It would be interesting to see what other countries do as well.

I feel we need better research how we educate children with behavioural problems or other special needs. It is unfair on the other 29 children to have a child with extreme behavioural problems in a class. Even if inclusion is best for the individual child it might not best for the other 29 in the class. Maybe there are better strageries for making inclusion work.

we moved from a rough area to a nicer area for better schools. I wish I hadn't had to but state schools reflect the catchment area. We didn't want ds to be in a school with the extreme social problems that the local school was having to contend with. Basically home chaos and poor commitment among enough families and pupils to soak up too much of the staff time.

Streaming can create areas of learning for all able children but it's about the ethos that kids bring with them to. ds now goes to a school where a large majority of the parents care passionately about education. This makes a massive difference. Also there are some great staff too - it's these things which make all the difference. The socio economic group, the quality of staff, the expectations of the school community, the retention of good staff all struggling against government expectations and the dawning that we are less well educated than many Chinese, Singaporeans, northern Europeans etc.

There is a point in the French attitude that school is for learning, go home for your craft needs and pastoral care, we've just got to get this lot mastered, learned, examined done.

i went to a grammar school in Kent, where the system still runs.
half of the intake back then was from a local private primary.

I was the only child from my estate to go. It's worse now - I doubt any untutored kid gets in.

when we relocated to the North we had to choose between two neighbouring areas - one with grammar schools, one without. We chose the area without.

one of my sisters failed the 11+. She's bright and capable (has just completed a law degree in her thirties) but it took decades to get over being pigeon-holed as "not one of the clever ones".

For better or worse Grammar schools, like private schools, create an environment that is not compromised by kids who are impossible to educate. And there are some of those in comprehensive school.

You have to look at some schools and see the security on the doors and the knives confiscated and just think, my child has enough to deal with, being a teenager, bullying, anxiety, tons of work etc not to have to deal with that level of potential intimidation.

SayThisOnce this was mybexact experience recently too. first time I had been to a grammar school.and I was pretty shocked at the whole "we are the elite and better than everyone else" attitude, plus the blatant attempts to belittle and denigrate the local private schools they are competing with (didn't hear the reverse there) It wasn't last week was it? :) Its still the only grammar school I've been to and I am hoping they're not all like that. I think possibly it would be different in a proper grammar school area where there are lots, not just a few "super selectives" that think they're more elite aka superior because of that.

Unless you are in an area where there are sufficient pupils to populate properly both secondary modern and grammar schools ie an area which otherwise would need two comprehensive schools then resourcing is going to be a major issue. Inevitably one school is going to be under resourced. The cynic in me suggests that this will tend to be the secondary modern.

I failed my 11+ in 'Buckinghamshire' but I never felt upset or any anguish for failing.

I have said on a thread about grammar schools in Kent (probably the most spoke about grammar area) that even in West Kent, Tonbridge that Hillview offers a excellent non selective education. My DS goes to an Upper school in Bucks (despite passing) because it offers what is right for him academically. My two DDs are more focused and therefore suited to grammar school and it is the correct place for them. Buckinghamshire has some excellent 'Upper' schools that are far superior to fully 'comprehensive' schools in attainment and discipline.

The comment about parents paying if children did not get in to grammar school, proves that parents want selective education or at least the chance of one.

I don't know about The Kent system but I don't believe that round here 75% of children are made to feel like failures.
The state Primaries have no involvement with the Grammar system at all and have a policy of not giving info even if you ask. DD's teacher told us she was " not allowed" to answer our query as to whether she thought we should enter her for the 11+.
In fact despite living in the largest town in England we have no Grammar school at all but there are 2 in the next town to us and in order to get the information on how to apply we have had to be very proactive.
The majority of parents at my Dc's school wouldn't even consider Grammar as an option despite their child's ability and in fact quite a few of them don't even know that the Grammar schools nearest to us exist. None of this makes any child feel like a failure, although I do accept there may be an element of that for children who take the 11+ but don't get a place.

For better or worse Grammar schools, like private schools, create an environment that is not compromised by kids who are impossible to educate. And there are some of those in comprehensive school.

And fixing that doesn't require the introduction of the 11+. The argument that 25% (or 2%) of the population deserve protection against 1%, but the other 74% (or 97%) don't is particular hard-hearted.

But if we want this to turn into a real bunfight, suggesting that disruptive children who cannot be effectively educated in the mainstream without affecting everyone else should be separated off it guaranteed to bring about the MN event horizon.

Grammar schools are great for families like mine:-

• plenty of money so can afford tutors
• highly academic parents so academic home environment
• kids are too little to know for sure but they seem bright
• if they fail then we were planning on going private anyway so get to avoid the disadvantages
• the money we save from no school fees would mean that our twice yearly foreign holidays will be to the Maldives rather than the Canaries! Yay!

Probably not quite so great for kids who are not already ridiculously advantaged.

(Note - we don't like in a grammar school area.)

forago it wasn't last week... but I am curious - was yours a mixed or single sex school? maybe we went to the male/female versions of matching schools.

Many countries that do well in PISA are effective at getting distruptive kids out of mainstream classrooms. No child should have to put up with their lessons being wrecked on a daily basis whatever their level of intelligence. We need more specialist provision for difficult children.

not the ones you're thinking of I don't think but very similar and same county, all boys, further East

Gemauve, I think that if a government invested heavily in the excluded children with an aim of getting them back in school that would be great.

No child should hold a school, a class, a teacher, another child, an educational system to ransom. I think zero tolerance creates an environment where people can learn. I think it is brutal but it's like watching my neighbour who will not discipline her toddler and he breaks everything in the house and hurts other children. You can't have kids in a school who the school can't control. That stops it being a school. I think really good behaviour is the first thing and there are rough schools that have achieved it but HTs do need power to exclude don't they? I mean you can't expect them to be young offenders Institutions can you?

Mumoftwo wins the internets.

In a lot of cases, grammar schools simply provide a discounted private school experience for the already privileged. What they may have intended to do fifty years ago is irrelevant: when it comes to gaming the system to gain admission to privilege, the middle classes today are playing a longer game with deeper pockets. Getting your child into a super-selective, for many people, represents a saving of around £100 000 and, in London, probably nearer £200 000. It's therefore worth chucking a few bob at the entrance exam. In fact, it's worth chucking quite a lot of bob at the entrance exam.

what a load of rot.We are a poor family and so far all of my children (3) have got into thegrammar school without tutoring. The youngest sits the 11+ in the autumn.

I'm left wing and don't have a problem with grammar schools. Yes rich parents can pay someone to teach their child to get in, but they can also do that with exams in any school so what's the difference, grammar schools at least give people a chance

Maypolish if it is so easy for untutored children to get in why is the FSM representation so low?

Yes money boys advantage in the exam system but the grammar system actively stops people from taking part which is worse than giving an advantage. Round here the secondary moderns offer very different curricula to the grammar. There are things that students just cannot do because they fail a test that in a previous year they may have passed.

Yes rich parents can pay someone to teach their child to get in, but they can also do that with exams in any school so what's the difference, grammar schools at least give people a chance

That would be true if they delivered the same curriculum. They don't. When I went to a comp in the 1970s, the same subjects and exams were on offer as in the residual grammar next door, then I did A Levels ditto, then I went to what is now an RG university.

Today a lot of comps have settled on using "equivalent" qualifications that aren't equivalent at all, and on stripping things like MFL out of the curriculum. I have a long thread over on Higher Education lamenting the students we see coming from schools which push children into qualifications which simply aren't acceptable for university admission.

We are a poor family and so far all of my children (3) have got into thegrammar school without tutoring.

My grandfather smoking 80 a day and lived to be 90.

The comment about parents paying if children did not get in to grammar school, proves that parents want selective education or at least the chance of one.

No it doesn't, it proves the exact opposite; that they want the selective system as long as the selection process goes the way they would like. If they process deems their child 'unacademic' they choose to completely opt out of the system.