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.

I wonder if 'grammar' schools mean the same thing in different parts of the country. I know that Bucks, Kent and Birmingham have a number of grammar schools - do they run a full 11 plus system that everyone has to sit to determine their school?

OTOH, in my borough we have all comprehensive schools but then two superselective grammars with no catchment plonked in the middle. Local parents rarely consider them for their own children because the entrance test is so difficult to pass - the vast majority of the grammar students are bussed in from elsewhere. The next borough over has some selective, some comprehensive.

Elsewhere, there are no grammar schools at all, such as in the town I grew up in, and bright children from those areas don't seem to have any trouble passing A-levels and getting into university.

Gemauve curriculum varies school to school anyway - so what's the difference?

I dislike both comps and private, I feel they fail the bottom and the top. I was on the G&T list. At my local comp I was bored in every class, they didn't notice my SN, there were bullying issues - I ended up dropping out and self teaching myself my GCSEs

Until comps can provide for the top and bottom, grammars will always be a good option

Gemauve curriculum varies school to school anyway - so what's the difference?

Because the difference is systematic.

I know that Bucks, Kent and Birmingham have a number of grammar schools - do they run a full 11 plus system that everyone has to sit to determine their school?

Bucks and Kent are full 11+, Birmingham is residual super selectives with an optional test.

yes that's my feeling too. Grammar schools in Kent or Essex are very different from say Surrey or London where there's only a few super selectives accessible in nearby boroughs. Where they are the norm (and there are tiers of even gammar school I believe?) they must be more accessible, easier to get into and have more of a diverse range of pupils. The problem with super selectives is they are cherry picking the people who do really well on particularly hard tests (round here you have to pass the 11+ and a further school test which is even harder). I find it impossible to see how kids without extremely motivated parents could avigate through all that.

My Dd is in a comp. In Year 7 they were setted (?) and only the top set got to do Latin. No other kid there can ever do Latin now. Because you can't start it in Year 9 even if you did move up sets.

So comps do the same thing anyway. Still limits the options of a child based on 1 test at age 11.

I find it impossible to see how kids without extremely motivated parents could avigate through all that.

Or even know to enter in the first place. The exam application closing date has in some years been before the standard issuance of documentation about the secondary transfer process. So if you don't know about it, you aren't told about it until it's too late.

exactly, I'm educated to master level and I had to read the forms through twice. Then there's the secret squirrel practice tests that nobody tells you about but everyone has their kids down to take (if they're in the know and hang out on the right forum, have buttered uo the right mum with older children, etc etc). it is all a massive game, which is just the way it is now and we all play it to some degree, I just find it hard not to scoff when people go on about "the purity" of grammar schools.

I also think it's an inevitable consequence of how shit comprehensive s became in the 70's and 80s. people who went there will jump through hoops to ensure their children have a better experience. it's there the work needs to be done IMO.

Like many people, forago, I went to one of those 'shit' comprehensives in the 1980s. I had a bloody good education. I wish my own dc had the opportunity for a comprehensive education, but as we live in Kent, my children are subject to a selective system, and would be in this selective system even if they didn't take the Kent Test.

My son's first day at grammar school was distinguished by the head teacher telling his cohort that they should not be socialising with high school pupils . My son found it vaguely amusing, but it wouldn't be so funny if siblings attended high schools.

I do have a slight sense of schadenfreude every time I meet someone who moves to Kent for the 'wonderful' grammar schools only to find that their child is 'deemed suitable for a high school education.'

I think this can be achieved in either the grammar or the comprehensive system. What I like about the comp system is the ability to move up a group if you improve. Or if you're shit at maths but fantastic at English and history you can be in a bottom set for a weaker aubject and a top set for stronger subjects.

You see I don't think this works in practice. In my school very few people were ever moved up even though they were often getting results comparable with the tops sets. However they were entered for lower papers which meant that the highest grade they could achieve was lower too. Plus if you ended up in a low set for one subject, timetabling often meant you ended up in lower group for other subjects.

I've also talked to teachers who say there are other problems going on today. One school is trying to teach the kids to understand how to do something and the thought process behind it. The other school just teaches how to pass the exam and not any depth to what they are doing. They then enter different papers with the same exam board. The first school they have to get a higher percentage to get a C but have the potential to also get an A. The second they have to get a lower percentage but can only ever achieve a C at most. And of course they are never taught beyond passing the exam. The worst thing is the second school gets the better grades and therefore is held in higher esteem but the reality is that the kids with the better education go to the first, but end up with fewer opportunities because of the system of different papers.

So you have kids being written off based on the papers they enter and the way in which they are being taught in some schools. Grammar schools are not the only ones who write off children at a young age. The difference is, people aren't aware its happening.

If children who don't have access to grammar schools in their area are still able to sit A-Levels and enter university off the back of their comprehensive education, in competition with privately educated and grammar school children, I don't think that the argument for grammar schools is that strong, tbh.

Although I do see that if you have a choice of grammar school and comprehensive school with low aspirations in your area, you would fight tooth and nail to get your children into the grammar.

I'm the product of a grammar education and I'm 3rd gen in my family to do so. From what I see in my area grammars have pulled the quality of comps up and we have a system similar to the old 3 tier one here.

I started at a grammar school in 1959. I hated it as l didn't Want to do Latin, music, Greek etc. It was terrifically snobby. But l still don't think that there is anything wrong with the concept. What was wrong in my day was that the secondary moderns weresubstandard and staffed by poorly trained teachers. There was too much emphasis on domestic skills for the girls and trades for the boys and not enough emphasis on literacy and numeracy. It wasn't considered important as most pupils left at 14 and went straight into the local factories to work as unskilled labour. I was also the only child on my estate to go to the "girls grammar" so was bullied and friendless too.
A most unpleasant experience all round from my point of view.

Although I do see that if you have a choice of grammar school and comprehensive school with low aspirations in your area, you would fight tooth and nail to get your children into the grammar.

exactly this, do i want my children to have to travel 18 miles every day, go to the failing comp 6 miles away or the grammar 6 miles away?
Even if you hate grammar you work for it.

The other thing nobody mentions, not all kids want to go to a grammar school so failing does not distinguish them as failures. The last place I wanted to go was to the grammar school where my mum was a English teacher and my elder sister was top of the class. The pressure on me would have been unbearable and would have resulted in mum putting me in 'detention' every day for poor work and cheek. The grammar school though enabled both sisters elder and younger to go to Bath and Durham and in to fulfilling careers . The younger sister is head of Maths at a comprehensive in Hull, though to call it a comprehensive , proves how false the terminology is . The school has less high ability students than many if not most of Bucks upper schools !. The major problem according to my sister is that high ability students at the get brought down to the lowest common denominator .

This is the reason that sister pays school fees for DS and DD. Sister despite doing her best for all her pupils , believes that Hull needs a 'selective' school for its bright children to gain sanctuary from corrosive schooling.

This is a typical 'comprehensive' school in a inner city area.

My mum came from extreme poverty (as in not enough food, one school uniform, one set of home clothes type poverty - had to be kept home when clothes were being washed, often went hungry, shared a single bed with her brother until they were 11 and 9). As a girl with few opportunities and facing the sexism of the work place in 1960s/1970s, her attendance at grammar school in the 1950s proved her ticket out. She became a successful business owner. My uncle, who failed 11+, became a successful carpenter. My aunt, who is significantly younger and so went to school in the late 70s when there was a real anti-success/anti-competition atmosphere in many schools, has been on benefits most of her life. I know it is mere anecdote, but I wonder how much of a microcosm it is.

By the way, I'm a tutor (with a PhD) but I refuse to tutor 11+. I loathe that type of tutoring.

Nowadays you buy a grammar school place by tutoring or extensive preparation.
A dreadful system and moving out of the grammar school area to a comprehensive area was the best thing that I did. I wish we could hear more about all the huge successes of the comprehensive schools.
We need to improve all schools.
However there are a tiny amount of grammar schools- a mere 163. They won't come back as a vote loser. 75% are not going to vote to send their DCs to a sec mod.
If ever we get a title saying 'sec mod' system I might think there was something worth considering - they are never mentioned.

And what if your sister's kids weren't 'grammar school material' sunshield? Would she then be happy to send them to the local secondary modern? No, she'd send them private, wouldn't she? So it's not a case of her wanting to save those poor, bright kids - she just wants to save herself money.

Nobody ever calls for the return of secondary moderns for their kids.

My younger sister teaches and lives in 'Hull' where the comprehensive schools are anything but 'Comprehensive' in cohort.

My elder sister lives in Tonbridge and was 'undecided' whether to send her youngest DD to Hillview a 'Secondary' modern or a grammar. This is because Hillview offers a great education specialising in visual arts , it is quite likely DN2 will transfer there for sixth form for A levels (inc film studies).

The reason younger sisters children go private is because none of Hull's Comprehensive schools achieve over 50% at GCSE !

I went to a secondary modern in the 70s. I can hardly begin to describe the negative effect is has on your life.
We were trained to be followers, not leaders. We had hours of needlework and cooking and one hour of science per week. I still have my careers note book. I apparently had a choice of secretary, nursery nurse, or window dresser!
Job prospects were shit anyway, because everyone knew that our school was the thicko one.
They admitted that they made a mistake about one girl, and said she could move to the grammar, but her parents couldn't afford the new uniform.
Teachers were also largely shit. No one wanted to work at a sm.
I moved to a sixth form college for a levels and did badly because nobody expected anything from me, including the teachers, so I coasted.
Eventually got a ba hons on my late 20s and an MSc in my late thirties.
I do wonder what would have happened if I had more confidence.
You can't select some kids without deselecting the others.

I do 'appoligise ' i have just seen there is a Catholic High school in Hull that achieves 74% ! However, kids are not Catholics ....

Anyone who believes that the 11+ can accurately sort educational wheat from chaff is an idiot. It's like predicting gcse results from CATs scores - they are broadly accurate averaged over a large cohort, but individual predictions are not.

So we have kids shuttled off to grammars who shouldn't be there and kids not in grammars that should be. I think the stats suggest 1 in 5 children are misplaced.

And apart from all that, academically selective education is well known internationally to perpetuate social inequality. Germany, in particular, has been condemned by the UN for their education system.

I have taught in an 'otherwise' selective comprehensive (highly oversubscribed CofE) for 11 years now, and I have reached the conclusion that some of the 'opinions' on grammar schools are totally arse-about-face.

The children who benefit most from the most academically rigorous education and structured environment are the least academically able. They are the ones who need the best teaching from the most skilled teachers. The most able can succeed academically regardless of the teachers.

One example was the shambolic teaching of physics in our school last year. The triple science set all managed to achieve their Yellis target grades regardless of the fact that they were 'taught' by a string of supply and cover teachers. The low-to-bottom set did not.

A friend of mine thinks her high ability DS will 'do better' in a grammar school. She is quite happy for her middle ability DD to go to the local comp. I think she has it the wrong way round.

I'm not a 'leftie', nor do I have anything against the grammar system. I just think it's a great shame that so many of our nation's children are taught by such poor teachers in such poor schools (awaits the pulling apart of my spelling and grammar as proof that I, of course, must be a poor teacher).

Unfortunately I am unable to take this op seriously due the misuse of the single quotation mark no less than seven times. I will therefore not enter the debate.