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 agree, RashDecision, and do wish that people would give up the old chestnut of it helping children escape from a deprived background when they no longer stand a chance against the parent who understands the system and can afford to manipulate it. I have also never understood why only the bright child deserves to escape - the rest appear to have to know their place and stay there! How about the novel idea of helping children of all backgrounds and all abilities to achieve their potential?

Sorting them at the tender age of 10yrs is ludicrous and so many must end up in the wrong place. This is never righted. A handful may get a later opportunity to get a grammar school place but the traffic never goes the other way.

I think you are right to a point OP. In effect the current view is that it is fairer that nobody gets a chance to excel than a few. While it is unfair I would sooner see some succeed than none

I went to a grammar school and was the first in my working class family to go to university, as were most of my schoolfriends. We all went into "safe" jobs like teachers, doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, etc as Grammars encouraged you to, where our parents were all in trades and manual jobs. I think that chance and mobility has been sacrificed for political ideology and the equivalent bright young people today are often failed and dragged down by comprehensive schools

The difficulty now though is that parents are far more invested and clued up than our parents were so that entry system would never work now. Tutoring, moving home and all sorts of things go on now that my parents would never have dreamed of which could skew the system

We are in an area with only comprehensive schools and I have to agree with the OPs sister, my child went private and have done very well (more so than most of their friends who went to the local school) The education we paid for was very similar to that I got in a Grammar School all those years earlier

I grew up in a northern town where for reasons of politics and tradition the 2 RC schools were fully comprehensive, the others not.

There were 2 grammar schools, but with selection at 14 rather than 11, so if you didn't go to the RC school you went to one of the other schools and at 14 you could transfer to the grammar, which coincided with the start of O Level or CSE courses, so for what is now years 10 and 11 or you stayed in your current school, called a comp but in effect a secondary modern.

The numbers of students obtaining O Levels at the grammars and the RC schools were about the same, although as a % were higher at the grammar due to some students taking CSEs instead or as well as O Levels.

The number of O Levels at the schools which had lost their 'best' students were lower, but students still attained some, alongside CSEs.

If the results of the grammar were added to the 'comps' the results were broadly similar to the RC schools, in effect it didn't matter which school you went to, grammar, comp, secondary modern, you came out with the same results.

Whether that would be the case now I'm not sure because of all the tutoring but I suspect not.

Move to Hampshire
Pretty good comps.
Wide choice of 6th form colleges.

A traditional academic education was not the correct pathway for me (despite the anxiety that caused my mother). However, why would it be fair to prevent ambitious hardworking conscientious pupils from attending a school populated by similar students. The only reason for preventing students from going to such schools is to create a levelling down of standards. This is easier to achieve than raising the standards of other schools.

In hindsight the modern school i attended was pretty poor, (DS at is the same one ) but bears no resemblance today. I remember the year 9 parents evening and mum having an argument with my English teacher. This was due to her not correcting my grammar or punctuation ,a problem that still persists today (due to having undiagnosed Dyslexia, Dyspraxia).

I agree the current selection process does favor families with lots of culture capital , this does not mean financial , just the knowledge of how to succeed .

This clearly needs to be looked at so that the children from poorer and less culture capital advantaged backgrounds could benefit from selective education.

However, i am going to write something unpopular . The reason why the majority of grammar school pupils come from certain backgrounds is down to genes!.

This statement is liable to get flamed , but its because people won't face the truth .

This has got nothing to do with money but everything to do with culture or ambition . This is backed up by the dogged determination of parents from the Indian Sub continent or of Polish extraction for their offspring to flourish academically. This is in complete contrast to the attitude of many 'English' families whose ambition is to get on Jeremy Kyle and mouth of , how it is not fair or their fault .

Comps often have different "pathways" the difference being is that the decision is made later and children have some say whether they want to follow a vocational pathway or a more academic pathway. At thirteen many child self select the most appropriate curriculum for themselves. Believe or not there are some mighty bright people who want to do a trade. Not everyone is bookish.

But a good comp can serve both the most able and the strugglers. A good comp sets where appropriate, and enables kids to move up and down the sets.

A good comp offers traditional academic subjects for the more able (triple science, 2 MFL, latin, etc) whilst still offering more hands on subjects (range of arts, technical, maybe construction or beauty).
A good comp stretches the more able, whilst offering support to the less able.

But a good comp does not select based on parental interest or ability to pay for tutors at age 9/10. It does not discriminate against the late bloomers.

majority of grammar school pupils come from certain backgrounds is down to genes...This has got nothing to do with money but everything to do with culture or ambition

Gene? Or culture? It would help if you could make your mind up.

It would also help if you looked at the (small scale, sadly, and now impossible to repeat) studies on educational outcomes of the cohort of children who were adopted when blind adoption of healthy babies was at its peak in the 1960s. As I recall, the outcomes were much more in line with the adoptive parents than the biological parents. The water has been massively muddied by Cyril Burt and his imaginary research assistants cooking the data for their imaginary twins studies immediately after the war, and today both blind adoption and adoption of healthy babies is far, far, less common than it was before 1967.

But such evidence as there is points to culture and ambition being far more important than genetic factors.

In effect the current view is that it is fairer that nobody gets a chance to excel than a few. While it is unfair I would sooner see some succeed than none

Your assumption is that nobody can "excel" or "succeed" in a comprehensive school?

How are we defining 'success' and 'excellence' here, btw?

Our DD is at a grammar school. She saw a private tutor who helped her with her timing and technique. But only did roughly an hour and half of 11+ work per week which was much less than many of her friend's who were home tutored by parents.

She passed with a high score. No doubt that was in part due to her improved technique and timing. But she was also already quite a clever girl. Always on the top table for maths and literacy in her classroom and high Level 5s when she finished Yr 6. Very widely read and very articulate for her age. Tutors can't work miracles. If the basic ability isn't there then there isn't all that much they can do.

Now at the grammar she is doing very well and certainly doesn't need any extra help or tuition with her school work. She's finishing Yr on comfortable Level 6s across the board. And it's not some dreadful hothouse filled with stressed out girls riddled with eating disorders and high anxiety.

The vast majority of girls don't struggle with the level of work because they are already so well equipped academically. DD enjoys her drama and art lessons, and has experienced cooking and needlework. Her school does have a very successful maths team which competes nationally, but they also have a street dance squad too. It's not all Latin and algebra and irregular verbs.

There is some social mix at her grammar. A few of her new friends are from non professional, single parent families or have immigrant non professional parents. But there's no denying that the majority of her new friends are from very middle class backgrounds with professional parents.

I personally don't have a problem with this. I am just very pleased with her grammar and very relieved she got a place. She loves the school and never wanted to go anywhere else.

"I personally don't have a problem with this. I am just very pleased with her grammar and very relieved she got a place. She loves the school and never wanted to go anywhere else."

And, your point is?

You paid to have your daughter tutored and she got in to a grammar school and now you are pretty pleased with yourself.

It doesn't add anything to the more nuanced argument about whether grammar schools are fair or appropriate, what they contribute overall to education in this country.

All they do is educate children who would do perfectly well at a good comprehensive. I just can only see arguments against them, put so articulately by Mehitabel and others.

In that case, I don't believe that grammar schools are especially fair anymore. Certainly not as much as they used to be perhaps 30-40 years ago.

Today they seem to attract middle class parents who want the type of educational experience that they would otherwise have to pay £20K a year for.

I am sure that my DD and her school friends would have been absolutely fine at just about any secondary school. But I am not sure whether it would have been quite the same educational experience that is offered by their grammar school. Neither am I convinced that they would achieve quite as much academically.

As for what the grammar school contributes overall to the education of the country? I would say the contribution is likely very small as very few pupils are at grammar schools so I understand.

But all that considered I am still very pleased that our DD is at a grammar. There are secondary schools around here which are considered to be good but I still believe that her grammar school is better.

For me my low IQ and being very slow (can't find the term) dyslexic dyspraxic and a poor performer at school were solely my genes.
My adopted parents tried everything to help me and my Dad was a very clever man. Mum had gained a place at grammar but was unable to go as her mum made her work instead, but she was bright enough.
My bm and my ancestors were pretty dim in intelligence.
My dc are a mix of abilities but dh went to grammar and is quite intelligent.
If it is in your genes no amount of extra work will make up for it imo

I think the grammar/comprehensive system in itself worked to a point, but not in the modern world where the jobs market is different. My mum and her siblings went to different schools - she and her oldest brother went to grammar, her older sister and younger brother went to the comp. He learned skills to help in manual trades, youngest sister did secretarial work. Grammar school uncle went into surveying, mum got good enough grades but still chose to go to secretarial college after school rather than further education.

Nowadays, are there enough jobs where manual skills/trades/less "academic" skills are required? Or in this grade obsessed world where half of students are expected to go to Uni is there no room for the comprehensive system?

she and her oldest brother went to grammar, her older sister and younger brother went to the comp.

You don't mean a comprehensive school. You mean a secondary modern.

Extra work will however get you through the exam- people forget that is the start and not the end. You can't have a comprehensive school if the top set are in another school.

Of course it isn't a fair system education has never been fair nor will it ever be.
For each instance of opportunity one child is able to access there are others who can't.
It's life as we know it.

Anyone would think that they didn't set in comprehensive schools. The top set is the grammar school. You would also think that no one from a comprehensive got to a top university! The whole top sets ( who would have been at grammar school) go. Since over 90% of our children go to comprehensives there wouldn't be enough pupils to fill universities if the few from the 163 grammar schools and the small percentage from private education were the only ones to do well.
You get a very skewed idea from MN, when in RL grammar schools are irrelevant to well over 90% of the parents..

Thankfully we are trying to make it fair for all and luckily most of us do not have any grammar schools. Some, like me, are lucky and can move out of grammar school areas when they are small pockets. The people in Kent are not so lucky- they are stuck with the sec mod system.

People who are anti-grammar school...

WWYD in a situation where you live in a grammar area, so the only options are grammar or secondary modern. Your child does well in 11+. Do you send them to the grammar even though you disagree with the principle, or do you send them to the secondary modern even though it is not designed to include the top-scoring children?

I disagree with the concept of grammar schools and would LOVE my DC to go to a proper comprehensive but don't have the choice.

Quite Mehitabel. And although it is very bitchy of me, and I need to have a stern word with myself about this, I simply don't understand why the grammar-obsessed parents on here are not well educated enough to be able to work that out!

Of course you send them to the grammar , what a silly question
you equally don't agree with sec mod schools. Why on earth would you ignore the exam - not send them to a grammar because you don't agree with them but them send them to a sec mod when you equally don't agree with them?
I was going to go private since I didn't want either. Luckily before I got very far down that line we were able to move to a comprehensive area. I did agree with them and so it all worked out. All 3 did very well and had first choice of career.

They don't work it out because they get their ideas from TV - and don't understand that most of us don't send our children to schools like that and that in reality you have excellent ones that are nothing like TV.

Or they live in London and have no understanding that towns like Winchester are very different.