If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

[Rosaluxemberg]

Do you think it would help social mobility ? And that children on FSM or from very disadvantaged backgrounds who showed academic promise could gain entry with contextual 11 plus marks (like Unis).
To me the fact that privately educated children can benefit from 7 years of great education, with small classes, lots of attention, and to cap it all, preparation towards the 11 plus just seems so unfair and defeats the whole objective of it. Maybe there’d be more mixing of kids as middle class parents had to decide which path to take.
Who knows ? Any thoughts ?

I feel like whatever we did somebody would be complaining.

If we did the vocational skills secondary thing, the government would be accused of limiting working class children and funnelling them off into less academic routes so their own middle class DC don’t have extra competition or whatever

Labour abolished it [grammar system], probably the biggest blow to education ever struck in this country in the 60s.

You mean Labour considered the evidence that the grammar system was a barrier to socioeconomic mobility and did (or at least tried to do) something about it?

I think grammars/selective schools should be consigned to the past. Others have mentioned this but properly funded comprehensives with appropriate support for kids of all abilities within them.

Yes, sure they tried to do something about a barrier to socioeconomic mobility. But what actually happened when they did it was that overall, education started on its path deep down the shitter.

I went to our local Grammar and I was the only child in my class on FSM in an area where 1/3 of all pupils qualify. It was almost exclusively middle-class kids who had been tutored through the 11+. I didn’t know anyone who’d attended a private primary, they were all from local state primaries. What really struck me was the amount of pupils that really struggled. I had friends who had “failed” the 11+ who were hands down more academic than many of the tutored kids who passed. It’s a grossly unfair system.

I would prefer to just get rid of grammar schools altogether, personally.

It will never be a level playing field for all children, as wealthier parents would still be able to pay for tutors etc.

I would make all state schools comprehensive. I would get rid of state-funded faith schools as well.

But surely comprehensives are still selective since the children are in streams, just all on one campus instead of separate ones?

It will never be a level playing field for all children, as wealthier parents would still be able to pay for tutors etc.

Bad schools don’t get better with brighter children, you just move kids down stream.

Yes.
But you must see that this is idealistic and not realistic.

Other opinions are available.

They could standardise scores based on parental income?

unworkable

plus how would you account for a highly educated SAHM earning £0?

Presumably the partner is earning. If you are on a low income you don't have the money to throw at tutoring regardless of your own educational background.

How is not realistic when huge swathes of the country only have comprehensives and no grammars?
I live in such a county, and there are some state comprehensives posting every year with their, “ten 9s - congrats to Amina and Jake!” comments.

You do the tutoring yourself is what I meant

Low income families already have this option, mine taught themselves from books. However, their grammar is still heavily skewed towards the middle class children, we are one of the poorer families.

YABU , everybody pays their taxes and is entitled to use State schools , as regards letting FSM a children in with lower scores surely that will just be horrible for those children as they will likely struggle and be dragging along at the bottom rather than doing well at a different school .

You mean Labour considered the evidence that the grammar system was a barrier to socioeconomic mobility and did (or at least tried to do) something about it?

They went about it in the wrong way imo. As Naran says, grammars did used to enable socioeconomic mobility. DH's dad went to one in the 50s. He grew up on a social housing estate in a very poor area.

Although personally I don't like the narrative of 'mobility', in that there are many lower waged jobs that are important and needed (including those that require academic ability). The issue is these roles (vocational or academic) aren't valued as they should be. Better wages and or more affordable housing especially social housing is the real answer to inequality.

The problem with the grammar system in the UK was that, unlike Germany, not passing the 11+ and going to secondary modern became to be seen as a failure. Whereas Germany recognises that vocational abilities and training is just as important and valued and can give opportunities as much academic abilities and training.

I think it would've been better to have kept the grammar system, but ensured vocational ability was equally valued. Secondary moderns should've been modelled on the German vocational schooling system.

There should be more selective schools, so children who would like to learn, from whatever background, would be able to learn in the environment they all deserve!

But mostly streaming works at a subject level doesn't it? So a child could be in different streams for different subjects but not consigned to one stream for everything. That seems fair enough to me. It is how my comprehensive worked 50 years ago.

They already standardise score based on age when the August and September children will be in the same classes.

Indeed. People in Kent, Bucks, etc: "Grammar schools should be for MY DC!"

People everywhere else: "We're not bothered because we don't have grammar schools."

I couldn’t agree more. A friend of my mother’s went to Grammar School while her brother was slightly under, so didn’t get in. Their lives became dramatically different and this friend feels that grammar schools are incredibly bad news. Of course a child of 10 shouldn’t be judged for their life prospects.

Most comprehensives don't stream, they set. A child can be Set 1 for Maths, Set 3 for English, Set 2 for languages etc.

@Naran yes, perhaps it is idealistic but we should have an education system which actually works for all children not just the well off or academically strong. Children can change a lot between 10, when they would sit the 11 plus,and 14 so being in schools where there are different options would be ideal.
@sparklychair no I don't see comprehensives as selective. They admit all children regardless of their academic ability, religion etc.