To believe that we need to create two hundred more Grammar Schools for the Shires of England.

[redange]

To believe England needs two hundred new Grammar schools across the country and in doing this take the number of English Grammar Schools to 363.

I appreciate this is a post that is going to lead to me being called names and for posters to be looking at spelling and grammar mistakes as a means of belittlement .

Nonetheless, there must be support among some posters for the lifting of the 1998 Labour Ban on the creation of Grammar Schools where there is a desire or clear need. The only Grammar School that has been built since 1965 being the Weal Of Kent Grammar Annexe in Sevenoaks . Surely if the country is going to be able to grow economically, we need to revisit the idea of selective education across Sport, Art and academic rigour. It is also not impossible that a fairer and more equitable system of selection could be introduced alongside the 11+ exam. Thus, in doing so access to selective education should not be a 'one and only' chance. I think this is where a lot of people have problems, because they see selective education through the prism of pass or fail. Pass or Fail does not mean the same today as it meant in 1965 because firstly the advent of a single exam system of GCSE's and A levels that all pupils take or can advance to.

It's precisely the lack of grammar schools that has created this situation.

That's why I personally think the divide should be at 14.
It should be based on teacher recommendations based on the work the child has done in Key Stage 3 and actually talking to the child about what subjects they enjoy and are interested in.

This. I went to a comprehensive school where we had streaming. Some of us were offered the opportunity to do subjects like Latin and were supported to do Oxbridge entrance at 6th form where deemed suitable. Others had opportunities to do more technical and vocational skills and qualifications. I believe having us together as a whole, though not together in all classes, was a good thing, as it gave us visibility of people less like ourselves.

In grammar areas, the other schools available are often seen as second best, whether or not they deserve that. You also need a certain level of population to offer a range of schools - I was in a smallish town with a large rural catchment area. We had no choice of secondary, unless we went private. Although the town has grown, there's still only one secondary (though before 1980, they did have two single sex grammars and a secondary modern.)

I believe everyone should have access to good education that suits them well - not everyone is academic. (And I don't disagree that we sre not necessarily there.) But at age 11, many children don't really know which way will suit them. Traditional post 1940s grammars were excellent for those who were intelligent, but they weren't so great for those who were written off because they didn't get in.

Only in grammar areas.

Wasn't that the main thinking behind them originally? To give a chance to children who were clever but came from poorer backgrounds so would not, in any other way, be able to access appropriate learning opportunities. Not sure why that isn't still a valid reason to have them, even in "this day and age"?

OP hasn’t answered my questions as to why she thinks we should have more grammar schools. I’m genuinely interested not in a cynical way either. It’s not my experience that all comps offer a worse education. Maybe they do if there are lots of grammar schools nearby?

I can't work out if this is satire.

What are they like is a bit vague, what do you mean?

No absolutely not. And only those who think they can spend what it takes to secure their DC a place would be an favour of this. The Grammar School system is horrible for those who don't get in.

If there's a problem in education where you live, the money should be spent on improving all schools, not just schools for the middle classes prepared to pay for tutoring.

I believe that was the reason. Do you think poorer children who are smart are still given this opportunity or are they priced out of catchment areas?

It's definitely a good aim to have. Is it better to have separate schools for grammar/tech/not sure yet, or one school which does all of these and gives them more time to decide what their strengths and interests are?

Taking an existing comprehensive school and converting into a selective school is extremely problematic - you are potentially leaving hundreds of pupils with no school within a reasonable distance (especially as so many schools will be closing due to the falling roll numbers) - I think the legal challenges would be insurmountable.

I suppose you could encourage struggling private schools to convert to state grammars (I know that some have converted to state comprehensives) but you still have serious funding issues in a time of falling rolls, as funding is done on a per-head basis.

They are priced out in England specifically because there are so few of them.

What is more unfair, a wider access to streamed education where half of children attend grammar schools which inevitably crosses socio economic classes much more, or a small handful of grammars leading to an industry of private education only for an elite few who can afford tens of thousands of pounds?

Do they do a good job in catering for the 55%?
What proportion have an excellent reputation?
Do they offer subjects for the 14-16 year olds which interest them and prepare them well for adult life?

The big problem with the tripartite system in England back in the 60s was that the tech schools never really got established and the grammars attracted the best teachers. Not in all cases, but a lot of the secondary moderns struggled to attract enough high quality staff to be able to offer an excellent education.

Both mine go to grammar and I was keen for this to happen for a few different reasons. The main being, grammar schools won’t allow any child to slip through the net. They have eyes on all children’s results and act accordingly should they see a change. Second to this, they teach for the same academic ability therefore overall less time on differentiating lessons and managing bad behaviour. Lastly, whilst the majority of parents value education at all schools, it’s guaranteed at grammar, this attitude filters down to the children.

This question always obsesses about grammar schools and the small group of kids who either have the aptitude or the parentlay money for their parentls to intemsively coach them to pass the exams. There is no mention of what happens to the other 90%. What are their schools going to be like? Will resources be similar? Will they have the specialist teaching required? No thought is put into what happens to those kids-even though they are the vast majority. Even when they were grammar/secondary modern. For every 'I failed my 11+ and I'm a millionnaire' there are thousands who spent their lives in dead end jobs that became obsolete and left them with no qualifications to be able to adapt.

Because it doesn't work.

I am on the governing body of a comp in a Grammar School area. Our School has 37% FSM, the Grammar practically none.

My DH went to a grammar in the 60s. From a poor family, first to go to university and he's always banging on about bring back the grammar schools. However he doesn't understand that the current system is simply a tax payer funded premium education for the wealthy.

In order to make it work you'd need universal grammar education. So every child took the 11+ and could go to their local school. They would have to redesign admissions tests so that tutoring would be of no benefit.

I live near a city that has three grammar schools and I did my first PGCE placement in one of the comprehensives. That school was a bit of a zoo-definitely a secondary modern experience. Second placement was in a much (much) larger comprehensive with a rural and market town catchment.

The latter was streamed from Y9, and the top sets were probably every bit as clever as the grammar school students: one of my classes sent four to Oxbridge and a few more to different medical schools.

However, from parent's evenings, I know that the top sets had degree-qualified professional parents -- almost without exception. One East European student just 18 months into learning English produced work that was more articulate and thoughtful than students 12 months older. But the parents were highly qualified scientists with strings of degrees; nature and genetics are always going to shape intellectual performance.

Exactly - all the issues seen around grammar schools (tutoring, indirect selection by income etc) are just as rife, maybe even more so, in areas that have ample access to grammar schools as in areas where there are only one or two.

In NI 31.7pc of students achieved grade A/7 and above - higher than the equivalent figure for England (21.8pc) and Wales (19.6pc).

Would you say the English system is more successful? Academic attainment isn’t the only measure, I’m aware, but you can hardly claim more people having access to the same schools is creating a more fair system

No, we live in a major city where the secondaries are really, really poor. Statistically! Reports in the local rags all the time, too, about the terrible behaviour. There is only one grammar school (a super-selective) and there is no catchment so it attracts applicants from miles around. This feels unfair, as bright city kids are competing with more affluent children from surrounding areas, who often have had wider experiences and more conversations / exposure to vocabulary (a wide vocabulary is massive for getting into a grammar).

I do believe in the grammar system, and it's what turned me off Labour in the 90's. I was a die-hard Labour voter, but I found their anti-grammar stance ridiculous. I remember ringing my MP about it!

@Midnightmoonface @47YO and others, do you realise that classes are set by ability in comprehensive schools? A good comprehensive school can be every bit as good for academic children as a grammar. If not, wouldn't more people be calling for grammars where they live? Round here, we have comprehensives to 16 and then a choice of sixth form options to suit all abilities and interests. I would prefer to see more options to choose from at 14, but I think 16 might be better than 11 to decide your own future/a child's future.

The main disadvantages of comprehensive are
some kids are not capable of passing gcses and the level of the work means some can be increasingly disruptive throughout secondary.
obviously that impacts the ones capable of learning.

Can really depend on the school but at dd the teachers arent pushing the kids or supporting with good quality homework etc.
Also for whatever reason there arent that many brighter girls so fewer friendships/similar interests.

I don't understand the need, can you articulate it? I'd rather we got rid of grammar schools entirely.