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.

200 more feels like a huge jump. Genuinely asking, what alternatives to the 11+ did you have in mind?

Not for the first time, I offer the story of my grandpa who left school at 14 in the early 1930s for a factory job in a Midlands engineering business. He started with a broom, but progressed via the drawing office and night school to become chief standards officer with Rolls Royce aero engines while they developed Concorde.

I always presumed that his GF/wife's family were influential in encouraging his ambition, as his own parents were a chauffeur and a ladies maid, then housekeeper, but maternal GGpa was a head teacher.

"There’s a huge amount of evidence that grammar schools produce better results than non selective comprehensives."

Really? Here's a study from the UCL Institute of Education from 2023 saying otherwise

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2023/aug/no-evidence-grammar-school-systems-are-best-brightest

"How do academic selection systems affect pupils’ educational attainment? New evidence from an analysis of large-scale data on England"

@bitontheobtuse it's interesting about the 3 tier system.
Most areas that had it switched to two tier because the national curriculum key stages didn't match.
Many private schools that traditionally had pre-prep (up to age 9) prep (to 13) and then senior (13+) have also changed the age groups to match.
Yet the most fancy private schools in England (aka "public schools") still don't start until 13. Like Eton where Prince George is going.
As he is summer born he is only just 13 but when I see pictures of him he still kind of looks like a "little boy" (although a very tall one).
Does staying at a prep (or middle) school until 13 make a big difference?
🤔

If grammar schools' results weren't better than those of the schools from which they've creamed off all the most academically able children, that would be quite something.

Whether the individual results for those selected children are any better than they would have been had they attended a comprehensive is less clear and, as the poster above shows, possibly not the case.

ChatGPT says:
Very approximately, £10 billion in capital spending to build 200 genuinely new grammar schools, followed by around £1.5–£2 billion a year to operate them
Bargain.

North Beds/Bedford itself has recently moved to the 2 tier system, but South beds still has 3 tier in some areas.

I grew up in Bedford, state secondaries were all pretty rubbish - I think in part due to the high number of reasonably priced private, which also offered scholarships to high ability due to it charity arm.

England barely has a grammar system, I don’t think you can compare or take anything from a small handful of schools. The grades from NI with an actual, functioning grammar system are miles ahead of the GCSE pass rate of England where a minuscule amount of children receive a grammar education.

I went to school in Bedford in 80's/90's and think 3 tier system was rubbish.
Lower was decent - foundation learning. Middle school was just treading water, not really doing anything new. And when I got to upper we had to choose our gcse options within few months of starting, and then felt super rushed to be ready. I learnt French from year 5, but German from year 9, but tested to sane standard for both.

My girls have a different 3 tier system which makes much more sense I think. Reception to year 2 (infants) - foundation learning. Year 3-6 - workload increases and develop breadth of learning. Year 7-13 - time to get established in new school before having to select gcse options. Unfortunately this is also a grammar area

No thank you. I don’t agree with grammar schooling. I’m very happy living in a county where there are none as the non-selective state schools do not suffer by being in close proximity to them.

I don't think that standards of education are higher in grammar schools.

I went to one as a kid in the noughties. Had many amazing teachers and many crap teachers who phoned it in because they could get away with doing so. They chucked out a third of the year after Year 11 for not getting good enough GCSE results and replaced them with high-performing kids from local private and comprehensive schools. Pastoral care was rubbish. Anyone who struggled academically was told they weren't trying hard enough (and sometimes humiliated, eg through results in tests being openly shared with the class in a failed effort or somehow motivate low performers through embarrasssment).

I also used to teach in a grammar school. Same impressions. We had several kids joining our sixth form from local comprehensives who told me that they felt the standard of teaching and rigour was actually worse at the grammar school and they regretted making the move.

On top of all that, I know several very bright people who went to grammar in the 60s or 70s in the days of the 11 plus. Some excelled. Some did badly and had their confidence totally shattered. This was especially true of kids from working class backgrounds who had been top of the class at primary and then ended up getting shamed and labelled as stupid in a grammar school setting. These are bright and curious and motivated people by the way who have found their niches as adults but they left school feeling stupid.

In contrast there are some non-selective schools now that achieve amazing results and get more kids into Oxbridge and other top unis than many grammars.

Yes, there are fewer behavioural problems in a grammar school because the kids who attend tend to skew more towards being good at achieving within the structure of the curriculum (which in turn helps to encourage kids to feel there is a point to listening and working hard), and also tend to have more parental support and discipline (so they have help to do their homework and encouragement to listen to their teachers and sometimes tutors on the side too). It isn't the school that helps the kids so much as the kids and their parents who help the school. Historically grammars have been dominated by middle class kids and by kids from a working class background but whose parents are very pro-education. More grammars are changing this now, for example by prioritising free school meal kids in their admissions criteria, but I suspect the overall pattern remains the same.

I won't deny that I'm glad I went to a grammar school personally. I'm the sort of geeky kid who got bullied in primary school and I appreciated the quieter environment in a grammar that helped me to focus and learn. There were also kids at my school for whom a grammar was a chance to get where they wanted to in life and perhaps they wouldn't all have achieved as highly in a comprehensive. I don't want to pull the ladder up behind me and my friends.

At the same time, I find it hard to see how grammars are the solution to improving education either. Nor does it make sense to me to label kids at 10 as 'talented in the arts' or 'talented at sport' and sort of siphon them off / hot-house them that way either. For one thing, the model won't work at all in low population density areas. For another, it just labels kids too early and doesn't take account of how kids can develop and shine at different rates in all areas: sport, arts and academics.

I don’t think selection went away. KS2 SATS are quite a big thing for many kids and then most secondary comps tell them from the get go they need to pass their GCSEs to stay on for Sixth Form. So most of the good London comps, for example, pile the pressure on anyway and set them from year 9 mostly.
So the research then shows not much difference in attainment when accounting for prior KS2 achievement and socioeconomic factors. Which is not a surprise because the families who would have used grammar are using good comps mainly and the schools are implementing a similar ethos anyway.

Completely agree. Where I live there isn’t a single one within a 90 minute drive. It is a shame.

I posed that question on an 11+ support board - that would be interesting to track those who passed and got a place against those who passed but didn't. My guess it they acheive broadly similar, as the ones who passed but didn't get in due to catchment etc, are bright, bit nore than anything, they are determined and hard working. That test is flippin' hard! It takes giving up evenings and weekends and school holidays in tutoring and revision to get in, in most cases. DD has been doing 1-2 hours a day every day over the holidays, asking us to buy and time her on mock tests. She could be relaxing, but made the choice to do all this extra work. Her work ethic and determination will serve her well wherever she goes.

I got a scholarship to a private but turned it down. Me as a cocky 12 year old thought I was smart enough to do well anywhere. And I did - my school was shockingly bad, I taught myself much of the curriculum. And walked out with all A's and A*'s at gcse and A level. A bright hard working child will do well anywhere

I struggle with the grammar system, and worry the more grammar schools that are created the more we limit the opportunities of those children who didn't pass a test at 10/11.
I also worry how you select out the truly academic kids versus those who's parents can tutor to pass the test/ live in environments where it is easy to study. Meaning those without the opportunity still aren't accessing the higher level learning grammars offer.

A good comprehensive school that is well funded and structured should be able to meet the needs of many students ( I don't currently believe state schools have the funding or long term stability to be able to deliver what they should.) Focus should be not on creating more schools that select based on one set of tests on one given day. Focus should be on assessing what a truly comprehensive system should look like.
Children come into their own at different times I wouldn't have passed the 11+ had I sat it but I do have a PhD because I found my academic sweet spot in secondary school.
I know others who failed the 11+ but who then excelled in their field because the comprehensive system was still able to deliver what was needed for them.tonprogress to the next level.
More grammar schools will mean more creaming of the top pupils meaning a two tier system where potentially resources are split in a way that is unfair on academic late developers.

The problems with uk education are not at the top end. We educate our able children very well as a general rule. The issues lie with the lower end and students we become NEET.
We obsess about top sets and grammar schools when we really need to sort out our vocational education and apprenticeships.

I think the least resources go on the middle children. Those who don't excel at anything in particular but are generally well behaved. The disruptive children, and those with SEN generally get a lot of resources (whether they are the right resources is another debate), and those who are high achievers tend to get more focus too as those are the children with the newspaper worthy results on results day, winning the schools parts accolades etc.

Our school runs interventions for the "next 20%". The 20% of pupils above the lowest achieving 20%.

What do you think should be done with the 75+% of kids who don’t get in?

A good comprehensive school that is well funded and structured should be able to meet the needs of many students ( I don't currently believe state schools have the funding or long term stability to be able to deliver what they should.)

London has only a very few grammar schools - all of them 'super selective' - taking those with the highest exam scores no matter where they live, and a tiny minority of students compared to the millions who live here. And yet London state schools outperform the national average - 70.5% achieve grades 9–4 in English and Maths, compared to a national average of 64.8% across England. And the attainment gap between disadvantaged students (e.g on FSM) and their peers is lower. London schools have higher funding per head than regional schools. And this Guardian article suggests some reasons as to why London schools have increased performance (though I wouldn't with confidence declare hackney, Tower Hamlets and Brixton to be 'middle class' - yes property prices are very high but all three areas have huge amounts of high density social housing).

And London has very deprived boroughs and areas.

Anyway - the upshot seems to be that with good funding and resources comprehensive schools can do very well. Let's see investment in our areas of coastal and rural deprivation. Incentivise good teachers to move and live there. Make schools inspirational for students of all abilities, with resources to give them the cultural experiences that are more readily available to London schools.

Why are London schools outperforming the rest of England? | Schools | The Guardian

I went to a Direct Grant school - selective private school where 50% of places were awarded as scholarships and paid for by the LA based on 11+ results

My younger sibling went to a traditional grammar school

My youngest sibling went to a chaotic comp.

We all ended up with roughly the same exam results and exactly the same level of attainment at Undergraduate degree level. Middle sibling did a PhD, Youngest did a MA.

My London comp educated Dc got better school exam results than me and a better degree than me.

I think you mean ‘sets’ rather than ‘stream’? Or a combination of the two perhaps? If it is a stream, everyone in the grammar stream will be the academically more able and will follow a more demanding curriculum than everyone else.

For sets, each subject is considered separately, so you might be on the top set for maths and the middle set for English.

I think most comprehensives have sets although I certainly know one near me that has a grammar stream.

"My London comp educated Dc got better school exam results than me and a better degree than me."

Grade inflation.

I’d say you are more or less correct. A lot of those middle children wouldn’t make it to grammar or would struggle there. Everyone, assumes THEIR child would pass the 11+ and that’s not what happens. Tutoring increases, you end up pressurising year 4&5 of primary school, it divides children, punishes late developers and works for a few.
I bet the OP is thinking her child, would pass, their friends would pass and then they wouldn’t have to be in the same school as the ‘thick’ ones. Happily, ignore and abandon the detritus and trot of to university. It’s wrong on many levels.

Primary schools literally do prep classes. Nearly all kids are tutored to pass the transfer test. Theres whole private tuition companies based on transfer test. The test is sat outside of school privately and has to be organised by parents to sit it. So if your smart child but with rubbish or disorganised parents/carers you dont get a choice

Its a great system for weeding out sen kids. Then your left with underfunded drowning high schools and kids in high pressure grammar who unless they are very academic or sporty basically made to feel like failures.

Stats are good, real life not so much

The dickson system up near portadown is much fairer