Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Why did the gvt get rid of grammar schools?

119 replies

jumpingcastles · 27/01/2011 10:23

I moved to the UK 9 years ago so I don't know much about the education history.

I watched a programme on telly last night on BBC2 called Posh & Posher which left me wondering.

If the grammar schools gave poorer children a chance, why were most of them abolished?

OP posts:
Lamorna · 27/01/2011 16:53

They got rid of them because the majority of DCs were given a second class education based on tests at a ridiculously young age.

amothersplaceisinthewrong · 27/01/2011 16:54

I went to a comprehensive and we had a motto and I learned Latin. (I did leave in 1979) I thought the vast majority of state schools had stopped Latin now because they can't fit it in the timetable with all the ICT and Design Tehcnology and other awful subjects the government deems the National Curriculum must contains. Whereas it is my (maybe misguided) understanding that the private schools don't have to follow the NC and therefore are free to still teach things such as Latin.

Mine was the only comp in the area at the time, being a catholic comp. The sec mods were truly attrocious - they were the very reason it was right (IMO) to abolish the 11 plus. The 11 plus is a great exam..... if you pass it. I know people of outstanding ability who have failed because they got so nervous about it.. very hard to in essence to have your future decided at 11 based on one exam.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 27/01/2011 16:56

Selection within a school for streaming by ability where children can move between streams to ensure that teaching is at an appropriate level. Fine.

Selection between schools based on ability requires a testing regieme with an accuracy and predictive capacity that is beyond the current wit of man.

So instead it just becomes yet another way for those with more resources (money for tution/an interest in education etc.) to ensure that they can access still more resources for their children.

randombaking · 27/01/2011 17:20

Just read this thread & saw the programme last night. It was interesting to see how public & grammar school kids were motivated to succeed, they had confidence, self belief and an 'I can achieve anything' attitude.

My bog standard comprehensive recommended girls be secretaries, nurses or a teacher at a push. The boys apprentices at the Rover. There was no ambition.

I hope it has changed since then

LondonMother · 27/01/2011 17:27

Incidentally, the government didn't get rid of grammar schools. Education Authorities did. The vast majority of them moved to a comprehensive system by the end of the 70s. A few hedged their bets, like Bromley and Sutton which kept a few grammar schools, that have since become extremely selective, alongside mostly 'comprehensive' secondary provision.

SauvignonBlanche · 27/01/2011 17:36

The old secondary modern were great for teaching boys a trade and girls how to be hairdressers or secretaries but to have this destined for them at 11yrs old was outrageous.

ThisIsANiceCage · 27/01/2011 17:44

It's not so much that there was something wrong with the grammars, as that there was a lot wrong with the secondary moderns.

And you can't have the one without the other.

LondonMother · 27/01/2011 17:56

Grammar schools weren't perfect. The 11+ test wasn't brilliant at identifying academic potential in children from working class homes, so a lot of bright kids from poor families ended up in secondary moderns. The poor kids who did go to grammar schools often found them very alien environments and not all teachers went out of their way to help them adjust and settle down. The mismatch between home and school was more than some children could cope with.

Having said that, no system is perfect and all the above were fixable.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 27/01/2011 18:00

I don't think the test is fixable.

You would need a system that gave an accurate measure of both aptitude and potential that could tuition and practice would not effect.

It's like trying to make a fair IQ test - not possible, in fact it's harder as you don't want to measure current ability, but possible level of achievment given two different possibilities.

naughtymummy · 27/01/2011 18:24

Coalition what is your personal expeyyyyyyyjyy,rience of the system (given that it was phased out in the 70s) I think they have something similar but with selection at 14. Do you find that more acceptable ?

naughtymummy · 27/01/2011 18:28

Coalition what is your personal expeyyyyyyyjyy,rience of the system (given that it was phased out in the 70s) I think they have something similar but with selection at 14. Do you find that more acceptable ?

naughtymummy · 27/01/2011 18:29

sorry whata diaster

naughtymummy · 27/01/2011 18:47

sorry whata diaster

chocecclair · 27/01/2011 18:50

i think grammar schools are a great way of challenging the bright kids.

jonicomelately · 27/01/2011 18:56

Both my parents went to grammar school. They loved the fact it was totally different to their home life.

Jajas · 27/01/2011 18:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

pigsinmud · 27/01/2011 18:59

I went to a grammar school, but my brothers didn't. One brother has always been irritated by this fact. He still lives in grammar school area and I don't, thank goodness. One of his sons got in to a gs - he was praising it saying it was wonderful blah blah blah. Second son didn't get in and now at a not exactly great comp (how is it a comp when you've taken 1/4 of the year group out). Now he's complaining that his ds2 is at a crap school and it's not fair.

Thankfully we have a fully comprehensive system where I live. Ds1 is in yr8 at one of the local comps. They are streamed in various subjects and pupils can move between streams. Perfect! Unlike my gs where a couple of poor girls were chucked out for not being able to keep up ....bet that helped their self esteem.

chocecclair · 27/01/2011 19:00

the normal not so bright will be challenged at their own place within a'normal' school enviroment!

pigsinmud · 27/01/2011 19:05

But why do they have to be in a different school? Why move the top 20-25% to their own school?

naughtymummy · 27/01/2011 19:10

Try again ....I thought it was fairly well recognised that it is good for the majority of children to be wihin a mixed ability setting , but that it is better for the brightest to be in an academically selective one. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. It 's just a question of which eggs you choose to break

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 27/01/2011 19:14

well really you need to decide if you making an omellette or a steak.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 27/01/2011 19:15

And the problem remains that we are unable to come up with a fair and accurate selection method.

Wormshuffler · 27/01/2011 19:22

My DD is at a grammer, we didn'y send her to a tutor and she passed just with us going through the practise tests from whsmiths with her. They have ALOT of homework, but I am still glad I took this route as their exam results are incredible.

MillyR · 27/01/2011 19:27

My mother went to a Grammar school. She didn't find a great mismatch between her home background and school because:

  1. Then, like now, many people did not live in socially mixed areas. Almost all the children who went to my mother's grammar school were working class because almost the whole town was working class.
  1. My mother had a rich educational experience in a working class home, as many working class children did. Through a lot of the 20th century the WEA and other organisations connected to the trade union movement were educating working class adults outside of mainstream education, so to be working class was not to be culturally or educationally impoverished.

As I said on the other thread about 'Posh & Posher', the 164 remaining grammar schools are less socially selective than the 164 most socially selective comprehensives, according to the Sutton Trust. Comprehensive education is simply more socially selective.

As for the idea that Grammar schools are for children that would otherwise go to independent school. Where is the evidence for this? The research into grammar schools generally looks at how many children from low income families get in. It doesn't tell you how many children are getting in whose household income is £80,000 or £26,000. My anecdotal evidence is that my son is a grammar school and there is no way we could afford independent school of any kind, and neither could the parents of his classmates that I know of.

One of the major points of the programme was that truly middle class, middle income parents on £26,000 are not any more capable of paying for their child to go into an independent school that a family on income support is.

David Cameron and others are trying to push this idea that the 'middle class' includes people like him and people who are truly on a middle income. It doesn't. I would say that one of things that has destroyed social mobility in this country is the focus on dividing the working class from the middle and lower middle class, when in fact one of the greatest divides that has opened up is between people on high incomes and the rest of us.

A lot of middle income are going to get in 'middle class' jobs like teaching, social work and managing insurance. Actually these are the kind of jobs that bright working class children were pushed towards in my parent's generation. But jobs with some actual power - serious journalism, politics, senior civil service and law are still overwhelmingly in the hands of people from independent schools.

On a different note, if we want a grammar system back we need to sort out vocational training, which we have failed to do since compulsory education began. Secondary moderns often did a poor job, but we still fail children who want vocational training just as badly in the current system.

MillyR · 27/01/2011 19:43

I also think that one of the reasons more children are tutored now (although DS wasn't) is that children are not as well educated within the family as they used to be.

My mother's family would not have considered themselves to have prepared her for the 11 plus, but having no tv meant that she was widely read, and extensively read to, including (for example) the complete works of Dickens by the age of 11. Having well stocked libraries to access was also important. Children now usually don't get that kind of experience so have difficulty passing a verbal reasoning test unless they are taught words by rote through tuition or be parents helping.

Swipe left for the next trending thread