Why did the gvt get rid of grammar schools?

[jumpingcastles]

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?

I find the 'true comprehensive' argument hysterical. It's as if when Crossland and co. promised parents that their academically able dc's wouldn't suffer by the move to comprehensive education - they added some small print (in tiny writing).

It said (something like):

"...in the event of a grammar school existing within 10 miles of said comprehensive school all promises of a decent academic education are null and void" .

And the faith school point is looking at the symptom not the cause. It actually didn't take most middle class parents long to realise the flaws in the comprehensive model. And they naturally began to 'work the system' by finding faith or colonising the 'better' comprehensives.

But hey let's pretend everything is fine and all that's needed is a few little tweaks.....

We need a system that can't be played.
That is either:
A) complete choice children can go to any school they like, oversubscribed ones have to just deal with it, and market forces will result in a more even system.
B) lottery allocation.
C) first come first served, no selection.

C) seems the least disruptive, you would inevitably end up with a web based system like with gigs, and you have to deal with the problem of uneven access to the web.

I would be interested to hear what MNers would do if they lived in an area with several very good grammar schools (obviously some actually do).

Lets say you had a very bright child, who'm you were sure could pass the 11+, without obsessive tutoring. Would you veto the local grammar school out of moral objection to selection at 11 / solidarity? Would your decision be different if you had one DC that would pass the 11+ easily and one that wouldn't?

Apologies OP for the deviation.

Many (if not all) GCSE's are still streamed. There are higher tier papers, where you can get A* to D, and lower tiers, where you can only get C grades and below. In some schools/colleges, students are put into different classes depending on ability, particularly for compulsory subjects like English and Maths.

In other subjects, particularly when taught at FE colleges, students of very mixed ability are put into the same class, and the 'small group within the same class' theory, or 'differentiation' is still used. In my experience, this is difficult to work with and is often just used as a stick to beat teachers with, because if they were good enough, they would be able to cater for 25 children with different abilities in the same class.

For a disturbing (and somewhat hilarious) teacher's take on setting:

The Joy Of Sets

And for balance:

Mixed Ability Teaching Doesn't Exist

I think that must be very, very frustrating Giddy.

Jackstarb - if your points are aimed at my post, I was just trying to point out how pointless it can be comparing whether x or y comp is good when there are so many other factors which affect intake.
In my gut , I would far rather dd had the chance to go to a selective school as I think it would be best for her but there simply arent any around here unless you can afford to pay. However, I also accept those who point out how the old system was so unfair on those deemed failures at 11. In an ideal world the other schools would get the funding they deserved and no-one would look down at those who didnt get to the grammars - but we dont live an ideal world. I would imagine that the hardest thing to get right if we went back to selection would be ensuring that girls are not unfairly held back by lack of places for girls at grammars. I would love to have sent dd to local school but with no guarantee of proper setting or streaming, she would have suffered.I dont really blame the school; they have to have classes of a certain size ( only so many teachers/class rooms) and with the intake they get the focus is not on the brighter kids.
I agree with you about symptom and cause to acertain extent. However, there do seem to be parts of the country where the comprehensive system does work.

idling - no it wasn't particulary directed at you . It's just the phrase 'not a true comprehensive' winds me up when it's used to excuse a bad school.

I mean, the lack of pupils of the top 20 ability range is no excuse for illiteracy and disengagement in the bottom 20%.

I do get the 'peer group' point. Bright children especially need bright peers (and the more the better IMO). I wonder if all the bright children were spread evenly across all state schools - whether their actually would be enough in each school IYSWIM?

I mean, the lack of pupils of the top 20 ability range is no excuse for illiteracy and disengagement in the bottom 20%.

I agree with you there but I also think that some schools get more than their fair share of this type of pupil. I am convinced that faith schools and their ilk do not bear their share of the burden.
I wonder if there have been studies done on what the trigger percentage of disruptive/disengaged pupils needs to be before their presence in a school starts to adversly affect the performance of the other students. It is the average ability but well behaved students who lose out. I can remember from my own school days ( we were the guinea pig year ie the first not to take 11+ and therefore to have all our secondary education in a comp) how so many average ability kids got dragged down by the disruptive kids and ended up mis-behaving and not working so as to fit in with the disruptive kids. The majority of the disruptive/disengaged kids were also the bullies.

The History Boys very much reminded me of my state comprehensive. We were pushed and many of us went on to Oxbridge.

I grew up in a very rural area and there were not enough children to support a tripartite system...most towns could only host one school.

In fact, they never really got round to the tripartite system...a few people did go to the few grammar schools but those who failed the 11+ or couldn't get the transport just stayed on in their village schools.

I very glad that we don't live in a grammar school area and that my girls get the chance to be children without the 11+ hanging over their heads. Our local comprehensive schools are excellent, with many children going on to Oxbridge and good support for those with learning difficulties.

Our local faith secondary will not take special needs kids - they are strongly encouraged to go to the non faith schools, very Christian attitude!

My Df failed the 11+ at 11 and was relegated to a secondary modern. He had a chip on his shoulder for years and went on to gain the equivalent of a degree through his apprenticeship to prove he could do it. Think how much better he would have done in a comp. DM passed and had to go to a school miles away and two bus rides away from her friends. She has hated education ever since and came out with two GCEs. Again comp would have suited her too. Much the same experiences from their relatives and now I am firmly opposed with the only grammars near us taking a very small percentage from non-private schools.

How about if it is to be truly selected based on potential, there are two schools in the area but allowing switching between the two. I completely disagree with the 11+ which goes against many children who have no exam technique or the youngest in the year (admittedly biaised as have two summer babies). Therefore the local feeder primary schools should suggest their top 50% based for the more academic school on potential for the future, not just on what they can do at 11 for late developers. Teachers have a better idea. This should then be scrutinised by an external evaluator to avoid favouritism. If parents choose to go to another school, the opportunity for a place to go to those from private schools. The schools should be closely linked so that reevaluation can take place at 13 and then just before option year. At the same time pupils at the less academic school could have the chance to take subjects at the other school and visa versa. Forget it, this just sounds like the comp I attended.

bitsyandbetty - there was a system in the West Riding called the Thorne scheme which was based on teacher evaluation at 11. I don't know much about it, so I don't know whether it was deemed to be more successful or not.

Secondary moderns varied considerably - some were very good, some were dreadful. Some children were 'late developers' and ended up in the secondary modern while some at the grammar school were what could be seen as 'early stoppers' and couldn't keep up with the grammar school. The end result was misery for both groups.

For what it's worth - I went to an academically poor girls grammar school, which turned into an equally poor mixed comprehensive. Only later after another reform, did it become a good comprehensive.

Bitsy - most 11+ exams do /did allow for relative age (so summer borns pass with a lower mark).

Unfortunately the way the system works now - a disproportionately small number of summer borns are put in for the 11+ because primary schools are not good at making allowances for relative age. And parents don't want to put in dc's whom, they are told, don't have a good chance of passing.

All the 11+ 'shocks' I know about, are summer borns getting offers and Autumn borns who do not.

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

So now everyone gets a second class education unless they can afford to pay.

It might be worth looking at the Thorne Scheme. Certainly SATS do not take into account age although I know some winter born kids who are in the bottom group and summer born in the top so maybe they are beginning to catch up by then.