Grammar schools -a "think" piece.

[seeker]

New readers start here. I live in a small town in Kent. We have a fully selective secondary education system,- children take 11+ tests in Sepetember of year 6, and are allocated either to the grammar school ( the "top" 23%) and the high school- the remaining 77%, which consists of those that don't reach the required mark in the test and those that didn't take it at all. The grammar school is an OFSTED outstanding school, with 99% a-c. The high school is a good school, with, if I recall 40% a-c. It has excellent vocational facilities and very good sport. There are no comprehensive schools in any sort of travelling distance. One or two children go to other selective schools in the area, and a few go private, but the vast majority go to either school A or school B. ( It's important to say here that I am only talking about a fully selective system here. The areas where there is a grammar school for the very top of the top 5% and all but comprehensives for everyone else are a different discussion)

The reason I think this is interesting in a broader context is that this is the model which many people would like to see replicated by the introduction of more grammar schools. To a grammar school enthusiast, it looks perfect. I think they sometimes forget that more grammar schools means more "secondary moderns" .

Living in in the middle of such system, is possible to see it's damaging, divisive consequences.

We have a town where children, at the age of 10, are told that they are not good enough for the grammar school, with all the societal and psychological problems this produces. The supporters of the system say that it isn't a "pass or fail" system- it is just an "allocation of appropriate school" system Which would be fine- if wasn't described as "passing" and "failing". If the town was not full of congratulations and comiserations when the results come out in March. If the children themselves were not fully aware-because they are not stupid- that tests produce passes and failures. And if the grammar school did not have less than 2% children with SEN and 2% FSM -against the high school's 27% and 22%.

Basically what we have is a comprehensive school cohort, but rigidly separated. The top set are educated completely separately half a mile away. There is no opportunity for kids at the high school to move into that top set if they suddenly discover an academic streak at the age of 12 or 13, and no opportunity for a Grammar school child to move if they discover that they are not as academic as they appeared on one day in their 10th September. Which a properly streamed comprehensive would provide. Such a school would also provide a proper top set, as well as opportunities for the less able. But there would be the possibility of movement. AND, crucially, you wouldn't have a massive group of kids who have been told, in however sugar coated a way, that they have failed at the age of 10. What's, as they say, not to like?

My youngest brother passed the 11+ but he is no brighter-he was just very good at 11+ questions and more importantly very speedy.

exoticfruits - I certainly don't view people at secondary moderns as 'failures' and am not in the least bit surprised that you were at school with many from a secondary modern who were/are very successful.

The onlt person labelling your contemporaries is you. Why on earth shouldn't they have been successful?

From my excellent grammar, very very few of us are successful - in Xenia's (purely financial) terms, i and most of my year are complete failures. Why? It was a girls' school and most of us have been happily underachieving in financial terms whilst we have kids/chase our dreams.

What is your definition of 'success' or 'failure'? Maybe you need to clarify this before labelling people.

exoticfruits - you seem to have totally unrealistic fantasy expectations of how easy life is for those who have been to a grammar school. Not everyone from a grammar is automatically a doctor or a vet either.

I went to an SMschool in the 1960's.

I passed the 11+ I was in the top one percentile. My family moved LA's and therewas no grammar school place available for me in the new LEA we were told.

I was in a class of 40 in a smallish SM . The school had neither a good nor bad reputation. We had two form entry.
Discipline in the lower stream was poor.
Work ethic even in the higher stream was questionable and the general view was that no one should be a swot. No one should be academic and all should have prizes. This was student led but supported by the staff. No one liked a clever pupil.

Facilities were poor. Even our vocational facilities were pooer than the grammar school.
Allowing for the fact this was a school for those of a "practical bent" this made the notion of vocational education or practical education a nonsense.
That is of course assuming that the selection system was successful in identifying candidates for the appropriate schools.
That is questionable now as then.

The school took CSE . I took O levels because my parents paid for me to go for private tuition for them. It was not school policy to take O levels. The local grammar schools did those.

The grammar schools also had sixth forms.

My school was 11 - 15. Staying to fifth form ( in my day) was optional.

Out of the 40 pupils in my class 10 stayed to take CSE. The rest left at 15 and went to work in factories , shops and offices ( in that order - most to the factories, shops for the little more ambitious and offices for the " nice" girls and boys.

The boys who stayed on went into apprenticeships I went on to take A levels. I was the only one.

However, those who went to grammar school did not seem to fair much better. The top 5% took A levels as I did.

They had on average more O level passes than I did because they had that opportunity to take them. But that number was held by a very few. I did not have the opportunity to take a large number of O levels and amassed 8 CSE grade 1 passes and 5 O levels.

I was surprosed that many grammar school pupils did not do aswell as I did. many of them also took the CSE because they did not match up to the O level expectations. Those in the lower streams at grammar school were the ones who did the CSE courses.

A considerable number ( two thirds or more) left at 16 and joined my peers from SM in jobs in the factories, ( as few apprentices) shops and ( for the nice girls) offices. Many chose to try to get jobs in the civil service or local government as this was seen as being " better"

A few girls went into nursing. Some of my peers did that too. Some went into the police. So0me of my SM peers did that too.

Of those of us taking A levels - I was the only one from an SM. Two others did join me initially but left after a few weeks ( one stuck it a term) because the grammar school staff treated us badly. They looked down on us and I was given the distinct impression I should not have usurped my "position"
(SM lad).

However, I persevered. I took a rather larger number of A levels ( I had private tuition which I paid for with a Saturday job) . I went to a top university. Of my grammar school compatriates, the majority went to teacher training college having been selected out at the beginning of sixth form to take that route.

Of those who were in the top one percent with me, they went to exactly the same academic destinations as I did. They were the ones who like me, went into professions or became full time academics ( not school teachers -yes I know I do that now, but I was retired out of academics)

So, really there seems to have been little difference between SM and grammar school education at the end of the day.

I guess it must be qualitative in some way, but again, having done both, I cant see what grammar school had I didnt except smaller classes and less discipline issues .... oh, and snobby teachers.

Since the demise of O level and the changes in A level and the raising of the school leaving age so all took exams, the differences I experienced have probably been levelled out.

I am sure there are fewer differences now and fewer opportunities too regardless of the school. I worked for a time in a grammar school, you might be surprised at what goes on.

However, I always feelI missed out on my education and for that reason my DC will be going to an independent where I can assure myself he will be given small classes, good teaching and more than anything else he will experience a strong work ethic and be in an environment where it is "cool to be a scholar" no matter what your ability

Grammar school or comprehensive or SM, I am afraid state schools simply have too many political agendas on them these days.

exoticfruits - you seem to have totally unrealistic fantasy expectations of how easy life is for those who have been to a grammar school. Not everyone from a grammar is automatically a doctor or a vet either.

Of course you are absolutely right about that, and I think there is a tendancy to think that grammar schools (of the ordinary kind rather than the superselective) produced far more successful, in terms of career, people than they actually did. However, if someone at a grammar school said they wanted to be a doctor, people wouldn't think they were being unrealistic - even if they actually were; but if someone at a secondary modern said they wanted to be a doctor they would have been thought to be living in a fantasy world.

I grew up in Trafford so we all took 11+

those that passed went to one of several grammars, those that failed and yes those were the words we used as children at the age of 10 went to secondary moderns, or one comp which was co-ed as opposed the the SM which were and still are single sex

I went to the grammar and the local community had much higher expectations of our behaviour etc than the SMs
there was no opportunity to join the GS other than at 11+ and 16+ and people didn't leave as they were proud their child had got into the school, and wouldn't admit that they weren't coping, despite a number in my year not achieving the 5 A-C GCSEs

at the time the boys SM was the sort of school where people would intensively tutor their boys to avoid them going very very scary place but now it has better results than the grammar to GCSE but no 6th form provision
the girls SM was again a horrible school, high rate of teenage pregnancy where as at the grammar which was co-ed there were none in over 25 years, and very poor results
however now many parents choose to send their daughters there because it is single sex and the results have sky rocketed

I now firmly believe in the comp system where it is managed appropriately -the issue with the comp system is that so many parents exercise their choice to send their children to schools miles away from home as they percieve them to be better so the schools lose their links with the local community, and the full cross section of abilities in the school cohort -if people just supported their local school then things would be much better for everyone

FWIW,my experience at SM often left me feeling a failure and I have frequently over my lifetime had toremind myself that I did pass the 11+ - so strong was the sense that I was " not good enough academicall". The grammar
school reinforced this sense of failure for em too.

Its hard to explain how this happens. Its partly a cultural thing .I went to an SM where most of the pupils were working class and poor. Despite the 11+ supposedly selecting by ability it did seem that it selected by social class also.

I was middle class, which often left me as a fish out of water in school. I tried to fit in at school and found myself at odds with my family culture at home.
Consequently I never gained confidence socially ( something kids from private schools have in bucketloads is that effortlessness socially) . I do not fit in with the working class culture and being exposed to it has done nothing to help me "work with all people" as they say. Quite the opposite in fact.

Are comprehensives any better at this? I dont think so.

I didn't say it was easy from the grammar school. It was very common for pupils to leave the grammar school after O'level-masses did. I have a friend who was completely demoralised she was put in a class called 'remove' and left to flounder with no particular interest taken in her. However-in the grammar school-if you work-you can jump through the right hoops-they are in place and you don't have to go and find them.
I didn't have any disruption in the secondary modern, but maybe it was because they were small and very rural. My friends were all keen to do well and so there was never a problem with being labelled a swot.
I don't see much difference in our reaction to a remarkably similar experience, jabed, except that you see an independent school as the answer and I see comprehensive education as the answer. Since all my DCs have passed through the system and are doing their first choice in career it has worked for us. Had they been to an independent they would have done the same but it would have cost a lot.

I think that we had a very different catchment area, jabed. My secondary moderns took from villages where many parents-like mine -were commuters. My 2 best friend's parents (still friends today) were university educated themselves.
Had I lived in the town I would have been better off, because there was a 3 tier system and I would have been in the one between grammar and secondary modern- but it did mean that the town secondary modern was a sink school with a dire reputation.

exotic fruits, having worked in more than a fewcomprehnsive schools doing supply when I retiredfrom my university post , and having workedlong term in threecomprehensive schools, one a rural school, another an inner city sink school and the third a school that had a reputation for being " good" ( it was not IMO!) I do not think there is any real difference between an old SM like that I went to and a modern comprehensive. In fact comprehensives are worse. They suffer from all the ills of modern educational policies.

Not for my DC
Hence I go with independents all the way.

I am glad that you understood it CecilyP. If seeker were to ask me which of her DCs was the brightest-just based on schools-I would say that I couldn't possibly tell without knowing them. Most people would opt for the grammar school one- BUT to be completely honest, if I had to put money on it then I would have to opt-(because I had no other information)-for the grammar school one. We already know this isn't the case-according to seeker.

Sadly it depends entirely on the catchment area, jabed. I also did supply teaching, but primary-some schools I loved and some I went to once.

It wasn't the DCs-the Head and staff make the difference.

Also never go by reputation-they are way out of date.

I'm not too keen on Ofsted either-you have to visit on a normal working day.

I am sorryexotic fruits , it does not depend on the catchment area. The problem with comprensives is the educational policy of inclusion. It doesnt matter what the catchment is, all the schools will have a number who fall under this policy and that is the problem.

I have said before, I will send my DS to an independent to avoid that. I know it does not go down well either to say it.

The thing is , grammar schools are not exempt from these problems anymore either.

If I could send my DS to a state school which had the same ethos and admissions criteria as an average independent I would be a happy man.

All I can say is that I was perfectly happy with our local comprehensive-my DSs wouldn't have gone on to do anything differently had they gone to an independent school and it left us the money to do all the extras.
When I lived in an 11+ area I was intending to send DS to an independent school but luckily we moved and so I didn't need to.

I agree that there is a lot wrong with the entire education system.

I think there should be a policy of inclusion-it just needs the resources to deal with it effectively.
Every DS deserves the best education.

You are obviously the same 'era' as me, jabed, and interestingly you were affected by failure and being in the 'wrong' school for you-in the way that people are saying shouldn't matter.

Seeker, even if there is a 'pass mark',and 23% of DC get in, those Grammars STILL only have space for the top 23% of people who take the test, the Grammar just doesn't have room for everyone, so what is the difference? It is just that in Kent, for example, the top 23% of DC can get into Grammar, and in Essex it is only the top 5%. There are still the rest of those pupils, 77% in Kent, 95% in Essex, who CAN'T be fitted into the Grammar school, any more than a full Secondary school can take extra pupils! And the only difference in the fact that one area takes 5% and the other takes 23% is because there are less Grammar places in TOTAL in the County that takes 5% - hence a much lower percentage being able to go.

Surely it stands to reason that if County A only has 180 boys Grammar school places, and County B has 400 boys Grammar school places (disclaimer, I haven't done the maths, these are just example figures), And County B has half the population of County A, it stands to reason that a higher percentage of boys that get a place in Grammar school in County B!

The reason super-selectives ARE 'super-selective' is because their local area has far fewer Grammar school places that an area like Kent.

That's how I have explained it to my DS1, and I agree with the poster who said that any school would be benefitting from my DS1's presence there, and that provided he puts the hard work in, he will do well even in any school.

And jabed - It's NOT inclusion that is the problem, it is the fact that inclusion HASN'T BEEN FUNDED PROPERLY BY SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS.

(I find that offensive because I also have a DD with SN's who ISN'T disruptive at school, and who has positively flourished in a good Secondary which has an absolutely STUNNING SEN Dept, God alone knows how they fund it so much better than the other local schools, but when DD was due to start Y7, all the other schools told me they would only give her 30 minutes a WEEK help, this one gave her 11 HOURS a week. Three years down the line, and she has progressed from working on p-scales [Working ^towards NC lvl 1] at the end of Y6 to being a predicted C/D grade student at the end of Y9, with a couple of A's in technology subjects.)

So, the fact that you think INCLUSION is a problem is offensive to me, as IMO it's NOT inclusion that is the problem, but the fact that inclusion is woefully underfunded.

I would agree with you on inclusion CouthyMow-all schools should be inclusive and it would work perfectly well with the proper resources.
I would make all independent schools lose their charitable status unless they were fully inclusive.

"Yes, I have read your posts, seeker. Your OP began by stating that the only alternative to grmaar schols for the 77% of pupils who failed the 11+, were shit secondary moderns, where kids were condemned to failure.

That's a lie - others from Kent on this thread have stated that is a lie.

And even if it were true, it would only provide an argument to improve secondary moderns, not get rid of successful and popular grammar schools.

I had hoped for a rebittal of my earlier points, seeker, re the left-wing ideal being differentiation not identikit education. But clearly you haven't read my posts."

Ok. In my OP I talked about the town I live in, where there is grammar or high school. No other options. So not a lie-(not sure where that came from) and I didn't say the high school was shit. Not sure where that came from either.

And I have never said that identikit education as a good idea. That's why I'm in favour of setting.

And I have not labelled anyone as a failure. Or a goat. Metabilis, that was a low blow- once I realised that you were offended by my "sheep and goats" shorthand on another thread, I apologised and promised not to use it again. Which I haven't. I don't know why you though it necessary to bring it up on here- maybe because you have no ammunition against my actual arguments? Just a thought.

But setting surely STILL labels some DC's as a 'failure', if that's how you look at educating the more academic pupils in a separate room from the more vocational pupils. Separate room, separate school, what's the difference??

@seeker I brought it up here because you specifically claimed you had not labelled anyone. Which is not true. You consistently call people failures. Your arguments are ridiculous and have been demolished in thread after thread, you just move on to another thread and restate them again. There is no point in arguing with you, you clearly refuse to accept anything other than selection by income/post code. All that is left is to pick you up when you deliberately post falsehoods (as opposed to views with which I disagree). You do label people. You are obsessed with labeling people.

The difference is the possibility of movement.

It doesn't label them as failures because they can move. DS moved from set 3 to set one in maths in year 7-had he been in a secondary modern his set 3 would have been set 1 with nowhere to go.
At 14yrs they could choose which route to go-a DC who is not academic isn't going to choose the academic route.
In my secondary modern we all chose the routes that were right for us-and all were quite happy.
I can't see why it needs to be a different building.

Those who chose the farming option were quite happy outside with the animals-I chose O'levels and never got outside with the animals. Neither group would have swapped.