Grammar Schools : the debate is about what happens NOW

[TalkinPeace]

In the 20 years after WW2, when the baby boomers were kids, grammar schools did amazing things for social mobility.

But then, self preservation kicked back in
and since 1970, selective state schools have become progressively less inclusive
to the extent today where the (grammar school educated head of OFSTED) says
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25386784

the death knell has been rung
as it has for DB pensions (another great Baby Boomer nest lining idea)

so lets bite the bullet and put equal resources into all schools and reduce the carbon footprint of the grammar school madness.

Word, grammars may have less who are not thriving because you have to pass 11+ or surpass it in case of superselectives to get in, so there's a certain academic level required ...but there was no head's report required (as far as I know), no interview is allowed (for state), purely a test - so I wouldn't agree they were "hand-picked" not like the selective privates many of which hold assessment days to judge inter-personal skills, interview and head's report as well as pre-tests. I suspect there will be more SEN as a result even at grammar (including Aspergers) than at selective private school. Not that there's anything wrong with that - but just an observation on the term being used "hand=picked".

The difference also works the other way round curlew, yes Winchester may not suit a child, but if you go private (assuming your child can make the cut) you choose which school to apply to and that will depend on what you think will suit your child. If you make a huge mistake, you can also try and move schools. Much less of a choice in state.

I won't answer for Deliverance, but the rest of the children should be able to go to a decent comp which caters for academic as well as vocational skills ...depending on how they develop...not all children are going to suit an intense grammar environment but some highly academic ones will- the issue that you seem to focus on is your objection to the elitism of having grammars, rather than fighting for the necessary improvements to the comps in an area so people see them as a good alternative for a child that really won't suit a grammar school environment. if my child was academic, I'd want the option of a local selective grammar, If my child was not, I'd want a decent alternative that still made the most of his talents including catering to potential development into academic leanings or vocational as he progressed.

Good point wordfactory. You are making me think. I wonder how many other and what sort of options would need to be generally available for all the square pegs in round holes at comprehensives to be match-made successfully.

Nibs- if you have grammars (unless they are superselective grammars, in which case you nearly can) by definition, you cannot have comprehensives in the same area. That is my point. My son's school is an excellent secondary modern school. However, it is not a comprehensive.

whatever you call it ...a decent secondary modern then...but my point is the same. You need to significantly up the teaching and reputation of the comps as well as value placed on vocational as well as academic skills as society will need both for the future, not abolish excellent grammar schools.

Curlew, children and their parents have the choice to opt to apply to attend grammar school. Yes, a choice! Others who do not wish to apply can attend comprehensives. So, the "others" do have somewhere to go. Not sure I understand your point to me.

"! Others who do not wish to apply can attend comprehensives."

Not in wholly selective areas they don't- there aren't any!

This is taken from a BBC article which talks about education in Germany aiming to cater for building its industrial strength. Ok manufacturing has declined in the UK, but no reason why vocational training can't encompass that as well as apprenticeships for the service industries. I think we should preserve our academic model in selective grammars and have a good academic or vocational alternative depending on how a child develops at 15 or 16. The problem is our model is all based on GCSEs and A levels.

"School finishes at lunchtime across much of Germany due to what Mr Woergoetter calls a "societal preference", designed to allow children to spend more time with their families.

But it's in the later years of schooling that the German model really stands apart.

"Half of all youngsters in upper secondary school are in vocational training, and half of these are in apprenticeships," says Mr Woergoetter.

Apprentices aged 15 to 16 spend more time in the workplace receiving on-the-job training than they do in school, and after three to four years are almost guaranteed a full-time job.

And in Germany, there is less stigma attached to vocational training and technical colleges than in many countries.

"They are not considered a dead end," says Mr Woergoetter. "In some countries, company management come from those who attended business school, but in Germany, if you're ambitious and talented, you can make it to the top of even the very biggest companies."

The German education system, therefore, provides a conveyor belt of highly skilled workers to meet the specific needs of the country's long-established and powerful manufacturing base, which is rooted in the stable, small-scale family businesses that have long provided the backbone of the economy."

nibbs I agree that the selection process for grammar schools is a (much) blunter instrument, than it is for independent schools.

However, if a child and its parentrs are sufficiently motivated to apply for a super selective, and they secure a place, the education on offer is likely to suit. Or at least more likely than not.

So no, not hand picked, but sifted if you will.

Curlew. Let me rephrase. Others who do not apply to grammars in wholly selective areas can still apply to state schools. Not sure if they are called sec moderns still. State schools are supremely well funded. Investment has gone up considerably since 1997. Would comprehensives bring up the average of the poor performers or bring down the average down of grammar material students. My son is travelling 30 miles in the morning and the same in the evening to get to his grammar school. If I sent him to the local schools I don't think he would stretched.

Curlew, I asked specifically about your DD because I knew you weren't happy about your DS. Of course I agree with you as a taxpayer and a voter - I'm not happy with anything except maybe the BBC and education is certainly not another exception. It's underfunded and teachers are treated like shit. But on an individual level, which is what Happy was talking about, there are many great schools and many kids getting great educations.

Deliverance- it doesn't matter how you rephrase it. In a wholly selective area, you end up with a school without a top set, because the top set has been creamed off to another school. And you end up with 75% of children being told they have failed at the age of 10, with all the psychological and societal baggage that brings with it.

Deliverance
Others who do not apply to grammars in wholly selective areas can still apply to state schools.
Despite the type of parents at the gate, grammar schools are state schools (theoretically)
If I sent him to the local schools I don't think he would stretched.
that is because they are Secondary Moderns, not comprehensives.
You are clearly thicker than your son.

A question to those who are against one size fits all ...

Why should only those children who can score highly in
"non verbal reasoning"
get access to a different school?

Why should the test not include
"still life drawing"
"long jump"
"sight reading of a sonata"

as the children who excel at those have as much right and need to specialist education as those who can recognise the net of a dodecahedron.

"My son is travelling 30 miles in the morning and the same in the evening to get to his grammar school. If I sent him to the local schools I don't think he would stretched."

I think you will be surprised - I was worried about this at my DD's school and she is being totally stretched (too far in my opinion) so is all the top class... I could not imagine my DD having to travel 30 miles each way to school this must have an affect on the younger year 7 children....they must be so tired....

I think the secret to good education is to engage pupils - we have some good mixed ability schools that are doing this now but NOT enough ...but things will change because going to University has not worked for allot of children because they cannot get jobs in their chosen field ...therefore it makes sense that we should go back to leaving University for the Academics ...and creating vocational "sandwich" type courses and apprenticeships for those children who shine in other area's and getting them into their chosen field early .... hence going forward there will be a big business/education link with investment coming where needed from major employers...

There's much less societal baggage to non academic secondary route under the German system it seems Curlew. I don't profess it's ideal but at least there's not any notion of anyone being written off at a young age if they go to a less academic school and end up doing vocational training at 15 because that is how they are inclined rather than being academic.

and of course in Germany Homed Education is illegal so there are less options than in the UK

well I don't agree with that ! Let's pick the best of other systems and learn from them not the worst

For those who think that Grammars are good because they are there for academic students. My DS is a very academic student with high Oxbridge level IQ but he would fail his 11+. He is average at maths. He has the right to be educated with peers of a similar level which means top set English (he is top of top set English in some aspects at good comp) and second set maths. You would all have him cast a failure at 11 and remove his top set English peers to a Grammar. If the 11+ was based on debate, creativity and verbal IQ then he would pass whereas non-verbal reasoning and maths and he would fail. Who says which is more important? I am so glad I live in a true comprehensive area.

Talkin No NVR for our SS. VR, English and maths. My DDs would've loved sight reading of a sonata as the test, they'd have not even had a scintilla of doubt about getting in if that had been the criterion! However that would have been even more unfair since music provision is patchy round the country, in posh schools as well as state schools.

Kitchendiner - I totally agree - the problem we have on this debate is that a good percentage of the contributors have no idea how well some of the comprehensive schools work - they are too busy keeping up with the "Jones" getting their children tutored to pass GS exams and in some cases they are worried in case their children will fail in the state system because they need to be pushed to achieve.... (apologies to the Kent parents who have no choice)

Hi curlew. Surely with sec moderns student will still gain a very good education. By creaming off students from grammars will benefit the school not the grammar students.

if the comps work so well, then why do you denounce the grammars and those who choose them so much? I mean I agree there are comps that work very well...but it goes to argue against the "creamed off" point or are you saying comps only work well if they are in non-grammar LAs?

Right talkinpeace. Thick am I? I meant others can apply to (other) state schools. I am sorry that you could not deduce that. But hey, it's the power of my understanding that enables a person like me to tolerate sniping from a person like you.

well responded deliverance ...you kept calm :) Shame it has to get so personal.