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.

nibs777
A comprehensive teaches the full range of pupils in all subjects.
By definition there are no comprehensive schools in areas with Grammars because some of te comprehensive sets have ben segregated out to another school
based on an incredibly narrow and inconsistent set of subjects in an exam for which tutoring by the well heeled is an industry

whereas in comprehensive areas, kids pick a school, apply and (in over 95% of cases) get in.

Talkin who said those who can draw, or sing, or ride a horse shouldn't have access to a different school? Not me.
Curlew the one size fits all approach fails to see that children are not educated in splendid glorious isolation that many factors external to actually sitting in a classroom will effect learning. I shall give you an example Clare is 11 and a carer for her severely disabled mother, before school she helps her mother get up and washes her, she has to get her own breakfast and her mothers her school is 2 1/2 miles away and her mother who wants to be a good normal mothers drives her to school and most of the time she's punctual but on some mornings things don't go to plan, it takes 15 mins for her mum to get in the car but sometimes neighbours park to close to the door and Clare has to reverse the car all extra time, one week she was late twice in a row and she was told off by a teacher. In the evening she comes in and cooks her mother and her a meal, does homework, and before bed undresses her mother and assists her into bed she's frequently called in the night by her mother. Clare is frequently tired sometimes she doesn't complete her homework, one night her mother was ill and she spent the whole evening in ED she gets detentions for failing to do her homework. Clare wants to be normal and is embarrassed she has a sick mum she doesn't want to blame her failure to do homework on her circumstances, she's frightened someone will take her away from her mum if she says too much. The school knows her teachers know but they simply forget. One evening it's parents evening at this school you go around the individual classrooms some are upstairs Clare's mum is told that the staff can't be expected leave there department to come down to talk to her. This is a true story there are many many more like this, children who are carers, children with dyslexia, type 1 diabetic children, severely asthmatic children, children with significant mental health issues whose problems are being ignored, super super bright children I could go on for pages about how their needs are not being met. These children are entitled to the same education as all the "normal" ones but they're not getting it.
I work with children underpinning all we do is a holistic individual approach to all we are becoming increasingly regulated from above and I believe as do my colleagues that this will impact on our approach. We are leaving in droves. I'm not prepared to detail my occupation as I like to maintain some anonymity.

Agree the 11+ exam is very narrow and not an adequate measure of broader talents and does not reflect creativity etc. but in the most highly selective grammars it does seem to indicate future academic performance (whether that is inherent or from parental pushing) judging by their results at the end of 6th form i.e. entry into Oxbridge/ top 30 unis as you can see from the top selective grammar schools results in the Sutton Trust report...either that or the grammars are adding incredible value which I don't think they are generally, even the top ones. I think they do tend to rely heavily on a highly selected cohort and pushy parents to boot to get the results they get.

happygardening
who said those who can draw, or sing, or ride a horse shouldn't have access to a different school? Not me
will you pay the extra 10% on income tax to finance it?
or expect those parents to pay fees?

My father was a secondary maths teacher in the 70s and 80s in a large and overall pretty decent comp in London.

He was an experienced teacher but being an immigrant not familiar with UK state schools and when he first started he was given the bottom maths set to teach ( I guess because he was new he drew that straw) ...they were all going to leave at 14 (I think it was 14 before it became 16) and did not want to do maths, but he tried to engage them anyway. When he confided to another teacher (an old hand) that it was so hard to engage with class Z on maths, the other said "Mr X - you are not actually trying to teach them maths are you? You know they don't want to be in school. The most you can aim for is to lock the door and let them play board games to stop them acting up and keep them at school." My father also said these childrens' parents invariably never showed up at the parents' evenings. It's a sad indictment that these children were written off as unteachable, with no valuable engagement or vocational alternative to the strictly academic route. I think that is still the main issue in education today not grammar vs comp.

I cannot see why grammars still exist. I live in a town with two grammars where the secondary options are basically:

1. pay a lot for a house in catchment for good comprehensive
2. pay a lot to send your child to a private school
3. pay a lot to tutor your child so they get into the grammar school
4. apply to the crap comprehensive.

It utterly sucks. The grammar schools are so highly selective that most children in this town cannot get in unless tutored for at least a year. Most arrive on the train from miles around. The gcse results for the town are biased as they include the results from the grammars with children from many neighbouring counties, so not really reflecting the dire options parents have for state education. Thankfully there should be a good new free school open by the time my DC get to that age.

Is that Reading out of interest Mrs J? (ok if you'd rather not say) It's just that the other thread is discussing that also.

It highly sucks because you think the alternatives are not great but why abolish two excellent schools, why not campaign for much better non-selective alternatives? Especially if they are only educating the top 5% from miles around and not creaming off the top 25% (so no argument of no top set in the non -selectives)?

Nibs, you think that the resukts your father saw of a 1970s system where children were written off at 11 and left at 14 are still the main issue today, and are an argument for selection at 11?

That is not what I said, if you read my comments on this thread - there will be children who are not and never want to be academic, they should have proper and valuable vocational alternatives that are not looked down upon and involve apprenticeships just like in Germany. There are children who are highly academic and do thrive in academically selective school with that as its main ethos - abolishing those does nothing in my view to help those at the very bottom whose talents do not lie that way. It just takes, in the best grammar schools, the choice for others to try for those. There should be more not less. But there should also be much better alternatives in the same areas.

it just takes away .....is what I meant.

These threads will never end because there are some who just disagree on principle on academic selection at the age of 11, period. Others will fundamentally want to maintain it on principle as a option. Some will disagree because their child will not likely or did not get into a selective grammar, and others because they did.

I wonder after all this print on the multiple threads on this subject, if anyone actually changed their views.

they were all going to leave at 14 (I think it was 14 before it became 16)
The school leaving age was raised from 14 to 15 in 1947, and then subsequently raised to 16 in 1972.

However, there certainly were teachers who had the attitude of ' what can you expect from children like these'. Sadly, I have even heard it said recently by primary school teachers based in a school in (let's call it) the rougher end of town. So what do you do for children in that position?

ok thanks for the correction....my memory does not stretch back that far and he only told me the story recently actually! it would have been at school leaving age 15 then when he started teaching in the UK.

Nope nibs777. I have not changed my views. All sides, including mine, are entrenched in their viewpoints.

I like the notion of "every child matters", but as a parent at the end of the day, only my children matter to me. Whatever the best school is, then that is where they will go. Be it comp, grammar or sec mod.

Deliverance...i do think education of all children does matter whether vocational or academic ...of course i prioritise education of mine ...but without a properly educated society overall, we will be much a poorer society both socially and economically ...no man is an island in other words.

By way of example, youths that are written off at an early age and feel they have no stake in society are more likely to drift into criminality...sooner or later more criminals affects society as whole (and yes I know there are also posh criminals and educated and highly intelligent criminals but I would say more come from the disaffected with no stake to lose).

The masses also vote and the more uneducated masses you have the more that choice may be based on prejudices rather than intelligent questioning of our politicians and their policies. So at the end a large enough mass of uneducated, disaffected populace will affect your children and mine.

I agree nibs777. Honestly. I may come across as not altruistic, but I do agree with you.

I like the notion of 'every child matters' but I do question whether any recent governments believe this. There have been some decent initiatives to promote vocational education; there was (from memory) a Dearing Report and a Tomlinson Report, which contained some good ideas but they invariably got strangled at birth.

Look for example at BTecs - Gove has decided that they can't count as GCSE equivalents, and yet well taught they offer a perfectly rigorous qualification. (Admittedly, some schools were gaming the results, but that is a different issue.)

I know you do:) I don't think anyone would disagree with a better education of society as a whole - it's not altruistic as I do believe it benefits us all but these arguments come across as polarised between grammar vs comp systems and I think that is missing the point - the talents of vocational and academic can be valued - if grammars help create top scientists that will help us cure diseases then why take excellence away just to maintain principles of no selection. On the other hand, we also want top nurses, fireman and car mechanics that should also be valued as a vocation if that is the route a non -academic child wants to go and they should be helped by apprenticeships instead of being pushed to do GCSEs and fail by academic standards alone yet that is what schools are judged upon.

by the way, before I am flamed ...I am not saying comps can't create top scientists also, of course they do - it's just some of the best grammars especially boys ones do seem to have a big cluster of those types of children which probably drives them all forward.

but these arguments come across as polarised between grammar vs comp systems

It took me a long time to realise that Kent based parents were referring to Secondary Moderns as Comprehensives, so they weren't talking about the same schools that I was thinking of.

Most places do have Comprehensives and what IMO the vast majority of parents want is a decent local school which allows their child to fulfill their potential, with poor discipline and bullying not being tolerated. For them the arguments about how we mustn't get rid of Grammar Schools are a total irrelevance.

I remain surprised that Michael Wilshaw doesn't think that bringing them back is the answer. He is clearly at odds with Gove.

nibbs777 The whole point is that to be in favour of Grammar schools then you must therefore be in favour of Secondary Moderns and this is where the problem lies. Yes, some students are less academic and will benefit from a more vocational education but those students who just miss the cut off, haven't been tutored, have high ability in just one field should not be written off as failures at 11. As I said previously, my son IS very academic (high IQ etc) but he would not pass his 11+. If you are arguing that highly academic students need to be with other highly academic students then this for him can only happen at a comprehensive - NOT a grammar or secondary modern. He is top 1% in one field rather than top 10% or 25% across the board. Please do not write him off and think that he needs a less academic, vocational education.

I think people, particularly grammar and private school parents, at a bit glib about children who "need vocational education". It's an easy way of dealing with th issue of the "other" ie non grammar children.What does that mean, exactly? What "vocational" thing can you do nowadays without 5 decent GCSEs for example? In the days when ther were loads of unskilled and semi skilled jobs then there might be something to be said for a technical school where kids learned what they needed for going into a trade, but that doesn't apply any more. And it's not what a secondary modern does, anyway. Most non grammar children are working towards GCSE, just like grammar ones- and in many of the same subjects. With the possible exception of Latin.

The demographic of my DS's comp is 25% high, 50% middle and 25% low achievers. Is there any argument that this school would be improved by removing the 25% high achievers and turning it into a secondary modern? Those in favour of Grammar schools please answer.

Having 3 DC 2 of whom are firmly in the top 25% academically, and the 3rd is in the 50% group! I am incredibly thankful that they are/were all at the same school.