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.

What annoys me about this debate, and the way this article is written, is that it assumes that we should all think that social mobility is the one single most important factor when it comes to education.

I think that's wrong, and it don't believe that everything that taxpayers fund has to be done mainly for the benefit of the poorest in society. All children are equally important in my mind, whether they are born to a duchess or a single, out of work mum on a council estate. They are all equally deserving of consideration from their government.

There is no disputing that grammar schools get good results and they are working well for the children that attend them, so why are they seen as the problem? The problem with selective education lies with other schools, which if improved, would solve the problem.

I agree woowoo.

I can't see how closing schools that are doing well is 'fair'.

it assumes that we should all think that social mobility is the one single most important factor when it comes to education.

I agree that sometimes the concept of "social mobility" is overstated. I was thinking that listening to a Radio 4 Today Programme item about the Ofsted annual review last week. A reporter was in a coastal town, highlighted as having poorly performing schools, and in trying to make the point that local aspirations were low interviewed a local youth with the question "what do you want to do when you leave school?". He answered "Maybe an engineer, or a bricklayer", to which the reporter said "Have you never thought about going to university?". He said it was too expensive. I felt like screaming at the reporter "No! We need more bricklayers and engineers! Please don't give him the impression those are undervalued aspirations! Or at least recognise that starting an apprenticeship as an engineer might well lead him to university later, and is something he could do via a earn-as-you-learn route" The lad was working class and happy to stay in his home town, close to where his family are. Nothing wrong with that.

However, I think grammar schools should go, simply because they're an anachronism. The few that are left managed to survive the original cull, and have protected status, but the ones I have visibility of do cause complications for admissions, and issues for equity in their local areas. Time to move on I think, but it will be a brave Education Secretary that tackles them.

The reason that "social mobility" is important is that it allows every child to achieve their potential - be that an ex Etonian having the skills to become a plumber or an ex care kid getting the grades to become a lawyer.

Its also why I'm against any form of state funded Segregated schooling - because then children are forced into what their parents want at age 11 rather than what THEY want at age 18.

How many 4 year olds really make an informed choice about religion?
How many 11 year olds really know whether they want to be bankers or trapeze artists?

Good schools that offer all options to all children allow them to choose.
And kids who go into things with their eyes open are more likely to succeed in life.

I think parents should be able to access socially and academically selective education - but if that's what they want they should pay for it. In no way should it be state funded.

Woo woo, grammar schools are a problem because the small percentage of children that do go, do well yes. But the majority, who then have to go to the secondary modern, are not doing so well. If the state is funding, they have a duty to ensure that money helps as many children as possible to receive a good education. Not the small middle class affluent minority.

If you want social selection then pay for it.

Why aren't the secondary moderns doing well? Shouldn't we look at closing them down?

thisisaghostly
Why aren't the secondary moderns doing well? Shouldn't we look at closing them down?
sorry?
they do badly because all their bright kids are at a different school
and if they were closed down, what would the 70% of kids in Kent who attend them do? roam the streets?

Talkin One could equally say that your catchment school is doing badly because it's 'bright kids' (including your kids) are at a different sharp elbowed school. If the Kent secondary moderns can be ceded 'ownership' of kids who go to local grammars then I think we can cede ownership of your kids to the local school you made sure they wouldn't have to attend, don't you? :)

Education has to involve everyone & the selective system doesn't do this as most kids don't get a chance to go to these schools. I go with local schools that all can go to and be taught together

I do not believe that education is a "one size fits all" thing. The brightest children should have access to academically selective education and those whose talent lie in a more vocational direction should have access to that sort of education.

I don't think academically selective education is actually the problem but a lack of appropriate vocational education for those who are not academically bright (eg maths should be about budgeting and practical applications rather than calculus and trigonometry). There needs to be a point where children are guided to the sort of education that suits them.

eg my brother did not achieve well at school at all but excelled at a further education college doing mechanical engineering. At least two years of wasted education forcing him to do GCSEs.

they do badly because all their bright kids are at a different school

Like yours?

I went to a state grammar school.
It was not middle class.
At all.
Intelligence is not based on class.

However, these days, I hear from other parents that the only kids getting into local state grammars are those who have been tutored for the 11+. Tutors cost money. Lots of parents with bright kids that could do well at a grammar don't because their parents cannot afford the tuition to compete.

The 13+ system was ideal - not one exam but based on work over two years combined with some tests. No pressure on the kids at all and no need for tuition. All the while parents can pay the way into grammars, it doesn't work.

I do not believe that education is a "one size fits all" thing. The brightest children should have access to academic ally selective education and those whose talent lie in a more vocational direction should have access to that sort of education.

Turkey, I agree with you, with just that one small but significant modification. You see an effective comprehensive school will cater for both types of children and everyone in-between. That is the definition of "comprehensive". The children don't need to be separated into different schools depending on their aspirations. If they're educated together then they can move between different options more easily.

So our problem as a nation - I think being 25th down on the education league tables IS a big problem - is due to the existence of a handful of grammar schools?

And the reason Secondary moderns struggle is because 10-15% of the area's pupils go to a different school?

I don't think so.

Politicians are looking for an easy target. Getting rid of grammar schools is ridiculous as long as you have selection by postcode. I would never trust those hypocritical bastards.

metebilis soupdragon

my local school is indeed effectively a secondary modern
that was as a result of it being handed to an Academy chain that was not supported by ANY of the then parents
therefore every single parent who cared (sporty, academic, arty, non religious) chose to send our kids elsewhere
the school went from 1700 pupils to 400 in five years - but still got its £16m building
if the sponsor changed, many people would consider sending their kids there - but I'd rather not have Evangelicals running what should be a community school.

brightest children should have access to academically selective education and those whose talent lie in a more vocational direction should have access to that sort of education.
at what stage do you split them?
4
11
13
16
and what about ones who are great at Maths and rubbish at English - so will not naturally pass an "academic" test
and what about artists, musicians, sports people
should they get their own schools too
what about those who are good at two things?

Correction: I don't agree with the phrase "The brightest children ..". I would say the "academically inclined children". I think we need more bright electricians, plumbers, engineers, bricklayers etc.

The best electrician I ever had (because he stuck with the problem until it was solved, and talked me through his thought processes, and didn't overcharge me) went to Eton.

I don't think funding can stretch to such complicated variants. Good comprehensives everywhere and indies for those who want to pay. Seems fair.

I am confused.

How would closing grammars help all children? I keep reading in this thread and elsewhere that comps would be better, if only all the "bright" children were there instead of at the grammars. Unless being in the "gilded presence" of these academically elite children actually pulls up all the "average" and "below average children," then what is the point?

How is school/life/academics going to be any better for the vast majority of "Average Joes" just by walking through the halls with kids who are more academically talented than they are? Sure, it will make the comps statistics look better, but the overall results across the population will be no different. So really just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

It may help with the culture of aspiration. Also there are very hard working, bright children who may still fail to get into grammar. They are penalised by being made to feel second best.

Apparently closing those handful of grammar schools would mean nationwide our education system would leap forward and social mobility will be attained.

If that's their best idea...

Yes, but we just saw research showing that being the top of the class had a huge positive influence on children, especially boys.

Quote:
It found that pupils benefited from being top of a weak class, rather than being middle ranking in a class of high-performing children.

If this is true, having a whole new tier of high academic performers installed above them could damage other children's performance rather than increase their aspiration zooweemumma.

How is school/life/academics going to be any better for the vast majority of "Average Joes"

Well, for one thing they won't be made to feel like "average Joes". They will be able to see that they can perform just as well as, if not better than, the academically achieving children in many subjects. Plus, the ex-grammar school children will realise they're not better at everything, just some things. They will have friends who may do badly in academic exams but who are good at things like art or music or drama. They will come to realise that people have many different talents, which have equal value.

You never know, they might even get to know some future plumbers, which could have real practical value when they become home owners and find that a good plumber is like gold dust.

Apparently closing those handful of grammar schools would mean nationwide our education system would leap forward and social mobility will be attained.
Um no. That is NOT what Wilshaw has said.
He just says that Grammars are not fit for purpose any more in the parts of the country where they exist

Simplistically, as far as I can see:
1)academic and social segregation occurs within and between schools (even the good comprehensives) in the state sector. Segregation by academic and extracurricular strengths occur by selective education in private sector.

2. very few people are going to want their children to move from a good grammar or comprehensive to a poorer school

3. abolishing grammars may improve exam results by an influx of more academic children into another local school but will not miraculously improve poor management or inadequate teaching resources.
   Those who could afford it would supplement poor teaching by home tutoring.
   Social academic inequality would remain.

4. If comprehensive or secondary schools were less patchy, less people would choose grammar schools.

I think (4) should be the priority and the debate over abolishing grammar schools is just an easy emotional target.