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.

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

I think you're clutching at straws lala. It's not an issue in the majority of areas where there are no grammar schools. Setting is still generally used to group children of similar abilities in particular subjects. The children are usually in more mixed groups for less academic subjects like art, PE etc, and so can develop a wider range of friendships.

skatingRink, I count my two dc among the "average Joes." And my main concern is improving their education and life chances. What I am not concerned with is their relative academic standing compared to others. I want them to learn as much as possible in absolute terms. Of course, if education improves, the kids who are ahead of them in school now, will still be ahead of them. As the old saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. Being jealous and wanting no one else's children to get ahead of my dc would be self defeating. We will all be better off as a society, if all the children come closer to achieving their potential.

The 5% of the children in grammar schools are not the reason that the 88% in comps are not achieving as much as their parents and the government would like, as a whole (Obviously there are some very good comps out there, but not all of them. If they were all great, we wouldn't be having this thread, would we?)

Focussing on grammar schools just looks like bleating. Sure the comparison is uncomfortable, but that doesn't make the grammar schools the problem. The time, money and attention should be focussed on the schools that serve the vast majority of out children.

Getting rid of a few elite schools will not do a thing to improve mass education. It will just make people feel better who are uncomfortable with the comparison.

the debate over abolishing grammar schools is just an easy emotional target

The thing is, they've already been abolished. It's just that a few areas managed to hang on to them and people living there don't realise that everyone else has moved on.

summerends Agree completely! Let's improve the schools that most of us use to the point that they are the schools of choice. I'd rather out compete the grammars and indies, than abolish them.

Getting rid of a few elite schools will not do a thing to improve mass education.

I agree, they're fairly irrelevant in most areas. As I said, they've already been got rid of.

The trouble is that many of us who live in the remaining selective areas- and while there are only 12 wholly selective LEAs,they do include some pretty big ones- can see how very damaging the system is, and find it alarming when people wax lyrical about them, and politicians go on about reintroducing them and building new grammar schools.ni know it is an irrelevance for many, but it is a real issue for some of us. If it's not relevant to you, why open a thread with "grammar schools" in the title?

If comprehensive or secondary schools were less patchy, less people would choose grammar schools
Um no.
If you live in Kent or Bucks or parts of Lincolnshire there are no comps

whereas if you live in most of the rest of the country there are almost no Grammars - and the abolition of them seems to have worked fine.
IF Grammars really did work wonders then the counties with them would beat the counties without
which is not the case.

And as I've said many times on this thread and others
its not just the 11+ segregation that should be stopped
the segregation of church schools should also no longer be funded by the state

you want segregation, pay for it.

And TBH I do not give a stuff about the Pisa tests because they are nearly as statistically invalid as the most discredited parts of the UK system.

And at the idea of people choosing grammar schools- it's rather the other way round!

A frequently made, but often missed point- if you are in favour of grammar schools you are, by default, in favour of secondary modern schools. A fact often forgotten by the people who move to our area "because of the fabulous grammar school.........."

Grammar schools are not necessarily better schools because they are selective, secondary moderns or comprehensives are not worse or better schools because they are non selective. Excellent secondary moderns will by default become comprehensives as people will choose not to have the hassle of the eleven plus.
Abolishing grammar schools first without improvement will just push more people to supplementing the deficiencies privately.

All the evidence suggests that when grammar schools were universal, they did not promote social mobility. Clearly some working-class children did benefit, but they were exceptions.

Likewise the 1960s expansion of universities was predominantly fueled by a take-up of middle-class children, rather than working-class children.

I would also like to see all forms of selection (including faith) in education abolished. This pretty much means you have to remove all parental choice. I think choice is a particularly obnoxious concept, as it has a air of neutrality which hides the way that the privileged utilise their resources (social, educational and financial) to hold on to that privilege.

Whilst primary schools are often too small to be a useful vehicle for promoting meritocracy, all secondaries should have defined catchment areas which include both better off and poorer areas.

creamtea lovely idea but impossible to guarantee that areas will remain of mixed income. If a school remains poor, those who can will move away from it or supplement at home.

DP's family were def working class and he went to a good grammar school, lots of his friends were to that came from the same primary school in this area so it obviously it helps some but I do think it needs to go. Talkinpeace makes some good points about the whole maybe not being so good at maths, or english etc but excelling at other subjects. Also, some children just don't gain confidence in their abilities till quite a bit older than 10/11. That seems really young to me to be labelling how well kids will do but then what age is correct? I was a bright kid all through school whereas my brother at that age was "average" then just gained confidence as he got older and did better than me in his gcse's, he pretty much got straight A's and A*s whilst i got b's and c's. I think we are best shot of them really. (btw i was not in a grammar area, i went to a faith school which I also think need to go!)

"Excellent secondary moderns will by default become comprehensives as people will choose not to have the hassle of the eleven plus"

Why on earth do you think this will happen? Is there the slightest evidence to support this?

They were abolished where I grew up in 1971 so they are totally irrelevant in that vast swathe of the country. They are not even near any areas which have them (not like living in Herts and going to a Bucks grammar). My grandparents left school at 14 and my grandfather at 12. Their children (my parents) were the first to get to university. They were very bright. They were terribly hard and the both passed the 11+. That fact probably transformed their and my life and the generations after. I am not sure they would have done "school certificate" (GCSEs) in a non grammar school. They also had supportive families up to a point.

However the Sutton Trust found that areas without any grammars and areas with grammars show no difference in terms of overall numbers going to the better universities so I am not sure the lack of grammars in most areas means fewer children get to good universities.

(I picked selective education for my children from at 5 and also was educated only in fee paying schools - those fees generated in effect by my parents' careers arising from their grammar school educations).

curlew, yes I think it does happen in areas where people opt into the eleven plus (just as it does in the private sector). In these areas, comprehensives are not secondary moderns by academic ability only because parents choose to send their child to then rather than a grammar. teacherwithtwokids I think is an example of this.

I don't agree with getting rid of indies. As I have said before, if people want academic and social selection, they can pay for it. But State funds should not be used for selective education, grammar, faith or otherwise.

Summerends- I think that only applies to areas where there are only superselectives- in which case the alternative school has never been a secondary modern- it has always been a "nearly" comprehensive.

Education is complex I don't know the answer but I do know I don't believe in the one size fits all approach different children will thrive in different environments?schools. Its not all about ability I know from my own experience that many super bright children will really thrive in a super selective school, but I also know that other really bright children will thrive in a comprehensive school and would hate a super selective. Other factors also play a part, friends, individual teachers other activities offered the general tone and ethos of the school. My DS is able to pursue his slightly niche sport three times a week at his school all the year round whereas at his prep he had to stand on the rugby/football/cricket five times a week which he hated. I'm not saying this is the sole reason why he's doing so well at his senior school but never really shone at prep but I genuinely think its a factor.
We cant make sweeping generalisations about whats best for children. The tragedy seems to be that so many have absolutely no choice as what type of school they send their DC too.

The tragedy seems to be that so many have absolutely no choice as what type of school they send their DC too.

but round here there is

• a school that gets people into top Universities
• a school that gets people into national orchestras
• a school that gets people into county sports teams
• a school that helps kids with low abilities learn to become numerate and literate
• a school that sends kids to technical college to learn hairdressing and plumbing and tractor driving
• a school that supports middling kids in finding work after they have been to college

and they all share the same canteen.

I live in one of those areas with no choice (unless you can pay). Sadly the theory that no choice or grammar schools results in perfectly comprehensive comprehensives that cater for all ability levels just doesn't work in some places. It just means that academic kids get whose parents can't afford private and can't or won't move get shafted.

Curlew your point is not missed. Those of us who are in favour of Grammar schools are indeed in favour of sec mods too. In the same way that you are in favour of posh comps for the monied (or those who like Talkin' can afford the transport to send their kids out of catchment). You prefer selection by depth f pocket (having deep pockets), I favour selection by ability having very bright kids with SENs that mean they would have difficulty accessing appropriate education in a monster sized comp.

I do not believe the Kent system word though and I will happily agree with you that it should be abolished and replaced by a mainly comp system with at most one or two SSGSs for the whole county. That would cater for the brightest of the bright and leave everyone else in a more egalitarian situation.

Curlew I think in those areas, parents of children in the ability range for a "superselective" make an active choice to go for the best school for their child whether it is an excellent "comprehensive" or the grammar. This means that a fair number of children of the ability for a superselective do not go there. Parents like you and Talkin would definite gravitate towards a good "comprehensive" in those circumstances.

"Curlew your point is not missed. Those of us who are in favour of Grammar schools are indeed in favour of sec mods too. In the same way that you are in favour of posh comps for the monied"

Just checking before I reply- this is irony, isn't it? Or sarcasm, or a palindrome or something?

Talkin, sharing the same canteen does not create social mobility, that statement has echos of 'shanty town tourism'. If you told me your DC's sets had at least some deprived children with whom they were best friends, that would be more compelling evidence.

summerends
They do.
Scarily enough, not all bright kids are rich.
And not all rich kids are bright.

My kids have a wide range of friends - because the tutor system mixed them all up from day one and they still do some activities by tutor group.

Most of their friends happen to be people with whom they have more in common, but the mixture of backgrounds, incomes and family structure is pretty wide.