Grammar schools - interesting article

[UnquietDad]

it be here

I know it's over a year old, but I'm new here, so apologies if people have seen it before!

As a former grammar school boy myself - whose parents could never have afforded to go private - I found it interesting. I find it a shame that my DD won't have the same opportunity.

Beg your pardon?

Sorry, Iwas joking. I'm afraid Ali REALLY annoyed me...sorry.

'from b&wcat:"Since the comprehensive system was introduced the number of kids leaving school with qualifications has increased, kids going to university have increased. DRAMATICALLY. You can't argue with that." But I'm taking issue with the assumption you make about (or conclusion you draw from) this - i.e. that this automatically means the class gap has narrowed.'

To be honest unquiet dad the more you try to defend your position the less your argument stand up to any sort of scruiny. Yes, the fact that 30% of the population is going to university as opposed to 10% in the glorious days of gramamr schools means that class barriers have been removed because going to univerity means you are statistically more employable for a wider range of jobs and over your life-time you will earn more than those who are not university educate. Yes, before you give me your examples of your secondary modern educated friends who went on to become billionaires I KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS BUT THEY DO NOT MEAN THAT THIS IS NOT GENERALLY TRUE.

'b&wcat - we're never going to agree as, like politicians cross the despatch box, we can each produce conflicting statistics.'

Well, no Unquietdad, you have produced no statistics or arguments which have provided any evidence that grammar schools were a good thing for anyone other than those who went to them (a relatively small percentage of the population who were mostly middle-class).

TBH I find it incredible that anyone can argue that any schools which only educate a minority can possibly benefit the majority. In a minute you'll be telling me that independent schools also benefit working-class kids and the majority of all our kids.

Why can't you just say, 'Grammar schools were wonderful for those who went to them.'

'The conclusion reached is that Britain is the only one of those eight nations where the class gap IS widening.'
I have to confess that I'm not able to open your original article which I suspect is not desperately reliable but I have 2 points to make about this conclusion: firstly, as I've said before, although we have abolished most grammar schools (and if you know anything about the ones that still exist like Wallington Grammar you'll know that to argue they accept loads or even a significant minority of working-class kids is B......S), there are still terrible inequalities in our education system which mean working class parents do not have the same choices for educating their kids as the middle-class kids. 2nd, Briton still has the lowest rate of entry into HE of any other European country or America which may well account for class divisions.

Also, I'm wondering how you are defining class and class divisions. Though notoriously difficult most people see your class as being a curious mixture of your education, wealth and occupation. So I'm just astounded that you can argue that more people going to uni (by whatever route and for whatever reason) is not one of the most important means to breaking down class barriers as would be a decent primary and secondary education for ALL our kids.

'I had the benefit of a grammar school education... I agree, other people in my school year didn't have that. But were they disadvantaged by not having had the chance, or were they actually given more of a chance to thrive in a school more suited to their abilities?'

So now you're trying to suggest secondary moderns were advantaged by failing the 11+ and going to secondary moderns. I have nothing against you or any one else who is saying they have benefited from grammar schools or that grammar schools are beneficial for those who went or go to them but I do find arguments like this very depressing and rather embarassing. If you say that grammar schools were full of kids who were judged the brightest and offered the best education (which I might dispute but you certainly haven't been) then of course you are saying that any schools which weren't grammar schools were full of kids who were not the brightest and offered a 2nd best education. To then wonder why kids and teachers and people at large think of non-grammar school kids as 2nd best is at best naive and at worst ... well, words fail me ...

'If the people who went to them believe that they turned out well - and in my experience they usually do - then why do they feel that others having had a grammar school education has somehow deprived them of something? It's almost as if the stigma is attached by the comprehensive/ secondary mod kids themselves, not by others.'

OMG, 1st have you noticed that nobody on this thread has said they went to a secondary modern? Interesting that, isn't it? Of course those who went to secondary modern were deprived. First tehy were told they were failures. Then they were sent to a school where they weren't with those of the peers who were judged the 'brighest'. They were usually made to sit exams that, like them, were also considered 2nd best so at age 11 their chances of going to university were already wiped out. They were therefore aged 11 not eligible to become teachers, doctors or whatever. By saying that grammar schools offered the best education to the best it is you who is stigmatising secondary modern kids. I think that many kids who were equally intelligent to grammar school kids were stigmatised and consigned to 2nd best by the grammar school system.

B&Wcat.....you took the words right out of my mouth from 2:18:07........

Not true i my area that poor families are being priced out of getteing a grammar school education for their children.

I live in one of the cheapest areas to buy or rent a home in london (plumstead). OK not THE cheapest, but below london average. There is a lot of council housing here too. We are in the catchment area of several grammar schools in neighbouring Bexley. Having said that the non grammar schools here are not so wonderful compared to the national average, but they are improving fast.

Message withdrawn

Why is is advantageous to be taught in a class with some people who are much better at the subject than you as opposed to being taught in a class where the ability range is similar? I didn't go to a grammar or a secondary modern, because they had been abolished (mostly) by the time I went to school (there are plenty of people who have said they went to a comprehensive on this thread) but my school streamed for a number of individual subjects. I was in the top set for Maths and the bottom set for French, I would not have liked to be in the top set for French at all, we had a fantastic teacher who taught us poor linguists at a pace we could cope with. This would have driven the good linguists around the bend! In the same way I wouldn't have liked to had my Maths class structured for people who weren't good at Maths, because it would have driven me around the bend to have gone slow. I'm not a particular advocate of grammar schools, but children (like adults) are different, and it is not unreasonable to think they might have different learning styles, aptitudes and abilities and that these might not all be well met by the same environment. The problem is when the funding only follows small groups, as could be argued with the grammar / secondary modern / technical school set up.

I personally wouldn't quote anything from the Daily Mail as evidence without seeing the research the article was talking about, but I can't see that very much of this debate is evidence based. For example the statistic that would work in this context is not the proportion of the whole population going to university, but the proportion of socially deprived people(by whatever definition) going to university. It is perfectly possible the this has actually gone down, despite absolute numbers going up.

I couldn't find the original LSE report quoted in that article, but there is an interesting Wikidedia article on this topic here

For those of you who enjoy academia, there is an interesting research paper from the LSE here , which concludes that "we probably do not know very much about the effect of comprehensive schooling in Britain, or elsewhere for that matter."

I really hate having words put in my mouth. I would just point out that I have never claimed anybody was "advantaged by failing the 11-plus". The system I went through did it involve an 11-plus; it involved a split at 13.

Again, we are getting into the vocabulary of advantage versus disadvantage, which does nobody any favours. Yes, I am contending that grammar schools were/are good for those who went/go there, but I'm also contending that other types of school are good for those who go there too - they work as part of a wider system.

Anything else I add would just be referring back to previous posts and the articles I have quoted, I feel. I don't see how I can profitably add anything without just repeating myself, and I can't post any evidence without having it dismissed as unreliable or biased. My view remains unchanged, but I don't see that there is anywhere else to go in this argument. Does anybody?

But good stuff on streaming, nooka, you put it better than I could.

Just have to add to this one point. "going to univerity means you are statistically more employable for a wider range of jobs and over your life-time you will earn more than those who are not university educate. Yes, before you give me your examples of your secondary modern educated friends who went on to become billionaires..."

No, I'm not going to do that, because I don't have any. But I would add the caveat that the statistics about average lifetime graduate earnings are based on the people who became graduates at a time when comparatively few people went to university. We don't, as yet, have the figures to compare recent graduates with recent non-graduates.

Here is the original research paper, and after some more exploring, I
have found another interesting article link{http://cep.lse.ac.uk/centrepiece/v10i1/blanden.pdf\here}, on this issue of whether increasing the overall numbers at university has benefited the poorest groups. Here is an interesting quote:
"Young people from the poorest income groups have increased their graduation rate by just 3 percentage points between 1981 and the late 1990s,
compared with a rise in graduation rates of 26 percentage points for those with the richest 20% of parents." Now of course this is not a reflection on grammar schools, and the article suggests it could have more to do with the increasing costs of going to university. However there certainly isn't much to suggest that comprehensive education has helped increase the educational success of the poor. That's not to say that the grammar school system was good of course!

Anyway, I should return to breaking up fights between my primary age children - I have a few years yet before this debate becomes a major one in my household. I currently live in Bromley, which has two single sex religious grammar schools, which effectively excludes my family (we are aetheists, and anti-single sex schooling) so even if my two are brilliant, which I am sure they are this won't be an option for them.

oops - here ,

Message withdrawn

My nephew is doing fantastically at his grammar school in Gloucestershire, but I would agree with you on exams and pressure. I think that catering successfully to a broad spectrum of ability is very difficult, especially in technical subjects - I know that when we have IT type training sessions at work the way I learn is very different from some of my colleagues, and it can be very frustrating all round. On the other hand designing a school system so that it works with all differences effectively would probably be very difficult.

Re Milwards post about the French uni system, British universities also do boot out students who fail their first year, in fact they can get booted out any year for failing, including non-attendance.

'By "kids stigmatising themselves" I meant people who were secondary modern/comp kids and are now adults, talking about "the scrap-heap at age 11" and so on. You probably realised that!'

This is such an important issue. The reason secondary modern/comp kids and now adults talk about the 'scrap-heap' at age 11 is because this is how they were made to feel. It is terrible that you suggest that children, aged 11 'stigmatised themselves'. THE 11+ STIGMATISED THEM. Even if a child's parents are really positive and do their very best to boost a child's self-esteem children are very astute and very aware of their positioning in a class and in their school so yes the impact of failing the 11+ would have been absolutely devastating and might be failure you could never recover from (esp if the results of that failure were that you also had to sit '2nd class exams' etc etc.) Just try and picture for a minute how you would feel if your own children had to sit and failed this exam and were not allowed to take the exams that would get them into uni but instead pushed towards vocational subjects at 11.

I have taught in mixed-ability classes and those that are streamed. Don't want to spark off a debate about streaming but kids from primary school even where kids are grouped according to colours so they aren't told where they rank have a very clear idea about what set they're in. And it's very very hard to improve the motivation and self-esteem of those kids in the lower sets. Often they just give up.

'if you asked the kids at the comp where my DW teaches if they feel disadvantaged by their choice of school, they probably wouldn't know why you were even asking. '

But isn't that because there are no grammar schools in your area? Or are there?

Because the beauty of a comprehensive system (although I'm painfully aware it isn't really) is that all schools are devoted to providing the best education they call to all kids and not just the best or the 2nd best.

I think its fair for me to say to all parties concerned, that on this particular discussion, and the many points contained therein regarding grammar schools, comprehensive schools, secondary moderns, university, 11+ exams etc, I am in fact, way out of my depth and as much as I'd like to contribute, I simply cannot. What does this mean? Did I not go to Grammar school? I honestly dont have a clue if mine was a grammar school or not. So, Im guessing it wasn't .

Do I feel stigmatised by this? Certainly not! Well, perhaps a little embarrassed at my inability to know what type of school I went to. However, I have many other subjects on here to which I contribute to, where I can share my expansive knowledge. Where does this leave this debate? Right back where it was before I posted.....

I would like to say to, and for the sake of, those who took the time to read my post, who feel very passionately about this subject....I am VERY SORRY for making light of it......

Ah, but that is from the Daily Mail...

I also saw a study that showed while pupils at grammar schools did do slightly better than they do at comprehensives, the rest of the school population (the vast majority) did a great deal worse than they do now. So it could be that the grammar school pupils only did better at the expense of the majority. It is never simple.

I've actually never mentioned the 11+. As I've said below, my access to grammar was via a different route, non-exam selection at 13.

I think that in 30 years' time we will look back at the comprehensive system as a hollow "success" containing a huge failure. What I feel we need in our school system is not just grammar schools but even more diversification, not more homogenising. My point about the stigma was simply this: the secondary will be seen as a "second best" option to the grammar for as long as people, both outside and WITHIN the system, treat it as such. It could be seen as a radical, viable, equally valid alternative providing opportunities not given by the grammars: e.g. in the more technical, practical and vocational subjects in which we badly need skilled people these days. But it's stigmatised as a second-class academic institution, and that doesn't help any of us. I admit that the divisiveness of the 11+ was partly to blame for this - which is why I'm not proposing that we bring back that exact same system now - although I think the fault was more with the presentation than the concept.

I can see how some people feel selection discriminates, and feel that people who deserve a place are overlooked. But if there are only so many places, it's going to be inevitable. The argument then becomes another, perhaps more interesting one: to what extent is there a vast, untapped wealth of talent which should have been given a chance to shine at grammar school and wasn't given that chance because they messed up the 11+? We may never know. We do know grammar schools aren't right for everyone, so it's a question of whether the cut-off came at the right percentile. I think that's something which it's impossible to prove either way.

But I must admit that I don't really understand why anybody who was not that "academic" (for want of a better word) would WANT a place at a grammar school, let alone feel they'd been diddled out of the chance to have one.

(To answer the question, there are some grammars not a million miles from here - Yorkshire, like Kent, is a real mish-mash of systems - but it's not realistic to travel to any of them from most of South Yorks.)

Oh, and someone else who agrees with me is the Chairman of the Welsh PAT .

Certainly with the choices of secondary schooling we faced for our ds, he would have been let down at a comprehensive.
You get into the best universites based on your academic record, many would argue selection at 18 is ridiculous, maturity varies, some children do not "flower" educational until young adulthood. Certainly I didn't.
All you can do is best prepare your kids for what life offers them, good or bad and guide them accordingly.
I feel very fortunate and grateful indeed that I could sort out sucha great standard of education which will meet my sons needs without having pay for private education.
The tragfedy of the system over her is not that grammars exist, its that many people have n choice about where they send their children, and that sometimes that only choice is a shitty under performing school. That's the real inequality in the system, not that there are grammars.

I think that comprehensive schools were set up to provide the same education provided by secondary moderns, technical colleges and grammar schools in one building, hence the name. Can anybody come up with a reason why this hasn't worked? Also, out of interest, how much choice do grammar schools have over who they let in - is there an interview as well as an exam? Can they decide to let in a child who for instance has done brilliantly in maths but has failed the english exam?

Morning and sorry I haven't read all the posts yet, but I definately will later.

Have just skimmed through though and I would like to agree generally with unquietdad. My grammar school was full of working class kids (working class Irish kids, with a few middle class Polish, as it was a Catholic school).Grammar schools offered an opportunity for bright working class kids to get on. My Mum who was VERY working class, and my Dad,who was the son of poor immigrants, both went to these schools which allowed them this opportunity as well. Interestingly, the working class Irish girls in my school aspired and went on to become nurses and other low paid caring roles, despite having degrees etc; whilst the Polish went on to become lawyers, doctors, scientists etc. The Polish children were much more pushed by their parents, whose expectations were higher in terms of the end result (eventual career), than the Irish, which was due partly to class and partly to culture, as the Polish families were more middle class anyway.

Sorry, have gone off the point somewhat. The 11 plus WAS divisive - we generally were given the impression that kids at comprehensives were thicker at the time!!! However, the demise of grammars has led to a dumbing down of education. I think ideally, I would bring back grammars, but have a lot more support at primary level in deprived areas. Middle class parents seem to know what to do to help their children get on (move to the right catchment area, pay private fees), whereas other children don't seem to have this advantage, so I think a lot of bright children in deprived areas get "lost" and probably end up finding alternative outlets e.g. crime in some cases. But there also has to be support for the children who are "less bright" or to be more PC; "need extra support". There was an assumption when I was at school that grammar school children would go to university and those at comprehamsives wouldn't. HOWEVER, there is less social mobility now, with the demise of grammars. So getting rid of them has led to a greater social divide.

This is a very interesting thread and will deffo follow it, as its an important debate.

PS Madamplatypus (love the name !)

Gramar schools are not allowed to interview. The only state school in England which interviews is the London Oratory and it has been told to stop interviewing by 2008 by the government as, quite rightly, the practice is potentially discriminatory. The few grammars which are left have exams as the entry criteria, hence the syndrome we have where I live called "Tiffin tutors", where well off parents have their children privately tutored for two years to try and get them through the Tiffin entry exams (the two Tiffin schools are still grammar schools and are always in the top 10 performing schools in England)

I think its very ironic that Tiffin aren't allowed to interview. Almost all private schools interview, which enables them to see beyond the exam results, and coaching. If Tiffin can't interview, they are doomed to fill their places with prep school children who have spent the last two years practising their common entrance English essays.

I suppose one problem is that because grammar schools aren't part of official government education policy and they are allowed to quietly continue without really being approved of, nobody tries to make the entrance system fairer/later transition between grammar and comprehensive more easy. (On the other hand, it would seem very unfair on comprehensives if there was an annual cream off of bright pupils to the local grammar, so not really sure what the solution is to helping late developers.)

It is incredibly unlikely that the remaining grammar schools will close, so we seem to just be left with a bit of a mess.

Its all very unsatisfactory isn't it?

I'm just dreading the time when we have to "choose" (that's an ironic "choose") secondary schools.

Were we live, the primary schools are mostly OK, but the secondary schools are all appalling.