why don't we either have grammars everywhere or abolish them?

[katebee]

I know life isn't fair (!!) but it seems strange that a child should get a completely different state education system depending on where he/she is born in the UK.

Is it correct that grammar schools have a higher budget per child than comprehensives? Surely the same amount should be spent per child whatever state secondary school he/she is in? If there are reasons to keep grammars in some counties why aren't grammars brought back everywhere? If the grammar school system is flawed (due to some children maturing later academically or whatever) why are grammar schools still in existance?

I don't know all the arguments for or against grammars or have a particular opinion as to whether they are the best system (I have never lived in a county that has grammars).

I just think that we pay the same level of tax uk wide so why not have the same standard of education nationwide - preferably improved everywhere. I think the postcode lottery of the NHS is bonkers too.

looking forward to lots of objective replies!!

Children do see themselves as failures TheHerdNerd! I failed and it felt like being thrown on the scrap heap-at 11 years old!! I was borderline, I took it 3 times in total and the third time there were 2 places and I was 4th! If I had lived in the neighbouring catchment area my score would have got me a grammar school place. I am very resentful that people were not moved down from a grammar school when they didn't do well and also that they took up a place and left at 16yrs. It is a dreadful system IMO. In the comprehensive people can move up and down. I got to the grammar school eventually and A'levels but it was a struggle that could have been avoided.

Those at the grammar school certainly thought they were superior and that secondary modern school children were failures! I love looking on my old school site on friendsreunited-the so called 'failures' have varied careers, and have been very successful in life.

Good for you, Abbey.

I will go to bed now-I think I still have a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I don't usually think about it but 'wonderful' grammar schools always gets me going!

sleep well knowing you triumphed despite the shite unfair system trying to bring you down.

Good points AbbeyA. What I remember was that if you were a girl , you had to get a much higher score on 11+ because there were fewer places for girls - grammar schools were single sex and less of them for girls. My parents moved me from a grammar area to neighbouring county where we were the first year not to take 11+. This wasn't as good as it might sound as the new comprehensive was terrible - no streaming and very lilly livered attitudes to disciplining disruptive kids.

I think it's not so much the fault of the grammar schools that children see themselves as failures as all the bloody testing that goes on and the hype around it.

Maybe I'm biased as I DID go to a grammar school - but re. the 11+ etc I knew nothing about it. There was no special testing at my primary school, no coaching. One day we went the dining hall and did some tests and at some point my parents told me I had been accepted.

I was not the only kid in my class to pass the 11+ but I was the only one that went! I did not want to go - I wanted to go to the local sec mod with my friends. I am not super intelligent and probably quite lazy but the regime really ensured I did the best I could have done. I had friends who went to the grammar school and some who went to sec mod - point being that people got the education that was suited to them and I know people from sec mod who did fantastically well.

No-one should be a failure, just need a different approach. Trouble seems to be this one size fits all approach to education, where the less able disrupt the classes and the more able get frustrated. How is that better?

Here in Belgium everyone stays in Education til they are at least 18. If you are "bright" you study more academic subjects and normally go to college/university for 2/3/4 years. If you're not so academic you go to the technical school and learn more vocational subjects - still usually followed up with a college course in eg engineering. Try getting a bloody job here without being trilingual and a college diploma (like me) Things could be so different in the UK with the proper investment.

A lot of countries like Finland have comprehensive type schools and high results.

For comprehensives to work children with either major learning difficulties or severe behaviour problems need to be taught seperately.

Prehaps more needs to be done to ensure that all schools have a good social and academic mix of children.

I was fortunate to pass my 11+, but in my area (middle class commuter belt) the local school was a bilateral school - not comprehensive but for all abilities with grammar streams. Those who passed the 11+ tended to go to grammar schools over a wide area, those that were borderline ended up at the bilateral school - and of my friends who went there most did quite well - chartered accountant/special needs teacher/executive secretary etc. So I am left wondering what is best? Perhaps comprehensive schools with extensive and flexible setting with good teachers and a large body of parents who care about their children's education?

I have 2 children at a grammar school with a 3rd starting in September, none of my kids were coached as I don't think that's fair on anyone; child, teachers or other pupils, perhaps they were at a disadvantage sitting the test because of this but dd1 was always going to pass anyway and came top out of all applicants and ds1 who only just passed has consistently come in the top 3rd over the past 4 years being in the top 2 sets for almost all subjects demonstrating perhaps the extent of coaching. Personally I would favour a 3 tier system with children choosing grammar or vocational education at 13-15 when its fairly clear what their innate ability or personality is suited to. At the very least streaming should be mandatory for compulsory subjects, I would like to see secondary modern/grammar federations on the same site, sharing some facilities and even some options but each with their own staff etc that way children would benefit from a small school with the advantages a larger one brings.

Do you honestly think you'd be so keen if your kids were in the sec modern side of your proposed solution school though, peapodlovescuddles? I really think Abbey's initial point re no one campaigning not to abolish sec mods is difficult to answer.

I was educated in a comprehensive (up "north", I think one of the first areas to move to comprehensive). Very anti selective education, but happened to end up living in a selective area due to work and settled here. DS sailed through 11+ with no coaching (other than practice papers at home), and he hardly dropped a mark. He is highly intelligent, but has a horrendous attitude to work. I truly feel that grammar school is the right place for him if he is to reach his potential.

DD on the other hand is border line, but has a good attitude to work. Not sure if she will pass, but I feel she would cope well at the grammar school in most subjects. We are zoned for a failing high school and it fills me with dread. Not because I'm a snob, but because I know she would be better off in a comprehensive. But we can't have parallel systems can we? He's better off at grammar, she'd be better off at a comp. I really envy friends who don't live in selective areas, they don't have to go through any of this. Then again, i do think my DS is getting a far better education than I had at my old comp, which was one of the best at that time.

Long rant, knackered with stress of 11+ and DS's undone coursework!!

My brother failed the 11+, he did a year in a secondary modern and passed at 12. After a year in a grammar school he was targeted as a high achiever and put in the fast track stream! This tells you a lot about the unfairness of the system. It discriminates against late developers, and a lot of boys fall into this category. It is wonderful for separating the high flyers from the low ability but can't deal with the middle section where the cut off line has children of similar ability. Much is made of it being an escape route from children from a working class background, there is no doubt it worked for many, but it is manipulated by the middle classes who coach to the test.
Unfortunately comprehensives treat every child the same and expect them to jump through the same academic hoops. I think that they should be able to choose the technical/vocational route as suggested by MmeBovary and we should celebrate those that are good at woodwork as much as those who are good at Latin.It is sad that practical subjects now have a huge element of written work to go with them.
The good thing about secondary moderns were that they didn't treat everyone the same! I have to say that mine worked brilliantly and I was very happy there (I don't know enough about them to know if it was the norm or the exception-I dare say a lot were just sink schools). In mine the SN children had their own class, mainly with one teacher but mixed with everyone else to do sport etc. There was an O'level set for the top, CSE for the moderate ability (a pity that they amalgamated the two IMO). Another set did shorthand and typing (girls-it was sexist in those days!). The school also had its own farm (very rural area)and low achieving boys were mainly outdoors all day with basics in class and were no trouble. After the first 3 years people decided which route to take.
I don't see why comprehensives can't operate in a similar way.

Grammar schools should be abolished. We need 'real' comprehensives - comprehensives can never be comprehensive in an area with selective education.

My town has it pretty nearly right. No selection by ability or income or house price. Totally mixed intake in terms of background, income, ability, everything.

Tutor groups and a few lessons are mixed-ability, but there are sets for everything else.

From Year 10 there are 3 options streams - most children do the GCSE route, aiming for 9-11 GCSEs. However, a smaller group do a reduced number of GCSEs alongside some vocational/business options. Another small group do only the core GCSEs and most of their time is devoted to vocational and/or business subjects - everything from childcare to catering, from motor mechanics to bricklaying, all in conjunction with the really good further education college in town. They also do lots in terms of personal and social skills and ways to develop their employability.

This system seems to work pretty well and caters for everyone, from the potential Oxbridge candidates and other high-fliers to those who are just not academic but have interests and abilities in other areas.

Abbey is right - where is the huge campaign for more secondary moderns?

The secondary moderns were the problem, not the grammar schools. It was a three school system. If you passed the 11+ you went to academically selective grammar school. If you showed talent for practical skills you went to a technical school. The secondary moderns were for the rest. They had no particular aim, and left chidren with CSEs rather than O levels or a vocational qualification.

My mother taught at several secondary moderns in the early 70s and was laughed at by the rest of the staff for introducing poetry and Shakespeare to lessons.

Their attitude was that:
1)The schools existed to give the children a safe place (as many had volatile home lives). Don't push them to learn, just let them enjoy their last few years before starting work.
2)That there was no point trying to teach them much more than basic reading and maths as they wouldn't understand it and even if they did, would never use it anyway. Why confuse them with stuff they mostly weren't capable of comprehending that wouldn't mean anything to them in a year or two when they started work on the factory floor.

Where we are (kent) the system sucks. 30% of the cohort go to grammer schools, every primary school is judged on how many children pass the kent test. Most of the non grammer schools are on Ed Balls list of failing schools, simply because they have half as many academically bright children as in other places.
While its true that the per-capita spend in the same across all schools this means that the grammer schools actually have more resources as they have less children with special needs who need extra input.
I could go on.

I reckon Grammar schools should be brought back everywhere. Comprehensive education is failing the brightest children. I can only speak for when i was at school in the 90's but we were forced to go at an absolute snail's pace, partially because of the less able kids, and partly because these kids were the ones who just took the piss and disrupted every lesson.

Also, if we look at the people who came out of that era of so called 'two-tier' education. People who, because of grammar schools, were able to fulfil their potential, all the amazing writers and actors and muscians who came out of the grammar schools in the 1960's and were able to contribute so much to that era and to society... compare this to the total lack of creativity in the arts today - terrible pop music, art that's disappearing up its own backside, poetry practically dying out as a medium - basically because comprehensive education vacuums the dreams, creativity and aspirations out of bright kids.

i know i'll get flamed for saying this but it needs to be said imho.

its not the comprehensive system that is failing the brightest children but over testing, teaching to the test and too much assesed coursework.

yes but these over rigorous tests were brought in because of failing comps in the first place!

or something that makes a little more sense ykwim anyway

But totalmisfit, setting means that in most comprehensive schools the most able aren't being 'held back' - children are placed in the set most appropriate for them in that particular subject.

The brightest children are flourishing at my children's comprehensive - but the less able also seem to be doing pretty well!

I have seen evidence that in areas with grammar schools the small number of children (30per cent) who get in do very well, BUT the larger number of children who don't get in (70%) achieve less than they would in a genuinely comprehensive school.
That does not seem a good trade off to me.
I absolutely do not believe we are in an era where there is no creativity. Think that's utter bollocks actually. British art has never been in a healthier state - leading the world (mostly working class artists doing it too), literature is also thriving - much of it due to British writers coming from multicultural communities, our theatre is booming.

does the school have setting from year 7? The problem at the school i went to was that we were all lumped in together for the first 3 years (quite critical years imo) and then there was some streaming for years 10 and 11 but only for English, Maths and Science.

and you still had to put up with being harassed constantly by the school's 'we're stupid and proud bullying committee' at break/lunch/after/before school/in the corridors (which is about 40% of school life anyway)

Abolish grammar schools and then we will have the system where people are allocated schools on the basis of how much money you can afford to borrow for a house. Or how much you earn and can afford to pay for private school. Or how long you are willing to attend church for. Everyone is trying desperately to get the best for their children. I don't believe that children hold this residual feeling of failure unless someone else reinforces it. Most kids just move on and have a laugh at their new school, whether it be grammar or comprehensive. Personnally, I know lots of children who didn't get into grammar school and I haven't seen any seething resentment on the part of the children - most don't give a toss.

What is needed are good schools, full stop. Abolishing one type of school does nothing really except bring them all down to a level that is just not good enough at the moment.

Yes I am biased as my kids both go to grammar school (as is Peapodwhatsit too), but then may be other people are biased because their children don't go to grammar school. I don't believe that a return to the tripartite system of education would be a good thing either as many children left secondary modern with nothing at all (as did some of my friends who went to grammar school in the 1970s).

There are lots of criticisms to be levelled at education today, but I think the main one is the politicization (is that a word?) of education since the 1960s. It has done nothing for kids or schools.

Agree with totalmisfit and TheHerdNerd