Ballot to abolish grammar schools

[zeolite]

With all the talk on catchments, here is the second ever ballot to abolish grammar schools (the first was in 2000, on Ripon Grammar, which failed):

www.reading107fm.com/newscentre/local-news/petition-launched-to-scrap-two-reading-grammar-schools-247

What do MNetters think?

[takes cover now]

When I went to grammar school, 44 years ago, I didn't have to take an exam, the places were apparently allocated by reports from primary heads and, I think, inspection of work - tbh I'm not really sure! But it did mean that a place was gained on more than a 'snapshot' and therefore was fairer and probably more sustainable in the long term.

That would be much better. My Head teacher recommended me for grammar school,but I was two people off a place in the exam. (mind you these days it would be a mine field if the Head decided-people would sue!)

Well said bubblecoral. Totally agree with your last post. Abolishing grammar schools is not going to help anyone.

Grammar schools are successful because they are also strict and bad behaviour from pupils is simply not tolerated. I have a very good friend who is an english teacher at an under performing secondary school near Belfast. She went to a grammar school herself and often says that if the secondary she was in adopted the same methods and disciplined their pupils in the same way as a grammar school things would be very different. She can't even remove disruptive pupils from the class and has as she puts it, to "put on a fucking puppet show to keep them entertained every day". They don't get traditional text books as "they aren't exciting enough" and she doesn't do traditional comprehensions, again for the same reason. Is it any wonder kids don't do as well when they aren't even being taught the basics??

bubblecoral you said of improving standards in sec mods..
That is for the teachers and parents and students at a secondary modern to do, not those at a grammar school! and that hits the nail on the head exactly. That is exact why we will never agree on this.

I think it is everybody's responsibility to ensure that every child goes to an excellent school. It is up to the grammar school families, as much as it is up to the sec mod families and also people that don't even have children. Children are the future of our communities and we all have a stake in that.

You say we will never agree, but I think that is exactly where we do agree. I too beleive that children are the future of our communities, well educated children benefits society, not just individuals and their families.

We agree that it is a community responsibilty to ensure that every child goes to an excellent school. That includes the parents of secondary moderns, and if they were all making the effort to do their bit for their school, they wouldn't need other parents who are busy doing their bit for their school.

But can you see how much more difficult it is for a school to persuade parents to focus in the same way that grammar school parents might, when they resent the fact that their DC is there at all, not at the grammar up the road, or worse, don't care either way?

By separating out the children, you're saying - we'll care for this school, with its history of success and this other one's for you to look after, but by the way, none of your pupils are proud to be there. And it's your fault if your school is perceived as inferior even though everybody, including the children know it's second best.

But can you see how much more difficult it is for a school to persuade parents to focus in the same way that grammar school parents might

No, not really. There is no reason why they shouldn't be just as determined that their children get a good education. The need to prove the stereotypes wrong could actually provide an incentive to put in more effort. Rather than sitting back and relying on that good history of success.

If they don't care either way, then that's nobody's fault but their own, nor is it anybody elses responsiblity to try and change it. There could just as easily be parents at the GS that don't care either way (in an area that tests all children).

you're saying - we'll care for this school, with its history of success and this other one's for you to look after

Why shouldn't it be theirs to look after?

Why can't the perception that their school is second best be changed without destroying the grammars? Why can't they just be seen as offering something different? I really don't understand why they have to be seen as worse schools. I expect many of them are better, because they can get good results out of children who find those results harder to achieve, at the same time as providing more than just the traditional academic subjects.

Another poster said earlier that she had been to as sec mod, and went on to e a proffessional, as did many of her friends. I'm sure that is not that uncommon a story. It's not like a child is given no chance whatsoever at a secondary modern (although I do admit to not knowing a huge amount about them). And if a child has a talent in something that is promoted at the sec mod but given no focus at a grammar, then they are in the right place at a sec mod surely? Why is that not something to be proud of?

Academic success is not the only type of success there is.

Grammar schools are successful because they are also strict and bad behaviour from pupils is simply not tolerated.

And it should be tolerated elsewhere?!!
My secondary modern had the best reputation in town for behaviour-we stood up when teachers entered the room-we were not allowed to eat in the street etc.The Head thought it was important to turn out good citizens.We were all country DCs which probably helped-the one in the worst part of town was a sink school.
Bad behaviour is not tolerated in my DCs comprehensive school-if it was I wouldn't have chosen it!
People get stuck in stereotypes.

Grammar schools are sucessful because they ONLY have in them the children who would be succesful wherever they went.

It would be shocking if they weren't successful under the circumstances!

People do indeed get stuck in stereotypes.

Exoticfruits was saying she has nothing against the Reading system, but dislikes it when all kids take the 11+ and then are separated. But AFAIK there's not actually anywhere in the country where that happens any more. Even in Kent, where 25% go to grammar, the other don't sit for the exam automatically, they have to opt in.

In my experience, it simply isn't true that all those who don't opt it are made to feel like "failures". Kids don't have that much awareness of how the system works. If there's a local school their parents are reasonably happy with, they get told that's where they're going and some of their friends are going there too, then they're likely to be OK about it. They may have an awareness that some of the more academically able kids in their class are going somewhere else, but then they know those kids are ahead of them academically anyway.

This whole thing of success and failure comes down a lot to how it's managed by the adults in a kid's life. They choose which competitions to enter a child for, how to prepare them, how confident to be of success, and most importantly how to prepare for and manage the times when they don't succeed. My DC for example must be one of the bottom 10% in the country in terms of sporting ability. As a result I wouldn't even think of pushing him to try out for competitive team sport selections etc. I'm just happy when he wants to enjoy taking part in something (which is practically never).

Somebody asked earlier whether kids are ever proud of being at a secondary modern. As it happens there is a non-grammar school near us with an excellent reputation, that's considerably oversubscribed and spoken of with admiration by people who go there. But it's one of the very few "technical schools" that were actually built according to the tripartite system that was supposed to eventuate with grammar schools as one part. I think the failure to build and fund most of those schools as planned is one of the big problems here.

In Germany for example they separate kids quite early into technically or academically focused education. The former is well funded, taken seriously and has no stigma attached. As a result, their manufacturing and industrial base makes us look like a third world country. It's wierd how in Britain it plays so straight into entrenched notions of class, that people can't get beyond that and look at how to make it work as well as possible.

One of the problems with this debate is that people tend to compare the ideal version of comprehensive schools, with the worst instances and effects of selection. The fact that many comprehensive schools IN PRACTICE are compromised by low expectations, bullying etc and fail to provide a decent education for the most able kids is written off as a problem of application that should easily be fixable, and we all therefore have to suffer it in the meantime (unless we can afford a home in an area wealthy enough to avoid it). But when it comes to grammar schools and secondary moderns, it doesn't matter how well the system CAN work, it's to be judged mercilessly on the basis of its worst failures.

Anyone can see this is not a fair or meaningful comparison.

They are indeed judged mercilessly on the worst failures!
If there are no grammar schools the top sets of the comprehensive are just like the grammar school. They don?t lose all work ethic because they have to mix with the less bright DC in the dinner queue or on the hockey pitch. It is ?cool? to be bright-how is it going to be ?cool? for the top end of the school to be jobless? They are not stupid!
If they are in the top set and someone disillusioned and disruptive thinks they are a ?geek? or ?swot? or whatever why would they care?-they know the person is a loser with no prospects. They are secure in the fact that they are not alone, and they are the winners. They are not going to give up aims of a top university because some idiot thinks education isn?t ?cool?! (of course you will get it in the worst schools, one DC can?t stand out alone, but where there are no grammar schools you are talking about a huge top end of bright motivated DCs).
I think the system is much better if only the top are creamed off, but 25% is far too many IMO.
In the old days of pass or fail, I did feel a failure. Not through my parents, who firstly looked at private but couldn?t afford it, and then made the plan of grammar school 6th form, or the secondary modern where the attitude was ?you are just as good and can do anything? or through my friends at the secondary modern, all A stream and very bright-it came through society as a whole. If I told people what I wanted to do ?when grown up? I got ?can you still do that?? so I gave up explaining-it was easier to say ?I haven?t decided?. It seemed that year 6 the world was my oyster but year 7 the height of my ambition was supposed to be shop assistant! I wanted to scream ?I am the same person!!?
The stereotypes annoy me-I expect most people reading this have a picture of a secondary modern-most probably a 50s or 60s rundown concrete block-mine was an old country house set in parkland. The library was the old library when it was a private mansion-oak book cases, floor to ceiling with library steps to reach the top. The music room was superb, the old dining room with a curved outer wall, huge windows with shutters looking over the garden, the art block was the old stables. People should forget all the worst films and news items they have seen and leave the stereotypes behind!

'Exoticfruits was saying she has nothing against the Reading system, but dislikes it when all kids take the 11+ and then are separated. But AFAIK there's not actually anywhere in the country where that happens any more. Even in Kent, where 25% go to grammar, the other don't sit for the exam automatically, they have to opt in.'

Yep. And imagine how it feels to be one of the ones that isn't even considered sutiable to have a go at the test!

I don't actually like it seeker. I just think it preferable. I would have the top 5% (no more than 10% anyway)over a huge area, of the really academic DCs.
Many with this system opt for the comprehensive anyway.
I know a woman with a DS exceptionally gifted in maths. She was told by the grammar (when discussing his special needs) 'all our DSs are clever'. She opted for the comprehensive, who had been teaching him for maths once a week from yr 5, and would meet his needs. He was working with 6th form maths by yr 8. (something for those who think comprehensive 'bring everyone down' to think about) My DS's friend got one of the top scores in the country with Maths A level at the same school. (He went to Warwick to do Maths and is in his dream job now-he was very 'cool' at school.) (DS got A)
Ideally I would abolish grammar schools completely.

exoticfruits, of course I am not saying that bad behaviour should be tolerated in secondary or comprehensive schools. I fully understand that there are some secondary schools who have just as good discipline procedures as grammar schools. However, I also feel that there are many who don't instil the same standards as what a grammar does and I believe that if they did their results would improve. For example, I had a meeting with my foster sons teacher on wednesday. He went into great detail about how my foster son was often disruptive and attention seeking in class. I asked him if they could make him sit outside the classroom door if he was being naughty and he looked at me like I was mad. I know for a fact that if he was at the school I went to he would be removed from the class straight away instead of being able to play to the audience as he gets to now and he would quickly realise this behaviour was not acceptable.

Sorry, exoticfruits - I was aiming that remark to confidence - forgot your name was in my c and p.

I really, really think that it all comes down to snobbery in the end. People love the fac that their child has been shown to be special. You see it around town on allocation day "Where's X going next year?" parent looks down modestly, "Oh, he's going to Y grammar school" "You must be so pleased - well done X!"

If there are no grammar schools the top sets of the comprehensive are just like the grammar school. They don?t lose all work ethic because they have to mix with the less bright DC in the dinner queue or on the hockey pitch. It is ?cool? to be bright-how is it going to be ?cool? for the top end of the school to be jobless? They are not stupid! If they are in the top set and someone disillusioned and disruptive thinks they are a ?geek? or ?swot? or whatever why would they care?-they know the person is a loser with no prospects. They are secure in the fact that they are not alone, and they are the winners. They are not going to give up aims of a top university because some idiot thinks education isn?t ?cool?! (of course you will get it in the worst schools, one DC can?t stand out alone, but where there are no grammar schools you are talking about a huge top end of bright motivated DCs).

I don't think there's any point arguing about all this as we're talking about experiences. I've already described some of the problems with my DC's community primary, and there are plenty of parents of children in secondary comprehensives, in non-selective areas, who describe the same thing. To which your reply is to insist that we must be imagining it because you have some extraordinary omniscient knowledge of all the comprehensives in the country and are in a position to tell us that it can't possibly be that way.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that my experiences stands for everybody - and indeed I've already said I'd be very happy with a good comprehensive if I lived in an area that had them. But if you're not even prepared to accept that people have the experience they do, because you are so attached to your theory of how it works in an ideal world, then there's not much more to say. I could come up with a similar model of how well selection works for everybody in an ideal world, but I won't bother because you're clearly set on the double standard of judging selection by reality, but non-selection by ideal theory.

In the old days of pass or fail, I did feel a failure. Not through my parents, who firstly looked at private but couldn?t afford it, and then made the plan of grammar school 6th form, or the secondary modern where the attitude was ?you are just as good and can do anything? or through my friends at the secondary modern, all A stream and very bright-it came through society as a whole. If I told people what I wanted to do ?when grown up? I got ?can you still do that?? so I gave up explaining-it was easier to say ?I haven?t decided?. It seemed that year 6 the world was my oyster but year 7 the height of my ambition was supposed to be shop assistant! I wanted to scream ?I am the same person!!?

That all makes sense. But it really isn't like that any more. I don't know anyone who broadly writes children off just because they're not at grammar school. And if they transfer to a grammar 6th form and take their A Levels there, noone's even going to know what they did before that or care, anyway.

You're arguing about a social phenomenon that you're stuck in from the past. I'm sorry you can't get beyond it but that's not a basis for dealing with the present.

The stereotypes annoy me-I expect most people reading this have a picture of a secondary modern-most probably a 50s or 60s rundown concrete block-mine was an old country house set in parkland. The library was the old library when it was a private mansion-oak book cases, floor to ceiling with library steps to reach the top. The music room was superb, the old dining room with a curved outer wall, huge windows with shutters looking over the garden, the art block was the old stables. People should forget all the worst films and news items they have seen and leave the stereotypes behind!

This is truly bizarre. You vehemently condemn the selective system for not offering a decent education to all the kids at secondary moderns, and in the same breath wax lyrical about how fantastic your secondary modern was, and how you went on to go to university and do all the same stuff anyway. You do realise you completely demolish your own case like this?

If the sterotypes annoy you, then it might make sense to drop them and move on, like the rest of us.

Seeker

*'Exoticfruits was saying she has nothing against the Reading system, but dislikes it when all kids take the 11+ and then are separated. But AFAIK there's not actually anywhere in the country where that happens any more. Even in Kent, where 25% go to grammar, the other don't sit for the exam automatically, they have to opt in.'

Yep. And imagine how it feels to be one of the ones that isn't even considered sutiable to have a go at the test!*

I don't have to imagine. I live in such an area, work in schools and mix with such kids. And generally they don't care. What you overlook is that they already know that they're not part of the academic elite of their year group. They may be dumb, but they're not stupid. :)

You seem to think that not having the 11+ will magically take away this awareness. It doesn't in comprehensive areas, so there's no reason to believe it will. What matters is how all children are supported by parents and teachers to feel that they are valued as people, whatever their specific strengths and weaknesses.

"They may be dumb, but they're not stupid"

Well, I have to say if you're able to type that sentence I don't think you will ever understand the impact of the 11 plus on a family, school or community.

"They may be dumb, but they're not stupid"

I can't believe you wrote that.

However, I do think it must be worse for the children who have had years of coaching to fail the 11+ than for those whose parents didn't choose to enter them in the first place. And in areas where everyone takes the test, it is probably the bright kids who thought they had a good chance who are suddenly made fully aware that they are no longer part the 'academic elite'.

If the sterotypes annoy you, then it might make sense to drop them and move on, like the rest of us

Who has moved on? I see little sign of it on here.

Of course not all schools are like my DCs-sadly you need a good middle class area with a lot of high achieving DCs.

Grammar schools have it easy, discipline is no problem with intelligent, motivated DCs. The top sets in comprehensives have no problems.

The strength of the ?old? secondary moderns was that they did not treat everyone the same, they had everyone from future Oxbridge candidate to the barely literate. It is a shame that comprehensives don?t treat pupils according to their needs, leaving the ability to change at any time-instead of jumping through the same hoops.

Everyone sees grammar school as ?best? instead of ?best for the very academic DC?. Instead of concluding that their DC isn?t suited they get a tutor or do practise papers for weeks, months, and in some cases years! Grammar school isn?t for the average and even on MN most DCs are average. I don?t think it is even for the moderately above average.

Ah well it would seem that we all know our minds. Weekend's here and I'm glad the hasn't been abolished yet. If it were though, I'd get over it and move onto ...

Overhaul the whole education system zeolite. I am sure that if we had reincarnation and people were to come back not knowing their IQ , family or personal circumstances they would design a system that was the best for all.
One that was best for the highly intelligent or silver spoon in the mouth wouldn't help them if they came back to an inner city high rise and no money-they would make sure that everyone had the best!
As it is it is not likely to happen -the system is designed by those at the top whose DCs will get to the top! Anyway cheers!

Sorry-I don't know where likely came from-won't happen!

Interesting that these up and coming world powers all select from an early age, officially (i.e. no turning back) around year 9 but effectively classes are streamed by ability from year 7 (i.e. different subject emphasis and teachers, so a 2-year window allowed to 'swim against the current').

They stream by academic and technical, always have done since colonial days. (Yes I know China wasn't a colony, only occupied...). Someone said Germany did too.

They don't have a problem understanding grammars but have a problem with why less academic kids were not pushed to achieve in technical skills, thinking that would be useful for a child/ country's future. That's probably because they haven't caught up with the comp principle yet... or with tolerating disruptive behaviour. I think they believe in reincarnation too.

A close friend with a privileged life by anyone's standards has only one DS, who is in the technical stream. They don't feel any sense of inferiority, because they know he'll succeed in life despite not being academic, he's being given the tools to get there. They could easily get him hot-housed over here, but that would be a real 'dumb' thing to do.

I don't know why we don't value the technical and practical-it is such a complete waste of talent. We seem to set DCs up for failure at such an early age.
Even the practical subjects have a lot of written work. At one time you could just learn how to do dovetail joints in woodwork, to sew buttonholes in needlework,make pastry in cookery-now it is design technology, textiles and food technology with reams of paperwork, planning criteria etc. I have never got over my DS being told for homework to 'research an embroidery stitch'-in my day someone showed you how to do it and you practised!
It would be so much better if they could choose a technical or practical education-some DCs are not academic.
I'm sure that we are crying out for engineers in UK rather than Media studies.