Grammar vs Non-Grammar.

[Delectable]

Everyone I speak to about schools speak highly of Grammars. They move house for Grammars and speak proudly of their children's Grammars.

I watched an Episode of Yes Minister and when asked why the govt abolish Grammars Sir Humphrey the civil servant said it's so the govt didn't have to pay Grammar teachers more for the results they got compared to other schools so it was presented as an "all teachers are remunerated fairly" scenario.

So I've been wondering why did the govt ban the creation of new grammars??

This article explains some of the debate around grammars: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grammar-schools-what-are-they-education-explainer-controversy-theresa-may-a7233531.html?amp

I worked in one. We werent paid more...

It was a lovely school but I hate it breaks up the area we're in and having had children go through the 11+ now would rather live in a nice comprehensive area!

Yes Minister isn’t a source of reliable information!!

You need to go back to the Education Acts of the 70s, with Labour introducing statutes that abolish selective education and then the conservatives re establishing it later on. Neither party have ever been united in their approach with different administrations changing tack through the decades.

Labour comprehensive no more grammars, Tories bringing back grammars in the 79 act (without teeth!), Labour more faith schools and academies, Tories (Teresa) more grammars.

Despite their popularity, grammar schools have little effect on social mobility.

There are lots of arguments both ways, but a lot of people who object to grammar schools do so not because grammar schools aren't good, but because of the impact of grammar schools on those children who don't get in. In theory, a secondary modern (a non grammar in a grammar area) could be just as good a school as a grammar, just catering for different children. In practice, it very often doesn't work like this, and the secondary moderns end up with a disproportionately high share of social and behavioural problems, which can then discourage teachers from working there, leading to a downward spiral. Also, the impact of house prices and tutoring on pass rates means that grammar schools become weighted towards the financially better off. Our best local grammar takes 20% of its intake from prep schools.

Absolutely. Our local grammar has a comoletely different demographic to our local comp. Markedly so. A child from an average 30k income family will feel poor at Grammar.

I grew up in an area with grammar schools. I now live in an area with no grammar schools, just comprehensives. I went to a grammar school, and got a great I'd education there, but it was an utterly unfair system which worked to the benefit of well-off families. My children now go to a comprehensive school where they are getting an education as least as good as I got in my grammar school, but with a far better education at primary school (which wasn't focussed on 11+exams) a broader range of opportunities and a much wider mix of fellow pupils.

I would always choose a comprehensive system over a selective one. DD would probably have qualified for a superselective grammar aged 11 and it would have been utterly wrong for her. She's clever enough to do well in tests, and is aiming for top grades in some GCSE subjects, but is fundamentally practical rather than academic.

It's all a bit silly really. If you have all the kids in an area sit an exam aged 11 and then the ones who do best in that exam go to a special school, does it really make sense that the schools are what causes those kids to go on and get more good exam results? I went to a grammar and we had shit facilities, very limited subject choices and some truly appalling teaching. In one GCSE subject the teacher made a mess of her planning and ran out of time, so we had to teach ourselves the last chunk of the curriculum from photocopied handouts over the Easter holidays - and no one got less than an A in that subject. We were all either naturally academic or had a lot of support at home and I believe we'd all have done just as well at a comprehensive.

The parents who send their kids to grammar will often convince themselves that it’s fantastic as they had to pay a huge premium to live in that area and/or for tutoring to make sure their kid got in.
I’m sure grammar schools are great for the right kids.

But it is massively unfair to lower income families who are far less likely to either be able to afford to live in the “right areas” and/or pay for tutoring.

Who would want to go to a sec modern? I know lots of them are great schools and but there will be a stigma attached to going to them however good they are

Also currently there is enormous pressure on kids in grammar areas to pass their 11+.
My ds is 9 and I’m really pleased we don’t have to worry about that.

Grammars never did achieve the level of social mobility they were intended to support.

The results simply reflect the cohort, the selective intake. Socially as well as academically.

All-grammar counties like Kent do not have better results across the whole population than comparable non grammar areas.

I went to a selective school, my kids to comprehensives. I think grammars are a con. We all need to fight to ensure good provision for children of all abilities.

Comprehensives offer the same Kevin of education in top sets / streams, and offer more to more young people overall.

IMO / IME.

Agree with @TheChemicalMother our kids should all have the right to a good education regardless of where they live and what school they end up in

We're in a grammar area and although v bright ourselves lower income due to disability. We are tutoring ...as she is v bright and we are in this system. However given a choice I would live somewhere without this system. I hate that the year 5s are all talking about it already.

Yes Minister only launched in the early 80s, by then the number of GS's was about the same as it is now, hugely down from its 1960s peak. It's certainly true that GS's used to get more funding per pupil, which isn't true of today's 'grammar schools', though I'm not sure what the implication of the move towards comprehensives was for overall funding. I should think that today's state school system, with most kids staying on till 18, so many classroom assistants etc in primaries and SEN specialists etc, & half decent buildings etc for most, is in aggregate an awful lot more expensive per head the 1960s system.

Anyway, back to OP's question, why have so many successive governments gone along with keeping the overall number of GS's very low? I suppose a practical reason is that they were on balance unpopular with voters, but really I suppose the main reason is that the mid 80s move to GCSEs, i.e. towards a united qualification for everyone, cut the case for the GS/modern school system off at the knees.

The original postwar tripartite system [of grammar schools, technical schools (remember them? me neither) didn't promote segregation for segregation's sake. The whole point of the tripartite system was that the grammars were set up to produce arm kids with a set of relatively demanding academic 16+ qualifications [O levels] and the moderns set up to arm kids with either no or soft [CSE] academic qualifications. Very different qualifications meant very different syllabuses meant very different schools. O levels were, at least initially, so difficult as not to be suitable for most [not all] kids.

GCSEs are completely different, with the overall bar set low enough so that relatively high grades are attainable for most [not all] kids. The remaining grammars now promote segregation for segregation's sake. Adding more grammars but keeping GCSEs in their current form would be a bringing back a small part of the old system in a really weird way.

We live within a ten minute walk of a grammar school and it is a school for local kids (rather than one that has a huge geographical intake based on scores).

Despite that, the demographic is very different to the primary schools because lots of people move here in the last couple of years of primary for the GS, travelling to independent primary schools for those last years.

Lots of big cars, tutoring and sharp elbows.

DC got in without tutoring (couldn’t have afforded it) but personally, I don’t think it’s been great for him. Too pressured. We’re at the end of the journey thank the lord, DC is moving elsewhere for sixth form. Somewhere with a different ethos, less pressured, more caring.

I knew he wouldn’t thrive in a hot house, bright enough but skin not thick enough for their expectations.

It does change the atmosphere doesn't it? Our alternatives aren't great so we're putting the time in to prep but painfully awarenit comes with its own problems.

The problem with grammar schools is that academic achievement is not linear – some children are good all-rounders, others only come into their own at a later stage, when they are doing fewer subjects and can focus on what really interests them/they are good at.

Deciding on what school suits a child on the basis of a particular type of non-curriculum based test taken on one day at the age of 10 (in most cases) is a terrible system. I can't understand why anybody supports it.

We deliberately chose to move to a non Grammar area as we knew it wouldn't be the best place for our DD, and unfortunately that sometimes means the other schools aren't great.

The local school where we are now has a wide ranging vocational and academic curriculum so hopefully she'll be able to do the best courses for her and get good qualifications.

Unfortunately Grammar schools don't fulfil their original purpose now.

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

@Reallycantbesarsed

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

Less bright children want to learn too you know.

@Reallycantbesarsed

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

My kids had the same experience in top sets in a comprehensive.

Most parents send children to grammar school for the environment of non disruptive behaviour. Much similar to faith schools where religious ethos somehow restricts adolescent rule breaking and boundary testing. Why do we need academic selection and religious selection to create such environment? Perhaps because we value freedom and bestow our children with much freedom earlier than necessary.

@Reallycantbesarsed

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

Of course they're good, that really isn't the point. The point is that they only benefit a tiny proportion of children, while at the same time ensuring the vast majority get an inferior education. Why is that something to be aimed at or encouraged?

I have one DC at a GS (20 odd miles away) and one at a local well performing city centre comp (20 minutes walk away). They both choose their school themselves.

I prefer the GS hands down no comparison and no complaints whatsoever. Also lots of nice kids but depends on the child. The comp has a lot of who seem to clamber over one another to try and be popular. Dress code out of school and school uniform adapted to be chavs and slags.

No, teachers at grammars don't get paid more. In fact, in ours the teachers have gone on strike before because of not being paid enough. Teachers come and go. This has steered parents to other grammars. Also, many parents are superficial seeing in 11+ forums things like they preferred a grammar much farther out which requires 1.5 hours travelling because they like the building more. The result is as another poster has already pointed out that The results simply reflect the cohort, the selective intake. Socially as well as academically.. So yes, the grammars which attract the cream of the cream get the best results. Have seen the stickies at the elevenplusexams regarding QE for boys and the notorious culling which is ongoing despite the school having denied it on open evening only for their sons to have to go to another 6th form even though they got brilliant GCSE results.

It has been in the news that several grammars boot their Y12 at the end of year if not straight As are predicted from the Y12 mocks. We definitely wanted DS2 to join DS1 at his grammar because we didn't want him to continue with the same disruptive children from his primary. Thankfully he did and it has helped him immensely. DS3 didn't get in but it seems that his secondary is much stricter than their primary which is a relief.

If you asked me whether our grammar or our comprehensive is better I would have no idea of knowing!

@Reallycantbesarsed

All of my children went to Grammar school and I can honestly say that their education was fantastic. They were at school with other children that wanted to learn so there wasn’t the peer pressure to mess about in the classroom.

Pleased to hear but the point we’re making is that for those not lucky enough to get in, the future’s not so rosy is it?