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??

True @TeenDivided, so not as damaging overall.

@RampantIvy

It's a false herringbone.

Children are effectively locked out of the curriculum from reception if they need to learn in a slightly different way or have Sen.

That is the heart of the so called selection process.
But I guess it's a great political sound bite.

@TeenDivided there’s no way that an average MC child would get a place at my DS’ grammar, tutored or not. Also, there’s no pass mark. Top 120 scores get a place.

I know people who have been to grammar , super bright but with no social skills or confidence or get up and go . Yes going to grammar is an advantage but it's not everything . Confidence , charisma and being liked by people gets you a long way as you are forgiven your faults and doors open for you .

I think it's more about the child and what environment is right for them.

Even in a special provison school there will be streaming. .

Saying DC would do well in Fagin's pick pocketing shop....maybe but we only get one life. School should be a positive experience and a safe place

It's a false herringbone.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that expression @Floofyduffypuddy, so I'm not sure what you mean or to which point this refers to.

Children are effectively locked out of the curriculum from reception if they need to learn in a slightly different way or have Sen.

Yes. It seems so unfair. That's why early diagnosis helps.

I don't think you can generalise at any school. My twins went to a government primary and then different grammars which were so different we pulled our traumatised child out of her exam sweat shop and moved her to private. Of all my children's schools its my son's grammar I recommend the most and my daughter's old grammar I say to avoid. I prefer my son's grammar to my daughters £22k a year private.

The issue isn't the grammar schools, it's the secondary moderns.

When they set up the tripartite system, they thought that about 30% of children would need or be able to complete a basic academic education in 5 years. We can see from kids GCSE achievements, that well over 50% of children can complete a basic academic education in five years, and frankly the modern economy needs that better educated workforce.

So, in complete grammar areas like Bucks and Kent the secondary moderns offer the same qualifications and the same essential curriculum as the grammars, and get roughly the same results as middle and bottom sets in comprehensive schools. But they have to start with 11 year olds who have been made to feel like failures.

the secondary moderns offer the same qualifications and the same essential curriculum as the grammars, and get roughly the same results as middle and bottom sets in comprehensive schools.

While the grammars get roughly the same results as top sets / streams in comprehensives (studies show that Kent overall does no better than comparable non- grammar system counties).

Which kind of points to the whole thing being pointless academically, while creating needless division.

Also how does it serve the literary genius who needs really slow paced learning in maths? Or the maths whizz who cannot put the simplest essay together? Where setting in a comprehensive supports both.

I thought this thread had been put to bed long ago. DC at SS grammars do better than their peers in comprehensives, the DC in High Schools (in Kent) do slightly worse. However there is (or perhaps more accurately was) a problem of differentiation at the top of the grading system.