New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

[thing47]

I see Liz Truss has announced she is in favour of creating more grammar schools (Rishi Sunak has opted for saying he will allow existing ones to expand, which is in keeping with current Conservative philosophy). What does everyone think of this? A good idea, or not? I know we have quite a lot of teachers on this board, be interested to hear what you all think.

@AmeliaEarhart There was at mine 30 years ago. I ended up trying to commit suicide because it was so bad. Sixth form was much better because the troublemakers left, but I had to go through five years of hell to get to that point.

The 11+ was the brainchild of Cyril Burt. But Cyril Burt was a fraud, and his "research" was falsified. See here. So the 11+ and grammar school system was created without a shred of real evidence of its effectiveness.
A second issue is that a tripartite system was planned, with a middle tier of technical schools in between the (academic/grammar) and (vocational/secondary modern), but the middle tier was never implemented. So the three-tier tripartite system which had worked well in e.g. Germany, never came to pass in the UK. Instead we ended up with a bipartite system which even 50 years ago was acknowledged to be too crude and failing too many children.

The 11+ is detrimental to the majority of children in 11+ areas who are forced to attend schools in which most of the bright kids have been creamed off by neighbouring grammars. It hardly matters whether the former are labelled secondary modern or, as Chris Woodhead called them "comprehensive minuses", i.e. schools with few attainers in the top quartile.

If anyone is so convinced that a two-tier system is a great idea, let them try to sell it to the public as "Bring back secondary moderns". Because every time you create a grammar, you are effectively creating 2 or 3 secondary moderns in the surrounding area.

What is actually needed is a properly funded education system, depoliticized education policy and evidence-based practice.
Resurrecting the "grammar school debate" is just a form of distraction theft by a party that has used rose-tinted 1950's nostalgia to it's advantage before, and is too intellectually bankrupt to think of anything better.

Thought this might be of interest. It a blog (I saw it on Michael Rosen's Twitter) from people who went to a secondary modern. And it made them feel like a failure and not good enough. That's what Grammars do to children.

secmod.blogspot.com/?m=1

I am not a fan of grammar schools. I am from Spain where education tends to be more egalitarian. I believe that all children should go through the same education system of good schools. What I don't understand is why on Mumsnet everyone is so up in arms about grammar school creating an unfair bias when the elephant in the room is the two-tier private and state system and the embedded inequality that comes from that. It seems to be the root of so much that is wrong in the UK. Is it that the class system is so deeply embedded in the British psyche that people are just prepared to accept that upper classes have a right to buy better education and all the privilege that goes with it but any other type of segregation is shameful?

@Avarca as a teacher I won't work in private schools as I don't agree with them. I have many colleagues who feel the same. I'd love to get rid of them as I'm v sure if rich people in power had to send their kids to state schools they'd be more proactive in making them better. But not sure how we go about changing a system that is heavily biased towards those in power. Maybe one day 😊

There are private schools in Spain as well

Yes, a private sector exists in Spain but it is very different from what I have seen in the UK. There is nothing like the long history of the most prestigious universities being dominated by ex-pupils of certain public schools like in England.

I'm on the fence with this. Because in theory I don't think for society, Grammars are a good thing.

But. I have a child who has ASD. Likely, in years gone by she's had been diagnosed with Aspergers (like me). Autism with no learning difficulties, quite the opposite. She's young at the moment so I won't have to think about her next school for a couple of years but already she is academically 2+ years ahead of the 'expected' standard in all areas. She goes to a great Primary, but the comp secondary schools around here 1) aren't great with SEN and 2) are known for having poor behaviour/picking on bright kids etc etc. I'm not making assumptions, i have family working in both schools, friends whose children attend them and I also work in some capacity with SEN/schools in this area.

We have a fairly local grammar school and I won't lie I am starting to consider it for the future if nothing changes in the next 3 years. Because I want her to go somewhere that her being bright and high achieving isn't something to be teased about. I want her to go somewhere where really disruptive and poor behaviour just isn't tolerated. I don't want her, who struggles socially way more than most of her peers anyway, to have to spark and love of learning knocked out of her in an attempt to 'fit in' with peers.

Does that make me a massive hypocrite? Yes, probably. But if the option is there, damn right I will send her to a place where she is supported to learn to the best of her ability, celebrated for achieving and be happy in that, rather than a comp down the road where her being good at school work will be bullied out of her before she finishes year seven. She's a child that needs rules, likes routine and gets very anxious when other children misbehave and break the rules. That sort of behaviour is less tolerated at a grammar - or at the one I've been looking at, anyway. I'm not a big enough person to make a sacrifice on her behalf for the good of society, on principle. I'll hold my hands up and own that.

I also agree that SEN provision needs to improve across the board. Closing SEN schools in the guise of being inclusive was a huge error. It's not inclusive to shove square pegs in round holes. Some SEN children are fine - and thrive if well supported - in mainstream schools. Some, without doubt need and benefit from specialist placements and we need way more of these. Then you have whole raft of children with SEN in the middle who currently wouldn't get near a specialist placement as their support needs aren't deemed high enough but equally will never, no matter how well supported they are or what their academic ability is (and some of these children are very bright!) be able to cope in a mainstream classroom. These children - if there were sufficient places - would ideally be in hubs attached to mainstream schools but these hubs are few and far between. The ones we have locally are brilliant but the spaces are so so limited and there are zero in secondary schools.

The whole education system in this country is a mess, and children are being failed left right and centre.

If there is money to spend on education it should be spent on failing state schools in deprived areas to benefit all kids, not just the 'academic ones' stupid idea and agree that it would only benefit the ones who knows how to find a local tutor to get their kids in

I live in a grammar area. I'd like to see grammars abolished. I say this as a parent who feels forced to let their child sit the exam in 2 weeks despite the stress because a) she wants to/needs it for the nearest school/to try for the school she likes and b) we're out of catchment for our two nearest good non-grammars (people obviously buy near them and catchments are shrinking. For one the furthest distance based intake last year as 0.9 miles). Otherwise its bussing her out of the city or inadequate schools. Often these schools get the kids who need the most support but never get the money to give it. In Finland they banned private/tiered education attempts and saw wholesale improvement because you weren't allowing any schools to just cream off the top academic students/draw in the wealthiest parents and leave other schools to struggle to cope with limited resources/funding. If parents wanted to put money into education it benefited a broader spectrum of kids than just their own kid. If you have to send your kid locally you do more to make that school better. In the UK they even manage to try to punish non-grammar kid's families financially as they'll tell you you can't get transport assistance for not going to your nearest school. The two nearest us are grammars, one all boys DD can't go to, and two with the tiny catchments so despite the fact we'd be forced to send her further away they old the refuse financial help for transport.