Grammar Schools

What I cannot get my head around is very often those who do not want grammar schools are usually very articulate in trying to tell me the comprehensive school is better but they then say they went to a grammar school and they were grateful for the education they received.

Times on t.v I watch grammar school/privately educated people saying grammar schools are devicive, selective and not necessarily providing a better education to their pupils, meaning comprehensive education is better. No it isn't.

A good school is simply that, a good school. A poor school is simply that, a poor school. I see it purely as the quality of the teaching staff who either perform well or sadly do not care. I know I will get it in the neck from those who have been or have family and friends in the profession but it is a fact, there are poor schools with very poor teachers, good schools with very good teachers

To some grammar/private education is a politically charged subject that denotes class privileges . To some grammar/private education is not an issue at all. We all have had varying experiences of our education. I went to a comprehensive and I think it failed on so many levels.

My daughter had to attend a comprehensive, no choice, I was amazed she went to University but she knew her school was not the best and she did 2 courses at night school to 'educate' her. So when I am being told that comprehensive education is the best I personally could scream.

I'm of the opinion that so many of those who talk down/want an end to the grammar school are being hypocrites. The likes of Dianne Abbott, the London liberal elitist's, who I simply tire of hearing from, all spout out loudly anti grammar/private school rhetoric and then, send their own children to guess what, grammar/private schools, shameful.

I now have a GD going through 'the system' and I despair at what I am seeing. We all know the schools in our vicinity who have the best reputation and hers was down the list before she even walked through the door, it hasn't disappointed because there was such a low expectation before she started, how sad is that. I understand the last year or so it is improving so we can only hope it picks up. Her next school will be a comprehensive or academy and it all starts over again , one is better than the other and all you can do as a parent is hope for the best and she gets into the better one. No choice.

What I cannot get my head around is very often those who do not want grammar schools are usually very articulate in trying to tell me the comprehensive school is better but they then say they went to a grammar school and they were grateful for the education they received.

I haven't seen anyone on here do that. Have I missed something?

I worked as an EP in several comprehensives from the 70s to the '90s, no state grammar schools in Hull, but I believe things have changed since then. At that time I remember thinking that smaller schools had been more successful in creating a positive ethos, and so motivating the pupils.
Theoretically comprehensives were created for egalitarian reasons, but in fact I believe it was to save money.
On the other hand grammar schools are smaller and easier to manage.
We were listening to a discussion on LBC at lunchtime about the latest threats to schools, blaming the teachers as usual. But what about the shortage of jobs for school leavers now? Teenagers need to have some achievable future to look forward to. Without that they lack motivation and cause trouble.
Perhaps grammar school pupils have more achievable aims.

Stating that comprehensives have not let children down is a generalisation.
Some comprehensives are excellent (so one hears), some mediocre and some downright bad.

Many young people I know have been let down by the comprehensive system in our local schools.
The very top set were encouraged and given the best teachers, and those requiring a lot of help received it - the majority in the middle were more or less ignored by some very mediocre teachers.
Those parents who could afford to were forced into paying for extra tuition to get their children through exams - even though those children were supposedly in one of the top sets.

However, many of them have flourished and succeeded since, despite their lack of achievements at school.

As a parent of two children who went to Grammar schools ( we still have two here, one for girls, one for boys) I am sick of justifying the fact that they went there. They were both academically gifted, both sat 11+, both got places. We are anti-intellectual in this country, I have felt myself almost apologising for having 'clever' children. Yet, if a parent sends a child to a music school, or has special sports training, or gets a scholarship to say a ballet school, we all applaud and congratulate. My children are as entitled to an appropriate education as any other child, and although I approve the egalitarian ethos of comprehensive schools I dont think they always get it right. Why is it acceptable to have streaming in a comprehensive but not have grammar schools? There are some good comprehensives around here, but they are massive and surely the other aspects of education such as pastoral care must be more difficult when there are 1200+ pupils. Those whom oppose grammar schools on idealogical grounds should also surely oppose out of school music lessons/sports coaching/drama classes as they too are giving an unfair advantage to those whose parents have the funds or motivation to provide them.

I do agree that size is an issue. The school DD3 went to had 1200 pupils and was basically split vertically into 4 schools in order to make it remotely manageable. The pupils were just grains of dust in the whole great lump.

I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about Gracesnsn

Gracesgran

No you haven't 'Missed anything' because the point I was making was interpreted by yourself as my speaking of GN postersposters only. I meant those words to apply to anybody, a generalisation. If however that did apply to any GN I stand by what I have said, don't tell others how their children should be educated but do the opposite when it comes to your own.

GillT57

I couldn't agree more. Not one of my family went to a grammar/private school and that would make me more likely to be thought of as anti grammar/private education if one applied the illogical thought a person who had not been afforded the grammar/private school education should feel hard done by those who did/do.

Good luck to you and anybody else who has taken the opportunity to do so. I just wish there was a potential for all of our children to receive a good education irrespective of the type of school.

Smaller and easier to manage Grammar Schools

You would not need to have Grammar Schools to get the improvements you believe existed in them TriciaF. I presume, if you had "smaller and easier to manage" Comprehensives you would get the changes you approve. There would be some losses though. Six forms in smaller schools tend to only be able offer a narrow band of subject. Two of our local schools have overcome this by having a joint sixth form which works very well.

I'm not sure that the most academically able are always the ones who get into grammar schools these days.

There is real concern about coaching for those whose parents can afford it (£1500 a year). Also, I know of parents who put their children into private primary schools specifically to give them a better chance of getting into grammar school.

Good point Gracesgran - I admit to not being up to date since I retired.
There have evidently been many changes, hopefully for the better.

Gill57T, I can't see why you would have to justify your children going to Grammar School if that was the system in your area. I assume you didn't keep telling those you knew whose children did not go to these schools just how "academically gifted" your children are, which would wind them up, otherwise you accepted the situation you were in and made the best of it.

I don't think we are all "anti-intellectual in this country" but there is certainly a tendency for "what was good for me is good for the next generation" to come out. I hear it in many people not understanding why we need more young people going into higher education.

I don't understand the logic that says "I believe smaller is better therefore we must have Grammar Schools."

POGS What I said I haven't seen anyone on here do that. Have I missed something? could possible be read in a way I didn't mean if you assume what I didn't write.

Read it again and you will see I hadn't assumed you meant only Gransnetters (I didn't say I did) but I had assumed that "those who do not want grammar schools" also included those on here who don't want Grammar Schools - not an unreasonable assumption surely?

Anya making personal comments isn't really a discussion point is it.

I don't think all changes have been for the better TriciaF and, having personally tried all three types of school the worst one I went to - for me - was the largest one and that was a Grammar School.

I do think you have hit an important (although not only) nail on the head with regards to size. Some decades ago they did try to deal with this by having middle schools and then children moving at, I seem to remember, 14. We didn't have them in our area and they fell by the wayside elsewhere although I am sure the majority of teachers would have tried to make it work.

Gracesnan there is no point of entering into a 'discussion' with you, judging by your previous response to both my post and others. To have a discussion one has to be open to the possibility that there are posters on this forum with extensive experience across the education system over many years, and to consider their views in an open and uncombative manner.

To have a discussion one has to be open to the possibility that there are posters on this forum with extensive experience across the education system over many years, and to consider their views in an open and uncombative manner.

That is so true.

Education has always been messed about to suit government policy and now, sadly, all the parties seem to think of it solely as a private benefit for its consumers. The 1944 Act was based on a view of society in which selecting the people who would probably do well academically was intended to be for the good of all, because the state needed highly trained people. Nobody really thought the system of selection was perfect but it worked well enough to do what it was intended to do.

Is there are echo round here

I am just listening to "File on 4" and they are talking about the crisis in nursing. It seems to me that it comes back to something similar to what you say in your first line Lilygran. Government interference and poor manangement - and I would include Ofsted in this for teaching - have left those on the coal face in impossible situations in both teaching and nursing.

I understand what you are saying about the selection for highly trained people Lilygran but the needs for higher skilled workers has ballooned and teaching a maximum of 15% to that level would not meet today's needs.

There is real concern about coaching for those whose parents can afford it

I am not sure why there should be concern about parents paying for coaching if they can afford it.
For those parents who want the very best for their children, whose only choice is a 'bog-standard comprehensive' as they cannot afford private education, then private tuition is a sensible answer.
The school, of course, can bask in the glory of more children passing with good grades which they may not have achieved had the school alone been responsible for their education.

Of course, if the aim is for an egalitarian society which subscribes to the lowest common denominator then selection, private education and extra tuition will be seen to be wrong.
Such a society will not work.

Why does a belief in equality of opportunity mean someone "subscribes to the lowest common denominator" rosequartz. It has already been pointed out that all through a Comprehensive School education children can be moved into a more appropriate set - either up or down. Why is selection at 11 going to prove to give us the best educated population?

If the aim is for every child to pass GCSE with a grade A-C, or at least the majority of them to do so, then the examinations have to be made easier. Unless of course, the younger generation is becoming more and more intelligent or the teaching far superior to that which we received years ago.
Why is selection at 11 going to prove to give us the best educated population?
I didn't say that at all. I asked why it is so wrong for parents to pay for extra tuition and to want the very best for their children.

Does 'equality of opportunity' mean the eradication of choice for those who can afford it?

I can only speak from experience. Yes, children can be moved up and down into different sets for different subjects which sounds good in theory but does not always work in practice.
There will only be equality of opportunity when all teachers perform equally well.

I agree, rosequartz - a lot of things work very well in theory, but moving pupils up a set is often resisted because the child's happy where it is, and teachers are reluctant to move pupils down a set in case the child feels as though it's failed in some way. Far more complicated than the theory makes it sound!

Where did the bit about GCSEs come from rosequartz? Does it have anything to do with Grammar Schools?

If not and if I am not missing some subtlety of your argument then I would agree the if the GCSE is structured so that the average child can get a grade A to C after two years of education on the curriculum then no, all children should not be able to get these grades as it is structured that 50% should fail. However, a GCSE is only a level 1 or 2 exam and I wonder if it is true that only 50% of students can achieve this level. We could talk about what a pass is and whether it is appropriately structured but this has little to do with teachers so please do not blame them. The framework for these exams is structured by others; the teachers just teach to the curriculum.

Does 'equality of opportunity' mean the eradication of choice for those who can afford it?
I suppose it means choice for all who can and can't afford it as long as it doesn't limit the choice of others. However, I think we are still on that journey rather than at the destination.

There will only be equality of opportunity when all teachers perform equally well.
Really? No other factors influence this then? Underfunding would be one I would put forward. One of the biggest problems with Grammar Schools was that although they were well funded, a good and positive thing, all other types of school were underfunded. This was why the original tripartite system of Grammar, Secondary and Technical was never fully rolled out. The investment wasn't there.