Grammar Schools

This is always an interesting discussion and, as it comes round so frequently, there must be concerns that are not being met by the present system.

Gangura’s comment about people actual knowledge of the current school system about which Ana’ complained was, I think, given the best answer I have seen for some time

“I suppose those with first hand experience have more credibility than those that do not? If I wanted to know what the service was like in a particular restaurant I would rather hear from someone who had eaten in it than someone who had just read a review!”

I do think we have to be cautious about believing we understand what is happening in current education just because we were educated. Times have changed so much and the perceived requirements of education have changed too.

Someone who was educated in the 40s was a close to the idea that we shouldn’t teach servants to read because they get “above themselves” as they are to today’s view of equality of opportunity in education.

Failure of education should certainly not be put at the door of the teacher as they have and always will done their best within the system they are given. However, failure to thrive within education and to achieve the best they can is something that parents have a great influence over.

Recently Shirley Williams was asked whether she still felt she had done the right thing by bringing in Comprehensives. She emphatically felt it was the right thing to do and said that what most people forget is that, at its best only15% of children ever went to Grammar Schools.

Work has changed so much. There are no more “jobs for life” which you can go into with basic qualification and learn within that. Obviously you still learn after formal education but our young people will, it has been said, change careers more times than we changed jobs. Education must prepare them for that.

Anya your comment that It's a shame that some people seem to have wasted that opportunity sounds rather judgmental. In our area we have five comprehensives four of which are “outstanding” under Ofsted and their sixth forms would compare well to any six form of Grammar schools in the past. I also doubt that any of the children attending them would categorise themselves as working or middle class or any other class.

My three nearly grandchildren are attending these. They work harder and are encouraged to go further than most children were in the days when I was at school (Secondary Modern, Bi-lateral and Grammar), they are all active in the sports field in which they are interested (to county level in two cases) they volunteer and they hold down jobs. The school supports them and their parents encourage them and they are bright kids. They would have done well in any system as I would suggest you, who as you say, didn't truant, worked hard and despite being from a working class family, met nothing but encouragement and excellent teaching, would have done too.

Times change and we cannot hold back the tide of change any more that Canute could hold back the tide.

It was different papers but you needed enough marks from the one test- it was all taken on the same day. Huge disadvantage for the child excellent in English and poor in Maths or vice versa. The beauty of the comprehensives are they cater for that.

In my final year of PS I was in a class of 40 plus and I should think at least half passed the 11+. We had an excellent teacher - I've still got a photo of that class.
Perhaps some didn't take up their place - we were in a socially deprived area and some parents couldn't wait until 16 for their children to go to work. School leaving age was still 14 up to 1947-8.
Our Grammar school had mostly children from working class families, miners and ship builders. Very few stayed on to 18.
It was an excellent school, I thoroughly enjoyed my school years.

The 11+ wasn't one test, it was 3; English, Maths and (so called) Intelligence Tests. Not that it matters but just to put the record straight.

Exactly Marmardoit, the top sets are the grammar school equivalent with the huge advantage that you can move up and down to the stream that suits you.
My brother failed 11+ , passed at 12+ and was in the express grammar school stream at 13 yrs- how silly was that when he was the same boy?
He would never have been discovered had he not really taken to Latin and Greek. Your chances of being taught either subject in a secondary modern were nil. ( for some odd reason you fail one test on one day when you are 10/11yrs and doors closed)

I missed taking the 11+ by one year. I lived in the first county to go fully comprehensive. There was still much of the old grammar school of course. Same building, many of the same teachers, we were taught latin etc.
The big mistake they made IMO was to split schools into High schools (11-14) and Upper schools (15-18). This resulted in everyone moving school at the beginning of O levels/CSEs and was very unsettling for some. I moved from a lovely leafy ex grammar school to a nasty concrete monstrosity with pupils from three other High schools. It was too unsettling at 14. We had lots of very inexperienced young teachers too which didn't help. The school was too new and too big.

My own DC all went to the local comprehensive. They were always set in ability groups for academic subjects during year 7 so I never understand when people think that a comprehensive = mixed ability classes. If they were good at a subject they were in a higher set. The very able were in the highest set for everything just like they would have been at a grammar school.

My experience of several grammar schools (we moved around the country a lot) was always very positive. But then I didn't truant, I worked hard and despite being from a working class family, I met nothing but encouragement and excellent teaching.

Without this opportunity I would not have had the successful career I had.

It's a shame that some people seem to have wasted that opportunity.

I was unfortunate to live in a grammar school area when my children were young and deliberately moved to an area with comprehensive schools- and have never regretted it. I think it is ridiculous to test children and divide them at the age of 10 yrs. I am very thankful there are only about 164 grammar schools left.

Only six pupils passed their 11+ from my primary school, and none of them went to the same school as any friends. The ones who did not pass were written off and left school with no exams.

Both my sons went to comprehensives, called community schools. That's the way to progress and make sure that all pupils feel as valued as the others. They both have good degrees. Yes they would probably have done well no matter what school they went to, but that's not the point. We chose to send them to the community school so that they could see that everyone was important and valued.

I suppose we're all influenced in our opinions to some extent by our own exeriences.

Unlike whenim64 I consider my South Manchester Grammar School education to have been excellent, despite my working-class upbringing.
Ducie certainly wasn't offered as an option when I was at primary school.

The problem with grammar schools is that they were in our day selective in manner that was socially divisive. Labeling a child as failure at 11 was appalling. Just give them all an equal chance in a good comprehensive school and see what happens.

How does anyone know that the 11plus as we knew it was not just operating on, taking the the top "supposedly" bright kids until all the places had gone and how many others, who were just as capable, were just sent to secondary modern schools when the places ran out.

The secondary moderns in our day they were regarded as schools for "failures". I am sure a good comprehensive can produce just as good results as a grammar school.

You cannot fairly compare the proportionate perfomance between two schools when one has already selected it's pupils for their high educational attainment and the other school takes everyone from it's local feeder schools. My children did very well at our local Comp.

I do think that for many less affluent / working class kids the grammar schools were an opportunity to become 'socially mobile' in the 40s & 50s. however as society & the world changes so the way we educate future generations need to change too to meet the demand of the present and the future...which is not the 50's or 60s!!

Regarding the word 'stretched' perhaps it would be better to say 'motivated' . That of course is right for all children,not just children who have an academic strength. I sometimes had parents suggesting their 'bright' (primary)children were not being stretched. It was sometimes hard to explain that there were other skills and aptitudes their child needed, as well as being top of the class, if they were going to be able to make good use of their academic skills.

I grew up in South Manchester and was at school in the 50s and 60s. I hated grammar school - mine was very class based and pretentious about its place in the school system. I truanted as often as I could - children weren't enabled, just pressured to achieve academically. A friend who went to technical college (Ducie Tech) did exceptionally well, being nurtured creatively as well as technically, and later went to university to do a Fine Arts Degree, becoming a museum curator and subsequently joining Christies.

There are several grammar schools nearby in Trafford, one of which my grandson attends. When I observe how his school interlinks with business and the community, they are sadly lacking when compared with nearby comprehensives. Children need more than academic input. It would be great to see technical schools return, too. The apprenticeship and vocational support was good and children don't need to be saddled witn university loans to attain a successful education and preparation for their working life.

I think that what I was saying ana, we were brought into a wider and different culture by our education which was not fostered by our parents. This was not by neglect but more by ignorance and this is totally not understood by people who did not grow up in this environment or in a working class and actually deprived existance.This is nothing to be ashamed or or derided but a fact.

Ana I suppose those with first hand experience have more credibility than those that do not? If I wanted to know what the service was like in a particular restaurant I would rather hear from someone who had eaten in it than someone who had just read a review!

(can, not can't)

Sometimes I wonder if some of the people who criticise comprehensive schools have ever been in one, and have any idea of the reality on the ground.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that, granjura. Are you saying that no one who hasn't taught in a comprehensive school can't possibly know what they're talking about?

thatbags, I'm sure your children would have done well in whatever school system they attended, because they had supportive parents. Not all kids do.

Both DH and I had to leave Grammar school at 16 due to family circumstances.We both then went on to achieve professional qualifications at college and DH went on to a fellowship in his chosen field. I don't think either of us would have done this without a Grammar school education as it opened up a world for us our respective parents could never have encouraged us to follow. It was our wider experience that opened up that world and we are very grateful for that.

Parts of England only. I lived, did my teacher training and then taught, in Leicestershire- one of the first counties to go fully comp (apart from private schools). Our daughters were both very bright and talented, and I don't think they could have done any better at Grammar Schools. And many of my Comprehensive school students have been hugely successful, in som many different ways.

Students in comprehensive schools are not all thrown together you know! But are setted according to ability for all the main subjects- so taught with students of more or less level. Sometimes I wonder if some of the people who criticise comprehensive schools have ever been in one, and have any idea of the reality on the ground.

When comprehensives came in, schools in Scotland kept their previous names, and so a lot of our schools are still Academies, Grammar Schools and High Schools (I don't think that happened in England, but please correct me if I'm wrong). DH went to an Academy, our DC went to the local Grammar School and some of the DGC will go to a High School, but they are all comprehensives.

I also failed my 11+ and went to a school that was called 'bi-lateral' which meant it had a 'grammar stream'. This is because there were (are) insufficient places for all children who were (are) capable of passing the 11+ and managing the curriculum at the grammar school. Comprehensive schools were designed to meet the full range of academic /technical /vocational education and enable children to have greater flexibility to access different courses.
Unfortunately we are so academically 'snobby' in the UK that we don't value the creative/technical/ artisan/vocational skills as much as academic skills so we undervalue the work of secondary/comprehensive/technical schools and he people who work in them. This is the majority of young people!
As a society we give higher value to doctors/lawyers etc. than we do to joiners, carpenters, mechanics, IT workers, plumbers etc. but we need all these skilled people to keep society functioning.

Retiredguy, Back in the 60's, pupils who left grammar schools after taking 'O'levels had the chance of going on to further education where it was highly likely there would be a job at the end of it.

It's true that these days more students go on to higher education from comprehensive schools but how does that benefit them if they can't get a job at the end of it?

Comprehensive schools have worked for a long time in Scotland. Maybe because the will was there. There was (still is) a lot of resistance to them in parts of England.

To work as intended and offer social cohesion and a full range of educational services to a community, comprehensives needed to be big enough to take all the pupils in the community. This meant closing existing small schools and building much bigger ones to replace them. Neither the will nor the money was forthcoming. They hardly stood a chance.