Grammar schools should we bring them back?

[????]

These were the same 'progressive' argument used 40 odd years ago that wrecked a decent state education system which was giving some of the poorest kids in our society the means to pull themselves out of poverty through education and their intelligence and improving social mobility. Numerous studies, including government accepted ones, show that social mobility for the poorest is declining. I had a bigger point that i've discussed before that idealism, and in this case it was 'socialism' is humbug and the effects of this idealism has been to close opportunity for loads of reasonably bright working class kids (the super bright ones tend to get through whatever). Meanwhile, those that can afford to, including the architechts of this social engineering, tend to pay (directly or by moving) their way out of the mess of 'fairness'.

As we're being anectdotal, I was 11 in 1973, I don't recognise the 'hothouse' thing at all, pressures were there but tutorials and pushy parents??? but I think that's a latterday product of a wrecked educational system . My memory of 11+ was that it was largely reasonably obvious who was going to pass, had been for a while, and they mainly did. A good mate of mine didn't and that felt odd but he actually got to University via Secondary Modern with extra tutoring or some mechanism that recognised his ability (sorry vague but I can't remember). The posher kids who failed tended to then go to private schools (plus ca change) and it was they who were perhaps under pressure. I can't remeber there being much stigma among my mates who went to Secondary Modern, most of them wanted to get out of education as soon as they could. That is genuinely how I remember it - i'm sure others of my age have different stories.

I would imagined if we'd kept that system it would have moved on a bit. Nostalgic old git that I am I perhaps should have titled this thread "Should we have gone comprehensive". They are not going to come back but I guess the average results for ALL kids in areas where they remain could support the argument that that is a pity

[HAL9000]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Take the Maths Test from the dispatches website

Here's the link to the Maths Quiz

The comments at the bottom of the page are well worth reading - some are pretty scary (some are quite funny, too).

[silverfox]

david_carnell, womanofdulwich and ???? you all raise good points here.

david, your points against grammars seem to me to be more about parental pushiness than children's angst.

"...the hot-housing of 10 year old children forced to endure night after night of endless test papers and coached to exhaustion..."

is the parents' fault for pushing their children - not the fault of the grammar schools. Childrens' lives are not being decided by the age of 10 or 11 - it's only the parents who think this.

womanofdulwich, as you say "...Some children do well in fiercely competitive environments,but not for me..." In my opinion education isn't just about passing a few exams.

????, you seem to be lamenting the passing of a golden age that never existed "...giving some of the poorest kids in our society the means to pull themselves out of poverty through education and their intelligence and improving social mobility..."

Given parental encouragement, there's nothing stopping most children doing well at school, whatever school. Peer pressure is important of course. If a child is stupid it doesn't matter how much the parents pay on fees at private/public schools - the child will still be stupid. Teaching to rote is not the answer either.

Education is more than teaching children to pass exams. It's about giving them the skills to think for themselves critically. The only reason a child of 10 or so feels a failure educationally is because his or her parents make them feel that way because of their own aspirations.

[Ladymuck]

david_carnell Wrote:

--------------------------------------

>I would like to see what Young calls "comprehensive grammars".

>This is a accepts-all-comers school that then utilises

>streaming in each subject to both push those at the top of their

>subject and give a helping hand to those who need it.

Personally, I would feel more at ease with this type of system. I especially like the idea of streaming by subject as opposed to streaming the person as this gets around the problem of where to place the pupil who, for example, excels in one subject but then requires extra support in another. I think 3 levels would be appropriate: one for the gifted, one for the "average", and one for those who, for one reason or another, would require additional support. Smaller class sizes would be the icing on the educational cake.

A return to the less than perfect tri-partite system of which the grammar school was part would do relatively little to solve the current problems surrounding (in)equality - in my opinion. Similarly the current comprehensive system whereby gifted children are taught alongside not only the lesser gifted but also alongside those in need of much support is woefully inadequate to deal with the educational needs of mixed-ability pupils. However, as alluded to above, the implementation of such proposals would amount to a complete waste of time and resources if high quality teaching is lacking in our primary schools. This in my view is where the priority lies.

>...Finally it also allows for proper social integration by not discriminating

>against those who cannot afford private tutors or expensive houses in catchment areas.

Indeed DC. That entry into the best schools should be dependent on means rather than ability is not only inequitable, but, in these days and times - quite abhorrent (in my humble opinion). That the situation is allowed to persist is also inexcusable.

[mockney piers]

SteveT, I thought my school was excellent.

It had a very progressive attitude and was also very big on education not simply being academic but a more pervasive positive attitude; about inclusiveness in all activities and getting bright kids to encourage less academically minded kids, sporty kids to encourage the lazier head in the cloud types (can think who I might be referring to there).

I mean where else would I have whiled away some of the lunch times durin the bitterest winter I remember, knitting with one of the hardest lads from the Purwell estate in Hitchin?

And I think it all ran pretty well. It was no utopia but neither was it anything like the broken Britain crap we keep hearing about.

Sadly I gather it no longer functions half as well as it used to. A couple of the other schools in the area were shut down and the numbers doubled in my old school. Brilliant experienced teachers with invaluable life experience were put out to pasture to pay for hoards of kids fresh out of uni.

As discipline sufffered so measures like uniforms were introduced and that unique atmosphere of encouragement in all areas was strangled by league tables and ofsted inspection regimes.

Apparently it's now a pretty awful school.

Maybe it's not the philosophy but the practice, not the theory but the environment in which it is enacted. and above all it's about committing to an ideal it resourcing it appropriately.

But in short, yes I thought it excellent.

Mind you, as broad a cross section of kids as we had, even the poorest areas in north herts are hardly inner city trouble spots.

Apologies all round for the anecdotal nature of my post.

[The Chair]

Lest anyone think young Mockney's poor spelling and grammar are a result of his comprehensive education, I am reliably informed it is more likely to be because of the small keyboard offered via an iphone.

Now.....back to the debate......

[Cassius]

My experience of Grammar school was very similar to ????'s. The comprehensives in my area were pretty dire (unless you were Catholic and could attend their faith secondary school) so I felt very lucky to have passed my 11 plus. I came from a 'broken' home and was a free school meals child so a private school was out of the question. Without the Grammar school system I doubt I would have made it to University and to having a professional qualification.

I flourished at Grammar - a single sex school suited me well and within the school we were streamed, so whilst I was in the top stream of Maths where we were all encouraged and pushed to enjoy the subject beyond the O'level curriculum, I was in the bottom stream of French where we were nurtured and helped in every way possible (I eventually passed 3rd time lucky). The classes were small, the teachers were dedicated and approachable, and once I settled in I did actually enjoy my school days.

I know this is purely anecdotal but the Grammar schools were I grew up still exist so they must have been doing something right and perhaps it is more about the quality of the teachers and their ability to make their subjects both interesting and understandable than it is about a 'label'

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not sure where I stand on grammar v comprehensive schooling per se as I was raised in another country but having lived here for over 20 years, I do wonder if the debate always has to be defined by those options. Not every country is struggling with this choice, so maybe we could look to them?

And whilst quids points to arguments made against comprehensives before their introduction, the subsequent outcome (eg less social mobility) is't necessarily a direct consequence is it? Surely the wider changes in society from the 70s onward, including the widening of the gap between rich and poor is as pertinent?

[mockney piers]

Very true sean. It does seem like the argument itself is somewhat anachronistic. Seems a debate for a bygone age.

(yes thanjs chair, that damned autospell has a lot to answer for too. Have edited it a bit anyhow)

[Marmora Man]

in the late 60's when I went to a grammar school there was at least one grammar in every catchment area - often two (one boys and one girls) and occasionally more. In addition it was common practice for children to move from Grammar, to Technical or Secondary Modern and vice versa at ages 13 and 16 if heir current schooling didn't suit them.

This meant that for any catchment area there was a comprehensive system available - albeit based over a number of different sites.

Flexibility was the key - and it worked, allowing movement between schools and different types of learning / teaching.

The reduction in the number of grammar schools - a politically driven decision rather than one based on research - and the creation of "lump everyone together" comprehensives that don't always deliver good teaching has had an entirely predictable result - competition for those schools that can provide high quality teaching and good outcomes.

Regrettably turning the clock back is impossible - so for the future what can be done? I suggest the answer lies in good streaming, a return to the idea that teachers know best (not central government or local education authorities) returning management of schools and school curricula to the head master / mistress together with an improvement in both pay and status of good teachers. Unfortunately to achieve a real turnaround would require at least 10 years and few, if any, politicians are prepared to wait that long.

PS: I scored 100% in the Dispatches maths test in 7 minutes.

edited to adjust dates

[Timster]

I tend to agree that the grammar -v- comprehensive issue is a bit anachronistic. The few grammar schools that are left in London are grammar schools only in name. The competition for places from all over London means that their selection criteria are based on much more than whether you pass the 11 plus. These schools will select children from the right sort of background (often interviewing the parents as part of the selection process) to ensure they only have kids with the right amount of parental support and who are less likely to be disruptive - because their continued popularity depends on maintaining their place in exam league tables etc. But their success depends much more on their picking the brightest kids from the best homes rather than anything the schools actually add in terms of the quality of the education (this isn't just speculation - I have a friend who runs a consultancy that analyses the value added by schools all over the country).

I went to a grammar school in a London borough in the 80s (and I think in many respects it did give me a head start in life that I wouldn't have otherwise had). But the primary school I attended had what was predominantly a, well 'council estate', catchment area. My mum carried on working there (as a secretary) long after I left and there were numerous bright kids who passed the 11 plus but still ended up at the local comp or even secondary modern. My point being, the grammar schools tended to discriminate against children from less middle class areas. Of course, this was all a consequence of the grant maintained status my old grammar school gained under the Tories which gave it the freedom to pick and choose who attended - whereas before it had to accept whoever had applied and had passed the 11 plus.

My view is that a comprehensive system can work but only if it is truly comprehensive. If everyone attends the local comp (as happens in more rural and/or provincial parts of the country) then there is a genuine mix of class and ability which gives everyone an opportunity to get on. In London, the comprehensives pick up what's left over after the grammar schools, private schools and (I'm surprised they haven't been mentioned yet) church schools have creamed off all the talent. Church schools are in my view just a syphon for middle class kids whose parents can't afford private school.

Similarly, the grammar school system that some might be nostalgic for (and I think genuinely did improve social mobility) only works if it applies to everyone across the country and everyone gets an equal chance of a grammar school education - not just the lucky few growing up in the right area or with the right sort of pushy parents.

So, if you ban private schools, selective schools and church schools, you might have a comprehensive education system that actually works. Cloud cuckoo land of course.

[SteveT]

The alternative if you haven't got big bucks for private tuition,

is to move close to the Charter school as they have a very small catchment area.

[Ladymuck]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The alternative if you haven't got big bucks for

> private tuition,

> is to move close to the Charter school as they

> have a very small catchment area.

Not so easy if you happen to live in rented council accommodation for example.

[mockney piers]

Is it un-drawing-room-like to offer a doffed cap to timster, or as keef might say 'what timster said'?

[katie1997]

I very much agree with a lot of the posts above. I would argue for bringing back Grammar schools if they offered places to pupils based on academic ability and not on the ability of their parents to pay. It would help if the schools were run by highly-qualified, well-paid teachers rather than governed by politicians/politics...

I know someone who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps (if thats the right expression)- they thrived in an environment that encouraged healthy competition after securing a place at a grammar school (this person is now in their mid-fifties, having repaid much to society as a result of an excellent schooling). Competition seems to be frowned upon these days in schools - even the language we use is afraid of saying things like 'didn't do well/needs to do better/or even you failed the test'.

[Timster]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The alternative if you haven't got big bucks for

> private tuition,

>

> is to move close to the Charter school as they

> have a very small catchment area.

Interesting - but this is supposed to be a debate over the issues not tips for pushy parents - maybe the Family Room for that SteveT?

[????]

...ypu don't need bib bucks to move into the Charter catchment area Steve? mmmmmm, I think private tuiton would be cheaper by a long chalk.

[daizie]

A few students and parents I know , didnt think much of Charter School at all, apparently its pretty much the same as Kingsdale . Just another comprehensive .

[The Chair]

I'd rather this didn't descend into a discussion on particular schools, their merits or admissions policy.

That can take place in the Family Room.

Please keep this on topic. Thank you.

The Chair.

[newcomer]

We should bring grammar schools back.

I went to a grammar school in Northern Ireland and, were it not for the fantastic schooling I received, I would never have gone to university (most of my non-grammar-school friends quit school at 16).

However, in my view there are also three fantastic benefits of grammar schools that have not yet been mentioned above.

1. SOCIAL COHESION

Grammar schools allow 'rich' and 'poor' kids to mix and interact in a way than simply doesn't exist in England at the moment.

However, to get the maximum impact from this benefit from this I would go even further than simply introducing a few new grammars - I would also introduce measures to discourage private schools.

In Northern Ireland, there are few private schools. The effect of this is that the grammar schools provide an amazing environment in which poor and rich kids mix, get on, and compete on an equal basis. At school, my friends included everyone from the richest/'poshest' in society to sons and daughters of terrorists. This meant that I learnt to accept people at face value and judge on merit rather than parents' income.

In contrast, when I then went onto an English university, I was amazed at the level of snobbery and reverse snobbery on both sides. My 'public/private' uni friends had never mixed with anyone who wasn't comparatively rich and, as a result, tended to look down their noses at comprehensive kids (despite the fact that many of the comp kids who made it to uni were actually smarter than the privately schooled ones). On the other hand, many of my 'comprehensive' friends seemed to have a chip on their shoulders about anyone with a posh accent - and (incorrectly) assumed that they were all nasty and shallow. These attitudes persist into later life as well. Some of the people I have worked with have never mixed with anyone who wasn't exactly like them - they went straight from nanny -> public school -> Oxbridge -> the City - and consequently have incredibly illinformed ideas about how the other half lives.

I'm sure that some of our nation's top politicians would be a great deal more useful if they had attended a grammar school and actually learned about 'real life' from real people, instead of just quoting unworkable social policies.

2. NON-ACADEMIC SKILLS

We learn a lot of non-academic skills at school. The greatest barrier to social mobility is often not just a lack of academic achievement but a lack of the soft skills and 'presentational' aspects that employers look for in a prospective employee. In other words, it is important to learn soft skills such as debating, negotiation, public speaking, interview skills, leadership ability and teamwork, as well as more intangible skills like: an 'educated' speaking voice (I don't mean lack of accent; I mean correct use of grammar and avoidance of slang/swearing), a poised and self-confident manner, and an ability to interact socially with everyone from the secretary to the CEO, etc.

My view is that the acquisition of these softer skills is included in a public/private school education and also in a grammar school education, but is not as common in comprehensive schools.

There's no point having brilliantly intelligent pupils gaining straight As in GCSE and A-level in comprehensives, only for them to fail to reach their potential because they've never been taught interview skills or how best to act in a formal social environment.

On a related note, my observation is that you tend to have a wider choice of sports in a grammar school than a comprehensive - and more importance is attributed to them. This helps children to become more active and they have more chance of finding an activity that they can continue to enjoy throughout their lives (which can only help with the UK's ever-increasing obsesity problems).

3. EFFECT ON MIDDLE-CLASS PARENTS.

For now, let's ignore truly 'rich' families who send their children to private schools and focus instead on the many 'ordinary' middle-class parents who want to give their children a good education, who believe that a private school education is better than their local comprehensive, and who therefore scrimp, save and make lifechoices that enable them to be able to afford a private school education for their children. If they instead were able to send their children to a grammar school instead, we may well find that their lifechoices were ones that benefitted society rather than just being money-raising. For example, in my mind:

(i) it would give many middle-class families the choice that one or both parents would work part-time instead of full-time leaving them with more time to be able to supervise their children and help them to become grounded and emotionally stable individuals (as well as more time to persue creative interests, take care of eldery relatives, etc etc),

(ii) some parents may choose their careers based more on job satisfaction and less on monetary gain (eg, moving to less-well-paid but extremely valuable careers such as teaching, nursing, or charity work instead of burning themselves out in banking, corporate law, etc.),

(iii) parents may be able to afford - both financially and timewise - to bring their children on more holidays and cultural activities.

My hope would be that, with grammar schools, one of the indirect consequences could be that the general emphasis in society might moves more towards one where people are able to be happy and have a good quality of living with a relatively low salary, rather than having the constant striving to earn more.

Again, take Northern Ireland as an example - the average salary is only a fraction of the salary in London but generally most people are able to enjoy a much higher standard of living than people in London. I know that this is caused by many, many factors (including population size, among others), but I'd like to think that one factor is the relative lack of privately funded education.

[newcomer]

Ah, I feel better getting all that off my chest. As you can probably tell, I hate the concept of private schooling but neither am I convinced that I would like to have to send my children to the local comprehensives when the time came.

Oh, and to respond to some earlier criticisms of grammar schools - yes, grammar schools do discriminate but there will always be discrimination in any education system and surely it is better to discriminate on a child's intelligence and academic ability rather than their parents' income. Also, in my view, comprehensive schools tend to only suit the 'sloggers' and - without the innate streaming that grammar schools provide to the education system - intelligent pupils can become stifled (and, particularly with bright but bored teenage boys, disruptive) and less-academic pupils can become lost as they are so much further behind everyone else that it becomes almost impossible to catch up.

By the way, I don't see the concept of grammar schools as only applying to right-of-centre political parties such as the Conservatives. In fact, as I see it, many of the benefits of grammar schools would actually fit nicely into the political viewpoints and aspirations of more socialist-leaning parties such as Labour and the Lib Dems.

Right, it's definitely the end of my rant now. Sorry it was so long.

[sbain]

I am not sure how relevant this is to the specific question here, but I thought I put my two cents worth in anyway.

I thought it was interesting to read about a scheme that was run in inner city Chicago in the 80's (I think althoug I could be wrong). It allowed the parents of kids who would otherwise be going to failing inner city schools to apply on a lottery basis to be bussed to more successful schools in suburbs. The progress of every child who applied was monitored (regardless as to whether they were accepted or not) as was the progress of a number of children who would have been eligible to apply but did not. The interesting thing was that acceptance onto the program was not the differentiating factor, applying for the program was.

So when parents care enough about their childrens education to apply for the program and I suppose put up with their children going to school in a distant suburb rather than locally, then their children tend to perform better.

The problem with failing schools is only very partialy driven by governement policy, at least in my view, it is mostly driven by parents who are just not that interested in education - and that is what needs to be addressed.