Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[El Cid]

So not going to a grammar school is quite normal. Three times more don't than do. Nothing to be ashamed of. No sign of failure. Perfectly typical.

 

I would be of the same mind. My daughter has done well at school, but she does put a lot of stress on herself, I tell her to chill out.

But they do get pushed into doing well, but there is more to life than good GCSEs, especially for girls

[Hogg]

I am old enough to have experienced the 11+ divide. As a working class kid in a working class area I failed the exam, as did everyone I knew. I did not know any Grammar school kids then so I did not feel a failure - because the Secondary Modern was normal - we called ourselves 'Sexy Mods' and bullied anyone we saw in a Grammar school uniform. However, the education, looking back, was dire, and we were treated by the teachers as sub-criminal, with absolutely no prospects in life. A few years later, when (after correspondence courses at 'O' levels and a year at a Tech for 'A' levels) I applied to University for my first degree, I had to give my head teacher as a reference. I saw that reference, and the only thing she had to say was "I know nothing about this person". The University took me anyway, hopefully they could see she was a world class *bad word*. I was lucky, because in those days there were second chances - the Technical Colleges were excellent and offered a range of well taught A levels, some of which you could take without much prior knowledge. So I got lucky and with a couple of degrees have done OK in life. My partner, from a pit village, was hugely fortunate to get into a Grammar School, and, I have to say, is so much more knowledgeable than I am. Even to this day, in our sixties, their Grammar school education shows. I have a Masters degree and I read widely, but I cannot even now make up the gap in my educational deficiencies. In my five years at a Secondary Modern I learned some practical skills that have been very useful, but very little else. It is a waste of such an important time in children's learning years. So yes, a Grammar school provides a fantastic education, that my partner values and the benefit to them is clear and obvious. But what about everybody else, going to the 'Secondary Modern' - they won't call them that - but that is what they will be.

[unbeliever]

I am old enough to have experienced the 11+ divide. As a working class kid in a working class area I failed the exam, as did everyone I knew. I did not know any Grammar school kids then so I did not feel a failure - because the Secondary Modern was normal - we called ourselves 'Sexy Mods' and bullied anyone we saw in a Grammar school uniform. However, the education, looking back, was dire, and we were treated by the teachers as sub-criminal, with absolutely no prospects in life. A few years later, when (after correspondence courses at 'O' levels and a year at a Tech for 'A' levels) I applied to University for my first degree, I had to give my head teacher as a reference. I saw that reference, and the only thing she had to say was "I know nothing about this person". The University took me anyway, hopefully they could see she was a world class *bad word*. I was lucky, because in those days there were second chances - the Technical Colleges were excellent and offered a range of well taught A levels, some of which you could take without much prior knowledge. So I got lucky and with a couple of degrees have done OK in life. My partner, from a pit village, was hugely fortunate to get into a Grammar School, and, I have to say, is so much more knowledgeable than I am. Even to this day, in our sixties, their Grammar school education shows. I have a Masters degree and I read widely, but I cannot even now make up the gap in my educational deficiencies. In my five years at a Secondary Modern I learned some practical skills that have been very useful, but very little else. It is a waste of such an important time in children's learning years. So yes, a Grammar school provides a fantastic education, that my partner values and the benefit to them is clear and obvious. But what about everybody else, going to the 'Secondary Modern' - they won't call them that - but that is what they will be.

 

A lot has changed since then. We sent maybe 5% of people to university at the time. This is not about reverting to the 1970's system en-masse. Just looking seriously at if selection by ability at some schools (i.e. some schools specialising on the most academically able) is a positive thing overall.

[El Cid]

A lot has changed since then. We sent maybe 5% of people to university at the time. This is not about reverting to the 1970's system en-masse. Just looking seriously at if selection by ability at some schools (i.e. some schools specialising on the most academically able) is a positive thing overall.

 

She is actually proposing that non-grammar schools can become grammars, and more new grammar schools should be built.

A really big change to what the Government are doing now.

[Justin Smith]

So you'd rather both kids went to the same school than the 'higher' achieving one went to a 'better' school? That sounds daft and a bit selfish to me. I'd want the best for any of my children on an individual basis. If that means a horrendous school run then so be it. The one who is less academically gifted may well be more gifted in other things. It's your job as a parent to manage that situation as best you can. Both kids are going to realise pretty soon that one is brighter than the other anyway!

 

However, the rest of your post I agree with, if only 25% of kids get into grammar schools but 50% of parents support them then you'd assume that those 50% think their kids would get into a Grammar and therefore 25% of parents are deluded.

 

If it`s a streamed Comprehensive, why can`t a gifted child do well ? I admit they`re even more likely to do well if it`s a top comprehensive (like Tapton for instance). We`re in the catchment for Bradfield, which isn`t a Tapton, but it`s fine, I fee a child with potential can do well enough if they work hard there. I`m not moving to get my lad into Tapton or Silverdale, sod that.

 

All parents are deluded about their own children. We think our lad`s clever (at three and a half ! ) but we don`t really know do we ? The only thing I do know about him is he`s an exceptional swimmer, but that`s only because we have objective evidence for it, people keep telling us and we never see another kid of his age swimming like him.

 

On the subject of giving kids a chance who go to a sink Comprehensive there`s an easier way to help achieve fair access to Uni for those with the same academic ability. We all know that a pupil with a given academic ability who goes to Eton will get much higher grades then one who goes to Chaucer. Thus I firmly believe that offers at Uni should reflect the average exam grades at the school the applicant attended. If I had my way someone who went to Eton or Harrow (with a very high number of average A level points) would get a higher offer than someone who went to a top comp, like Tapton. In turn someone who went to a low achieving Comp (like Chaucer, if that had a 6th form, has it ? ) would get a lower offer still.

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2016 at 22:37 ----------

 

A lot has changed since then. We sent maybe 5% of people to university at the time. This is not about reverting to the 1970's system en-masse. Just looking seriously at if selection by ability at some schools (i.e. some schools specialising on the most academically able) is a positive thing overall.

 

I`m certain that once a Grammar opens in an area the other schools will have to follow, or they`ll end up as Secondary Moderns......

 

What I find so amusing is Theresa May saying "it`s all about choice", which is typical politicians lies. There no choice in it, if your kid fails the 11+ it`s Secondary modern for your beloved, and if the parent concerned was one of the parents who wanted Grammars in the first place then I have to say I`d have a bit less sympathy for them (the parent that is, not the child)......

 

As we`ve said countless times on this thread, if a Comp is streamed correctly then most of the arguments for Grammars fall away.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Justin Smith

[syne]

The historical difference between the two was the method of learning, and the subjects taught. I think the entry requirement was actually necessary if only to ensure the students were actually capable of keeping up.

I'm not sure if the modern secondary's of today, with the advances of the last thirty years are as proportionally distant from the grammars of yesteryear were to sec mods of the time. Iykwim. I feel there would be less of the 'doomed to a second rate education' and mor emphasis on appropriate education to ability. At least I'd hope so.

 

Reading a thread on a different site about the almost hot housing for sats and the lack of a broader education and the effect on the pupil at discovering how little they knew when baselined in Y7. The question came to mind of how even high achievers in Y6 suddenly become self doubting in Y7 what would happen if they all were given the 11+

I can easily see how mentioned up thread some harsh readjustment of the perceptions of their kids abilities would be hard to hide from the children themselves.

 

But I suppose a lot would depend on how the 11+ is Portrayed to a child in the first place...

[unbeliever]

 

As we`ve said countless times on this thread, if a Comp is streamed correctly then most of the arguments for Grammars fall away.

 

And as I keep saying, if streaming is acceptable and proper than a grammar which is a dedicated school for the top streams, must also be so.

[davyboy]

One of our local comprehensive schools which is in a fantastic modern building, has had a terrible reputation for 50 years but is in middle of an estate with an equally bad reputation.

However, I worked with a young lady who had attended this school and took a uni degree after HNC at a technical college.

Success and classification of a school as "good" or "failing" must surely depend on the quality of the teachers BUT to a greater degree the ability and aspiration of the pupils and their parents.

Can you imagine the disheartening feeling of teaching a class of kids with no aspiration and no interest in being there?

Have you read of the school head in Margate that is trying to install some pride in his school (not the one above) by insisting on proper dress and the reaction of a small number of whinging parents?

Edited September 15, 2016 by davyboy

[El Cid]

And as I keep saying, if streaming is acceptable and proper than a grammar which is a dedicated school for the top streams, must also be so.

 

And they do it in sixth form and university, would it be a good idea to have junior grammar schools?

[unbeliever]

And they do it in sixth form and university, would it be a good idea to have junior grammar schools?

 

It would surely make sense from whatever age streaming is currently used.

 

As I have repeatedly pointed out the comprehensive system was introduced in large part on the principle that streaming was bad and kids of all ability would do better without it. In fact many asserted that kids did not have differing ability and to suggest otherwise made one a right-wing ideologue.

Since streaming is now routine and widespread throughout the comprehensive system that argument has been comprehensively lost. What more is there to say?