Grammar Schools

[Maximus Decimus]

Its interesting that you say that Max. I have 3 kids aged 8, 4 and 3 and when the first went to school he could do basic math and some writing and spelling. We were told that they would have to 'untrain' him to teach him their way. Now I honestly have no idea what that means even a few years later, but with the younger two we haven't bothered with the basics, just tried to instill a curiosity about the natural world (which in fairness the oldest has in spades anyway).

 

I always read with my children and they cherish books (my wife and I are both book worms) along with trying to help with their homework (while at the same time not doing it for them... thats a tough line to walk). It's true learning doesn't stop in the class room and parents do have a huge role to play, but what we're supposed to do is murky at best.

 

Yes, I wasn't referring to teaching children to be able to read, write or do maths when I said being ready for school. I was more referring to parents stimulating their natural curiosity by talking to their children, playing with them and reading stories to them. Those first few years are so important to the development of the child.

 

I once read a study that said on average middle class children have had twice the amount of conversation that working class children have before they reach school. Some children will often come to school and they've never seen a book before or they cannot do simple things like get dressed or toilet themselves. It is only anecdotal but reception and nursery teachers I speak too insist things are worsening. 

 

It can be depressing to see the makeup of class. Far too often the bright kids have parents that hold jobs like accountants, doctors and architects and the lower ability children have parents that do minimum wage jobs or don't work at all. I've no doubt you could make a genetic argument for this but I suspect much of it is to do with how they are brought up. In my experience a lot of parents seem to think it is schools job to educate them and even refuse to do simple things like reading at home. 

 

When it comes to home life when they are older, again it is just giving them opportunities for their natural curiosity and instilling a love of reading is crucial. It's not about sitting them down and doing reems of calculations with them or forcing them to write lines to improve their handwriting but it is about making them realise that learning isn't something that is consigned to the classroom.

[Trojan]

The idea that grammar schools increase social mobility is a myth.  If we go back to the 11+ then better off parents will do what they did when I was at school, pay privately for their children to be coached as to how to pass the exam.

I failed the 11+. the first time I had ever seen the Non Verbal Reasoning type of questions, was the day I took the exam.  My wife on the other hand who passed the 11+ went to a school where they did very little else but practise on old papers.  They didn't do history, or geography, or science, they just practiced for the 11+.  She regrets her ignorance on many of these subjects, but as I pointed out, it your whole life is going to be changed by an exam isn't it better to pass the exam.

In my days at school, education in the West Riding of Yorkshire was controlled by the County Council.  The WRCC was Labour controlled for the most part, reflecting the political stance of huge swathes of South Yorkshire, but education was divided into local divisional committees and these local committees contained councillors from the particular local authority the division referred to.  Hence where I lived the divisional committee was dominated by the Independents (Tories.)  So the lion's share of the money was spent on the grammar school.  They had metalwork shops, a gym, two rugby fields, a proper cricket field, grass tennis courts, hockey pitches, state of the art science labs. Nothing was too good for them.  I on the other hand went to a secondary modern school where we learned in wood huts, we had no metalwork shop (even though many of us were intended for manual work) we used text books that had been there since the 30's, we had a hall that doubled as a gym, a music room, and a lunch room.  Our playing field which had a slope steeper than Post Office Road, was used for soccer and hockey in the winter and athletics and cricket in the summer.  In other words we were from day one put on the scrap heap. 

IMO once the 11+ is reinstated this is exactly what will happen again. It may not be intentional, but it wasn't intentional last time.  It still happened, I know I was there.

[Bob8]

Yes, I wasn't referring to teaching children to be able to read, write or do maths when I said being ready for school. I was more referring to parents stimulating their natural curiosity by talking to their children, playing with them and reading stories to them. Those first few years are so important to the development of the child.

 

I once read a study that said on average middle class children have had twice the amount of conversation that working class children have before they reach school. Some children will often come to school and they've never seen a book before or they cannot do simple things like get dressed or toilet themselves. It is only anecdotal but reception and nursery teachers I speak too insist things are worsening. 

 

It can be depressing to see the makeup of class. Far too often the bright kids have parents that hold jobs like accountants, doctors and architects and the lower ability children have parents that do minimum wage jobs or don't work at all. I've no doubt you could make a genetic argument for this but I suspect much of it is to do with how they are brought up. In my experience a lot of parents seem to think it is schools job to educate them and even refuse to do simple things like reading at home. 

 

When it comes to home life when they are older, again it is just giving them opportunities for their natural curiosity and instilling a love of reading is crucial. It's not about sitting them down and doing reems of calculations with them or forcing them to write lines to improve their handwriting but it is about making them realise that learning isn't something that is consigned to the classroom.

 

I suspect the teachers were a bit rubbish.  I had had a teacher who actually because very excited about how capable I was, though as my classmates already considered me very bright, my reaction was a rather arrogant "well duh!".  This was in Thatcher times, so there were well over thirty in a class.  Split the school year up by 35, allow the louder and posher kids to get more attention and there is actually very limited time left for the others.  That sounds damning and in part it is, but it is also that there are limits.  It has left me very open to teachers like yourselves who seem very considered and slightly dismissive of teachers who blithely claim to know all their pupils very well.

 

Either way, I could not understand the point of the IQ tests at the time, but I certainly appreciate the wisdom of them now.

[Martyn Sadler]

The idea that grammar schools increase social mobility is a myth.  If we go back to the 11+ then better off parents will do what they did when I was at school, pay privately for their children to be coached as to how to pass the exam.

 

Not completely a myth!

 

My parents were working class to the core.

 

I went to a Roman Catholic primary school and I was the only boy who passed the 11-plus. That was mainly down to the fact that many of the other kids were the children of Irish immigrants who didn't place a high value on learning and who wanted their kids to get out to work as soon as they could. I'm sure that more of them could have been bright enough to pass the exam if they and their families had taken education more seriously.

 

I felt resentful at the time to be going to a different school to the one my schoolmates were going to. But the one good thing about my primary school was that it did school us well in such basic things at tables and spelling. I would guarantee that some of the kids who didn't pass the 11-plus at my school would be able spell and use numbers better than many kids at university these days. And some of my old schoolmates have done very well for themselves since then.

 

On the other hand, my wife spent some time teaching at a comprehensive school in the midst of a giant council estate in Manchester some years ago. One young kid was by far the brightest pupil in her class, but none of the other kids stretched him. His boredom made him behave badly and ultimately he turned to drugs. I'm not sure what eventually became of him.

 

But he was a great example of someone who needed to go to a selective school to be challenge by others of a similar ability.

 

In the meantime, we have a comprehensive system in the Wakefield district, but it is comprehensive in name only.

 

Everyone knows which schools you need to get your kids into if they are going to have a 'grammar school education', and I know countless people who buy houses in those school catchment areas specifically for that purpose.

 

The truth is that there isn't a perfect education system that will suit all children of widely differing abilities and it might be sensible if the education debate began with our politicians admitting that fact.

[Maximus Decimus]

I suspect the teachers were a bit rubbish.  I had had a teacher who actually because very excited about how capable I was, though as my classmates already considered me very bright, my reaction was a rather arrogant "well duh!".  This was in Thatcher times, so there were well over thirty in a class.  Split the school year up by 35, allow the louder and posher kids to get more attention and there is actually very limited time left for the others.  That sounds damning and in part it is, but it is also that there are limits.  It has left me very open to teachers like yourselves who seem very considered and slightly dismissive of teachers who blithely claim to know all their pupils very well.

 

Either way, I could not understand the point of the IQ tests at the time, but I certainly appreciate the wisdom of them now.

 

Like I said nowadays schools are heavily targetted, this includes individual teachers and the school. For teachers this is now linked to pay. Therefore, it is important to have an accurate picture of where any child is academically. Say for instance you had entered my class and the teacher had underestimated your levels, this would potentially be good for me as I would be able to make it look like I had enabled you to make significant progress without doing very much.

 

Then you have SATs, which I am strongly in favour of. Regardless of where you school had you ability wise, these would demonstrate pretty clearly where you were which would be fed to your secondary school. 

 

As for your last point. As somebody who works in a comprehensive school, it is the lower ability children that get a disproportionate amount of a school's resources. All too often, it is the higher ability children that are left to their own devices usually because the lower ability cannot work independently or have not understood it as well.

[Maximus Decimus]

Not completely a myth!

 

My parents were working class to the core.

 

I went to a Roman Catholic primary school and I was the only boy who passed the 11-plus. That was mainly down to the fact that many of the other kids were the children of Irish immigrants who didn't place a high value on learning and who wanted their kids to get out to work as soon as they could. I'm sure that more of them could have been bright enough to pass the exam if they and their families had taken education more seriously.

 

I felt resentful at the time to be going to a different school to the one my schoolmates were going to. But the one good thing about my primary school was that it did school us well in such basic things at tables and spelling. I would guarantee that some of the kids who didn't pass the 11-plus at my school would be able spell and use numbers better than many kids at university these days. And some of my old schoolmates have done very well for themselves since then.

 

On the other hand, my wife spent some time teaching at a comprehensive school in the midst of a giant council estate in Manchester some years ago. One young kid was by far the brightest pupil in her class, but none of the other kids stretched him. His boredom made him behave badly and ultimately he turned to drugs. I'm not sure what eventually became of him.

 

But he was a great example of someone who needed to go to a selective school to be challenge by others of a similar ability.

 

In the meantime, we have a comprehensive system in the Wakefield district, but it is comprehensive in name only.

 

Everyone knows which schools you need to get your kids into if they are going to have a 'grammar school education', and I know countless people who buy houses in those school catchment areas specifically for that purpose.

 

The truth is that there isn't a perfect education system that will suit all children of widely differing abilities and it might be sensible if the education debate began with our politicians admitting that fact.

 

As a teacher in a comprehensive school, in my opinion the higher ability children are clearly held back, and sometimes quite significantly, by less academic children. 

[Maximus Decimus]

It fails across the board.
I largely agree with your post. I am not confident we will get anything other than spin to advise us what we do with those who want a grammar school education but fail to get it and how you address "the rest"!
Education is shot in this country.

 

Education isn't shot in this country. I honestly think most would get a real shock to the system if they went into a school and saw what goes on.

 

The problem is that we expect schools and schools alone to educate our children to the point where they can compete with children from other countries. They of course play a large part but there are other factors at play.

 

For me, a huge part of the problem is a cultural one. Every school gets a breakdown of their assessment results and where this places them nationally and locally. For instance the SATs results will be compared to the national average for schools with the same proportion of children on free school meals or the same proportion of EAL children. They are broken down into gender and ethnic group as well.

 

What I find interesting is that there are marked differences in some cultures that are using the same education system as our own. Chinese and Indian British do significantly better by the end of KS2 than White British, and Irish British do comfortably better. Without playing into stereotypes, you'd have to question why and IMO it is cultural. Intelligence and academic achievement isn't celebrated in our culture. Often quite the opposite and we see people proudly displaying their ignorance and lack of knowledge. 

[Trojan]

Not completely a myth!

 

My parents were working class to the core.

 

I went to a Roman Catholic primary school and I was the only boy who passed the 11-plus. That was mainly down to the fact that many of the other kids were the children of Irish immigrants who didn't place a high value on learning and who wanted their kids to get out to work as soon as they could. I'm sure that more of them could have been bright enough to pass the exam if they and their families had taken education more seriously.

 

I felt resentful at the time to be going to a different school to the one my schoolmates were going to. But the one good thing about my primary school was that it did school us well in such basic things at tables and spelling. I would guarantee that some of the kids who didn't pass the 11-plus at my school would be able spell and use numbers better than many kids at university these days. And some of my old schoolmates have done very well for themselves since then.

 

On the other hand, my wife spent some time teaching at a comprehensive school in the midst of a giant council estate in Manchester some years ago. One young kid was by far the brightest pupil in her class, but none of the other kids stretched him. His boredom made him behave badly and ultimately he turned to drugs. I'm not sure what eventually became of him.

 

But he was a great example of someone who needed to go to a selective school to be challenge by others of a similar ability.

 

In the meantime, we have a comprehensive system in the Wakefield district, but it is comprehensive in name only.

 

Everyone knows which schools you need to get your kids into if they are going to have a 'grammar school education', and I know countless people who buy houses in those school catchment areas specifically for that purpose.

 

The truth is that there isn't a perfect education system that will suit all children of widely differing abilities and it might be sensible if the education debate began with our politicians admitting that fact.

There are always going to be exceptions Martyn. Most of the lads I went to school with who passed the 11+ were the sons of managers, small business men, draughtsmen, people like that.  My parents on the other hand didn't live hand to mouth, my mother scrubbed floors to make sure of that, but there was no money for private tuition.  I failed the 11+ but as a "borderline case" I had another go a year later with several other lads, there was only one place up for grabs and I just missed out by 2%. 

No one who has experienced the feeling of failure like I did could possibly want a return to those bad old days. 

My kids both went to the local comp. and were the first in my family to go to university.  They both have good jobs. Hopefully neither of them will have to spend their working lives skivvying for other people.  Because IMO that's what the Tories want this for. To provide a new servant class who'll touch their forelocks and show proper respect for their betters!

[Robin Evans]

I went to wath and the last year to pass the 11+.

My mate Liz's parents were devasted that me and my pal got the only 2 places.

She went to wombwell high. She's now works for the city of new york in pharmacy doing very well.

The concept of "failing" 11 year olds and consigning them to life where folks like liz are more exception to the rule is abhorrent to me.

[JohnM]

 

 

Education isn't shot in this country. I honestly think most would get a real shock to the system if they went into a school and saw what goes on.

 

The problem is that we expect schools and schools alone to educate our children to the point where they can compete with children from other countries. They of course play a large part but there are other factors at play.

 

For me, a huge part of the problem is a cultural one. Every school gets a breakdown of their assessment results and where this places them nationally and locally. For instance the SATs results will be compared to the national average for schools with the same proportion of children on free school meals or the same proportion of EAL children. They are broken down into gender and ethnic group as well.

 

What I find interesting is that there are marked differences in some cultures that are using the same education system as our own. Chinese and Indian British do significantly better by the end of KS2 than White British, and Irish British do comfortably better. Without playing into stereotypes, you'd have to question why and IMO it is cultural. Intelligence and academic achievement isn't celebrated in our culture. Often quite the opposite and we see people proudly displaying their ignorance and lack of knowledge. 

 

 

 

Education isn't shot in this country. I honestly think most would get a real shock to the system if they went into a school and saw what goes on.

 

Agree entirely. The schools system has seen huge advances in recent years.   This is , in my view, down in part to teh reforms of Tony Blair and in part also to the evolution of comprehensive schools once the worst element of left-wing NUTtery had worked its way through. 

 

Of course, we all know he's not serious when he writes"  To provide a new servant class who'll touch their forelocks and show proper respect for their betters!"

 

In addition, I think that Trojan is generalising  from the particular. If I may do the same: my parents were quite badly off, too much week left at the end of the money, no private tutoring for me and my sister who both passed our 11+ . At junior school we did history, geography, maths, English etc as well as sample 11+ papers. Two of my friends went to a secondary modern, one became an MP, the other an Oxford Professor.

[JohnM]

I went to wath and the last year to pass the 11+.

My mate Liz's parents were devasted that me and my pal got the only 2 places.

She went to wombwell high. She's now works for the city of new york in pharmacy doing very well.

The concept of "failing" 11 year olds and consigning them to life where folks like liz are more exception to the rule is abhorrent to me.

 

The concept of "failing" 11 year olds and consigning them to life where folks like liz are more exception to the rule is abhorrent to me. 

 

And to all of us, I assume.

 

However, its not really like that any more.  Sure , there are examples, but these days with the range of educational opportunities, there is no excuse for it either.

[gingerjon]

 these days with the range of educational opportunities

 

 

What range?

[Robin Evans]

The concept of "failing" 11 year olds and consigning them to life where folks like liz are more exception to the rule is abhorrent to me.

And to all of us, I assume.

However, its not really like that any more. Sure , there are examples, but these days with the range of educational opportunities, there is no excuse for it either.

no there isn't.

It just one aspect of new education proposals that concerns me and for which i like to see an element of safeguarding that in those propsals. Sadly, i feel i will be disappointed.

[Saintslass]

My parents, long since retired, both attended grammar schools in the 1950s.  They were both very poor indeed, particularly my Mum who was also a young carer in the days when most healthcare still had a price attached.  Going to grammar school enabled both my parents to become socially and economically mobile, and both loved their time at their respective grammar schools.  They both had rewarding teaching careers.  Both my paternal uncles failed their 11+ and went to secondary modern.  Both of them had excellent careers as journalists. 

 

Me, I went to Rainford High, at the time a 2000 strong comp in St Helens.  They had a full streaming system in place, from A1 to A10 with A1 comprising the brightest children.  O levels were still in place when I was at high school, although their time was coming to an end.  I was placed in the A4 stream which meant that I wasn't automatically entered for O levels but rather I had to sit the old CSEs AND O levels and as a consequence my education was a right mess.  I was stuck in A4 because there weren't enough places in A3 which is where my primary school report placed me academically.  In other words, I was grammar school material but left to rot because that is what happened to children from A4 down the academic ladder.  In other words, my 'fabulous' comp, that amazing socialist educational dream, was simply a grammar and secondary modern system in a different guise and it failed most of the young people at Rainford High.

 

I was in my 30s when I finally realised my academic potential, getting A grades in two A levels studied at night class over a year and going on to achieve a high 2:1 at the University of Sheffield.  My social and economic mobility took 20 years to get going.

 

Education alone isn't the reason for success or failure in life but forcing children into a one size fits all system certainly increases the risk of failure.  What went wrong with the pre-comprehensive system was not that grammar schools existed but that technical schools didn't.  The growing diversity in education provision is a Very Good Thing in my view because it provides opportunities for children and young people with diverse needs, learning styles, talents and challenges.  I think reintroducing grammar schools into that mix along with technical provision which is already there to some degree would only enhance our education system and it would provide the brightest students with an environment in which they could be stretched and stimulated rather than held back and bored.  I'm all for that and I think it is sour grapes from those who are not.

[johnmatrix]

The dogma of the day is that you cannot expect children who are not middle class to do Well in standardised tests.I'd say this is wrong let the best learn with the best, what's wrong with failing at something so what if you fail the 11+ is that really so bad, we can't all be good at everything

[Bedford Roughyed]

What would they learn in technical colleges these days?

[Robin Evans]

As do i and you appear to prioritise this.... i may be wrong.

I want a system that supports all children not just the bright and fortunate.

A system where what happened to you doesn't happen again. Sadly, i see no safeguards against that.

I went to sheff uni later in life too. Grammar school did me ok. But i did better way after when politics, change and a good deal of being shafted by thatcher forced me to retrain. I enjoyed it

[Bob8]

I can certainly understand how grammar schools and secondary moderns should be a better system.  It makes sense.  However, there is no evidence it actually increase social mobility other than that it should.

 

On the other hand the Finnish system does seem to work very well.  However, it also has a huge amount of funding and I doubt there will ever be the political will to improve the state school system as long as it is something people in charge consider it to be for poor people.

[Maximus Decimus]

I can certainly understand how grammar schools and secondary moderns should be a better system.  It makes sense.  However, there is no evidence it actually increase social mobility other than that it should.

 

On the other hand the Finnish system does seem to work very well.  However, it also has a huge amount of funding and I doubt there will ever be the political will to improve the state school system as long as it is something people in charge consider it to be for poor people.

 

The Finnish system works well... in Finland. We can learn from other systems but cannot necessarily transport them. There is the very obvious problem of private education in this country which makes up 7% of the sector. I would be all for scrapping this but I can't see it happening any time too.

 

It is currently fashionable to look to Shanghai and see what they are doing so much better than us but they have a far stricter and more formal system than us and as I pointed out, Chinese British do comfortably better than White British under our system.

[Bob8]

The Finnish system works well... in Finland. We can learn from other systems but cannot necessarily transport them. There is the very obvious problem of private education in this country which makes up 7% of the sector. I would be all for scrapping this but I can't see it happening any time too.

 

It is currently fashionable to look to Shanghai and see what they are doing so much better than us but they have a far stricter and more formal system than us and as I pointed out, Chinese British do comfortably better than White British under our system.

Indeed.  I think looking at other countries is similar to working out what should work (e.g. grammar schools).  

 

Thanks for your input, it has made this a very interesting discussion.

[Martyn Sadler]

There are always going to be exceptions Martyn. Most of the lads I went to school with who passed the 11+ were the sons of managers, small business men, draughtsmen, people like that.  My parents on the other hand didn't live hand to mouth, my mother scrubbed floors to make sure of that, but there was no money for private tuition.  I failed the 11+ but as a "borderline case" I had another go a year later with several other lads, there was only one place up for grabs and I just missed out by 2%. 

No one who has experienced the feeling of failure like I did could possibly want a return to those bad old days. 

My kids both went to the local comp. and were the first in my family to go to university.  They both have good jobs. Hopefully neither of them will have to spend their working lives skivvying for other people.  Because IMO that's what the Tories want this for. To provide a new servant class who'll touch their forelocks and show proper respect for their betters!

 

The really important thing for working class kids from poor backgrounds is that their primary school inculcates a sense of discipline and teaches kids the key elements of education, in particular a mastery of basic English and mathematics, even if it's by rote learning.

 

I was lucky that my primary school did that.

 

But it's also important to learn how to cope with failure which, after all, is part of life. Too many people in education seem reluctant these days to criticise those kids whose work doesn't come up to scratch.

 

The problem with the grammar school system was that it didn't give kids a sufficient opportunity to put right their failure next time. Although, as some have pointed out on here, many systems also allowed kids to transfer at the age of 13, the real grounds for criticising grammar schools was their inflexibility.

[gingerjon]

The really important thing for working class kids from poor backgrounds is that their primary school inculcates a sense of discipline and teaches kids the key elements of education, in particular a mastery of basic English and mathematics, even if it's by rote learning.

 

I was lucky that my primary school did that.

 

But it's also important to learn how to cope with failure which, after all, is part of life. Too many people in education seem reluctant these days to criticise those kids whose work doesn't come up to scratch.

 

The problem with the grammar school system was that it didn't give kids a sufficient opportunity to put right their failure next time. Although, as some have pointed out on here, many systems also allowed kids to transfer at the age of 13, the real grounds for criticising grammar schools was their inflexibility.

 

The real grounds for criticising grammar schools was, and is, that they fail 80% of the population and don't do nearly as well as people think for the other 20%.

[John Drake]

I've removed some unneccesary personal sniping from this thread.

 

No more, please, or you'll be given detention and lines.

[longboard]

I've removed some unneccesary personal sniping from this thread.

 

No more, please, or you'll be given detention and lines.

 

Don't be namby pamby.

 

Get the cane out John.

[RidingPie]

Not quite grammar school level but an interesting thought, what do people think of this sort of thing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/04/school-guns-knives-fire-ofsted-danger

 

Personally I'd love it if my kids school did more stuff like that (although I accept there would be a huge administrative overhead to overcome health and safety concerns)