Plans to bring back grammar schools

Although I personally go to a grammar school, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that they only aid a wealthy few and do little to improve social mobility.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/help-poorer-pupils-selection-social-mobility-education-brexit-grammar-schools
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/grammar-schools-dominated-by-the-wealthy-dfes-own-data-shows
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/what-is-an-ordinary-working-person-pms-grammar-schools-report-has-the-answer
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/justine-greening-denies-grammar-school-drive-ignores-poorest-pupils

The history of how I got into my local grammar at Sixth Form is somewhat convoluted. Like many, I had to take the controversial 11-plus. My memories of it were that it was a bewildering and absurd test biased towards people good at Maths. Presumably I did poorly in them, because I failed to get any of my options (including my local grammar) and was chucked into the worst school in my area for the first year of secondary school. After a year my parents succeeded in fishing me out of that cesspit (as you can imagine, full of chavs and militant Muslims with terrorist sympathies) and sending me to a local Jewish school which was one of the best in my area. I went there until Year 12, before successfully entering the local grammar I had first tried to get into in Year 7, thanks to working hard and getting excellent GCSEs.

It's a very good school and I'm glad to have been taken in, although I still believe that I would do well in any school regardless of its quality. A disproportionate amount of students are Asian (presumably well-off and middle-class, though I have no way of knowing for sure). I would think I'm one of the less wealthy students though.

I cannot object however to any of the findings concerning grammar schools, and am not sure that spending £500 million building new ones is a sensible policy.

(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

stoyfan

Original post by Bretwalda Oswald

Although I personally go to a grammar school, I think the evidence clearly demonstrates that they only aid a wealthy few and do little to improve social mobility.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/help-poorer-pupils-selection-social-mobility-education-brexit-grammar-schools
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/grammar-schools-dominated-by-the-wealthy-dfes-own-data-shows
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/what-is-an-ordinary-working-person-pms-grammar-schools-report-has-the-answer
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/justine-greening-denies-grammar-school-drive-ignores-poorest-pupils

The history of how I got into my local grammar at Sixth Form is somewhat convoluted. Like many, I had to take the controversial 11-plus. My memories of it were that it was a bewildering and absurd test biased towards people good at Maths. Presumably I did poorly in them, because I failed to get any of my options (including my local grammar) and was chucked into the worst school in my area for the first year of secondary school. After a year my parents succeeded in fishing me out of that cesspit (as you can imagine, full of chavs and militant Muslims with terrorist sympathies) and sending Mr to a local Jewish school which was one of the best in my area. I went there until Year 12, before successfully entering the local grammar I had first tried to get into in Year 7, thanks to working hard and getting excellent GCSEs.

It's a very good school and I'm glad to have been taken in, although I still believe that I would do well in any school regardless of its quality. A disproportionate amount of students are Asian (presumably well-off and middle-class, though I have no way of knowing for sure). I would think I'm one of the less wealthy students though.

I cannot object however to any of the findings concerning grammar schools, and am not sure that spending £500 million building new ones is a sensible policy.

I don't particuarly like the fact that 11-12 year olds have to sit exams (11+ exams) that will determine the quality of their education for the next 4-5 years.

Reply 2

ScottishBrexitor

No grammar schools in Scotland, probably because the evil SNP doesn't like successful education systems.

Embrace your grammars England.

Reply 3

Trinculo

They only work if you bring them back wholesale - like thousands of them. A scattergun approach won't change anything. You also need a proper idea of what you're going to do with the comprehensive schools afterward.

Reply 4

Powersymphonia

If the government is going to bring back grammar and sec moderns, at least give students multiple opportunities to get into grammar school, not just one chance at age 11. They should also allow children who pass the 11 plus to go to a non grammar school if they want to.

Reply 5

_gcx

Study Forum Helper

Original post by stoyfan

I don't particuarly like the fact that 11-12 year olds have to sit exams (11+ exams) that will determine the quality of their education for the next 4-5 years.

Not all state schools are poor in quality, and not all private schools are superior in quality.

Reply 6

UltraVioletxo

I'm currently at a state and I'm going to a grammar for sixth form. Purely because I believe A levels are too important to leave to current state education system.Some state schools are outstanding,but the issue is there is just too much variety in the quality of education you may receive. I think before the government invests into these new shiny grammar schools, they ought to demonstrate some quality control and try to improve the education the vast student population will receive.

Reply 7

username1799249

Original post by Trinculo

Ummmm - they don't work. That is why we got rid of them. People with money just play the system and their kids end up with loads of coaching so that they get in. The poor meanwhile just rot in whatever other schools are in the area.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 8

Trinculo

Original post by ByEeek

That's what happens at the moment, because there aren't enough grammar schools, and its far too competitive to get in.

If there were many, many more, it wouldn't be necessary to be coached to get in. There would be no system to play.

Reply 9

username1799249

Original post by Trinculo

So what you are basically advocating, is a system whereby everyone gets to go to a grammar school? That is what we have now.

The whole point of selective education is that only some students get in. And they get everything + the crown jewels. Everyone else gets not very much.

It doesn't matter how many grammar schools you have. If only half of students go to grammar schools, you can guarantee that regardless of where those schools are, the majority will be from higher income families.

Reply 10

Cognition!

Original post by Powersymphonia

There are lots of chances to get into a grammar school after the 11+ by direct appeal to the school itself: I've seen dozens of pupils change from comprehensive to grammar and vice versa.

I attend a grammar school and many of my friends come from lower-income families as well as those of moderate-income. Also, from my experience, tutoring does little to skew 11+ results- many of the verbal and non-verbal reasoning question.s are not dissimilar to IQ tests, and cannot be easily 'taught'.

My school doesn't have much funding at all- lots of local non-grammars receive far more, in actuality. Regardless, it has some of the best exam results in the area. In an ideal world, wouldn't it be better to stream by ability (grammar system) so that funding can be more heavily focused on comprehensives, while grammars may not require the same level of resources?

Reply 11

AmeliaBaldwin

Original post by stoyfan

I don't particuarly like the fact that 11-12 year olds have to sit exams (11+ exams) that will determine the quality of their education for the next 4-5 years.

At my school, you can enter in year 8 and 9. We get a fair few dropouts in year 7 and 8 who either flourished too early or got hothoused until they passed the 11+ and then couldn't cope with the workload.
In an idealized world, I would hope that going to a grammar school or a comprehensive didn't necessarily correlate with the quality of education, but with the current stigmas that surround the system it's inevitable.
If we did implement grammar schools again I would hope that there would be some changes to the system, otherwise we're going to end up with the same issues.

Reply 12

morpheus12

Grammar schools are silly. We need to improve state schools then build specialist selective sixth form colleges which accepts A*/A students and send people off to Russell group unis

Reply 13

Mair18919

Original post by Powersymphonia

Of course they are not going to "bring back secondary moderns"! Non grammar schools will remain as now offering a broad curriculum including a highly academic one.

Reply 14

Little Popcorns

As has been relayed time and time again this is a disgusting waste of money

Reply 15

Mair18919

Original post by ByEeek

The whole point of selective education is that only some students get in. And they get everything + the crown jewels. Everyone else gets not very much.

It doesn't matter how many grammar schools you have. If only half of students go to grammar schools, you can guarantee that regardless of where those schools are, the majority will be from higher income families.

Not true. Grammar schools are not allocated any more generous funding than other secondary schools.

The reason they tend to provide a better environment is that the pupils are brighter and harder working. There is less time wasted.

Reply 16

Mair18919

Original post by Little Popcorns

As has been relayed time and time again this is a disgusting waste of money

Can you explain why you believe that rather than simply dogmatizing?

Reply 17

Trapz99

I think it's a great idea to build more grammar schools. I go to one myself and have really enjoyed the experience. It's more challenging, academic and competitive.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 18

username1799249

Original post by Mair18919

Sorry, but b0llocks again. If you only have bright students, you tend not to need to cater for SEND or EAL students because they tend not to pass the 11+. As a result, you don't need to differentiate your lessons and can teach one lesson. Life in a grammar school is relatively simple.

But at the same time, those kids miss out on the diversity that one gets from a truly comprehensive education and lower ability kids do not have intellectual role models. You only have to see the comprehensive state schools marked as Outstanding with a Progress 8 score in excess of grammars to see that grammar schools are not the only footprint for excellence in education.

I have no bones about grammars as a concept, but I do have a problem with the fact that we are basically limiting the life chances of those who do not get into the local grammar at the age of 11. At the age of 11 we are basically saying, "You are not good enough." This is a horrendous situation, especially when the scores of tests students sit at the age of 11 varies so wildly to the scores they produce at 16, 18 and 21.

Should we really be judging people and deciding their life trajectory at the age of 11? I say - absolutely not. If you read the Teaching Standards, the Outstanding criteria always talk about "all" students and not "some". "some" is in the Requires Improvement category and that is exactly where grammar schools are headed.