Grammar Schools

MrOneLung

Should new Grammar Schools be allowed?

Are they elitist and for middle classes or are they a chance for the brightest kids to not be held back?

Does failing the entrance exam write off a child's chances in future?

In the words of the much missed Nolly- discuss.

Rothko

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

iainment

They don't answer the right questions.

rananegra

The question is never phrased the other way round - should new secondary moderns be allowed?
Because you don't get one without the other.

jams

I have mixed feelings on this, can see both sides of the argument.

I went to a grammar school and it helped me do well. Obviously I can't compare to what would have happened if I didn't but it definitely benefited me.

I do feel they are on less shaky ground than private schools though

sam3110

I went to St Olaves, only because I passed the entrance test and got an offer from them, and you had to list them as your first preference to go there.

At the time, my Mum worked in admin for a retirement home in Lewisham, and my Dad worked as head chef in an office kitchen up in the city, and we are nowhere near middle class.

In hindsight I should have gone to Chis&Sid, Coopers or Beth's, as I went from being the brightest kid in my school to just another smart kid in the crowd, which definitely stunted my own education, which was compounded by the fact that I am a lazy so and so who was much more focused on playing sport, video games and watching late night TV than doing homework and coursework.

I ended up leaving within the first term of sixth form and started working in retail for several years, punctured by 2 years at catering college, until 18 months ago when I started working for Barclays.

Do I feel grammar schools are good? Yes, if you are dedicated and want to push yourself from an early age, but if you're shallow like me and want to be the biggest fish in a small pond, then a comp would have been better, and I personally believe I would have ended up at Uni etc. With a degree to my name if I didn't go to St Olaves and screw up my own education

Goonerhater

went to a Comp in London--it was "streamed"---first 2 classes and after that the kids were just shepherded and left to fester. I was lucky i was in the top class.

100 % yes re Grams for me. The left only want THEIR kids to go to Grammar schools not the poor saps who vote for em.

RedChaser

I grew up on a council estate and went to Grammar school, father was a blue collar worker, haven't done too bad in life if I do say so myself, what's the problem?

dizzee

Bring them back just to pee off the lefties.

Fiiish

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

soapy_jones

Passed my 11 plus went to Grammar School and look(listen to) at me!

Everyone should have the same crap education in my opinion, it is an essential pillar of my socialist doctrine...

colthe3rd

I went to a grammar school and I'm definitely not from a middle class background so I'd dispute with anyone about them being elitist. I'll admit I am biased but I think they are good and definitely a benefit to a child's education and their future prospects. I have other friends from where I grew up who didn't attend grammar schools but who are doing very well for themselves now, so I also don't think not getting in to one is necessarily a hindrance either.

I know this is just based on my experience but to me they seem like a good thing.

bobmunro

In principle I'm against the savagery of such a monumental fork in the road being taken at such a young age (11+). In terms of ideology I'm probably against them as well for social mobility reasons - there is clearly a correlation between socio-economic grouping and success at 11+.

But I am also a hypocrite in that both my sons went to Maidstone Grammar and had an amazing education.

Rothko

Fiiish said:

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

All the numbers from Kent point to the richer you are, the more likely you are to get in, as your parents can pay for the private tuition to get you through the test, you might have the aspiration from lower income groups, but can't game the system, or afford the houses. Should the state fund an effective private education, for those who don't want to pay but could afford a private education?

The idea that poor people don't care about their kids education, is either funny or just odd, if they don't why are schools in some of the poorest areas in London improving at a rapid rate of knots?

Addickted

Fiiish said:

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

your seven years at Judd were wasted then.

LenGlover

What's good enough for Harriet Harman's child is good enough for the rest of us.

As a socialist she would surely agree.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/why-my-son-will-go-to-grammar-school-by-harriet-harman-1324835.html

Rothko

LenGlover said:

What's good enough for Harriet Harman's child is good enough for the rest of us.

As a socialist she would surely agree.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/why-my-son-will-go-to-grammar-school-by-harriet-harman-1324835.html

Because 20 years ago the comps in London were shit, then they invested in them and now there some of the best in the world.

killerandflash

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

killerandflash

I went to a grammar school. In Kent there wasn't a single 11+ exam, but instead there were annual Kent tests and assessment from teachers, so a fairer system

The difference between now and then - Dartford Grammar back in my time had pupils from poor homes as well as rich homes - is private tutoring. It's private tutoring which is enabling the richer parents to push their children into better schools and universities

Rothko

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

Scratchingvalleycat

If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.

Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith

lolwray

its almost plausible to say that a kids educational future is determined by their "socio-economic" grouping before they start school ,parents have more influence over a kids education than what you might think

however to answer the question yes but criteria for entering grammar schools nationwide should be consistent and there should be more of them (schools not criteria)

Rothko

Scratchingvalleycat said:

If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.

Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith

I would bet my mortgage, that within 5 years those grammars in poorer areas would become grammars is richer areas, as those who could afford it would come in buy the cheaper housing, and use those middle class sharp elbows to get the places.

suzisausage

I went to Bexley Tech / Townley which I was pleased about at the time as my mate was v brainy and I wanted to go where she went. I am dyslexic, I wasn't in the top classes, (not that I was in the bottom) but because I was never going to get A's, they didn't really help me. I was told not to take my Geography GCSE after my mocks as I got a D, and they weren't interested in helping me get a C. More interested in turning an A into an A*. The 99% 'exams sat' rate, was better than a 99% A-C passes in their league tables. Instead I had to sit in a spare classroom for those classes and was told to revise for my other subjects. No guidance, no planning, nothing.

I resat one of my GCSC's at college whilst studying for my A Levels and improved my grade from a D to a B. WIth a bit of 'teaching' help that could have happened the first time round?

I'd have been loads better off if I'd not passed my 11+ and gone to a non-selective school where I may have been in the top half of the school, probably got more help with the dyslexia and probably enjoyed the experience a lot more. I'm not saying they should be abolished, but their focus seemed to be wrong.

There was one teacher who changed the examination board/syllabus for my group in science from learning everything in one go, to learning and taking exams in modules at the end of every term for the 2 years. Got my best grade in that overall. All because she knew we would struggle with the other method of learning. She was a supply teacher too! (long term!)

rananegra

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

I think the point was made somewhere that the selective areas in London massively underperfom relative to the rest of London and it is the secondary moderns that drive that (although the grammars can coast as well - my sister worked at Townley a couple of years ago and said that). The grammar schools take hardly any poor kids in Bexley for example. There are what, 2 fully selective and 2 partially selective boroughs out of 32?

My son is in year 6 and I'm glad he's not got to do this.

Saga Lout

I am the product of the first wave of comprehensive schools. 3 years in what was a secondary modern and 2 (+ 6th form) in what was a grammar school. I benefited from this immensely, as when I got to what had recently been a grammar I decided (not consciously) that this was a place where I could learn a lot and I felt I'd rather do that than muck about. I have to say, a lot of my friends chose the "muck about" route and the ex-grammar teachers were not so well versed in crowd control as the ex-secondary modern ones we'd been dealing with. Interesting times.

Fast forward to now and I feel that all state schools should offer a high standard of education and there should be no selection at 11 (and no need for it if the schools are good enough).

Sorry have to cut this short to pick up my son from his polo lesson.


(Joke).

killerandflash

Rothko said:

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

Their well run schools. That's a separate question as to whether grammar schools are a good or bad thing

There's also the question as to whether Comprehensives should have streaming or not. Personally I think an element of streaming is necessary, after all if the school football teams are streamed by ability, why shouldn't Maths or French?

LuckyReds

Rothko said:

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

Without the facts and figures, surely it's difficult to assess the quality of anything simply by the rate at which it's improving?

It perhaps indicates a brighter future, but it doesn't compare very well to schools that have traditionally done well - as they have less room to improve after all.

killerandflash

rananegra said:

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

I think the point was made somewhere that the selective areas in London massively underperfom relative to the rest of London and it is the secondary moderns that drive that (although the grammars can coast as well - my sister worked at Townley a couple of years ago and said that). The grammar schools take hardly any poor kids in Bexley for example. There are what, 2 fully selective and 2 partially selective boroughs out of 32?

My son is in year 6 and I'm glad he's not got to do this.

Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Enfield, Kingston, Redbridge and Sutton all have grammar schools

Many other schools in London are effectively selective as they are in rich areas of London, hence no poor children are in their local areas, or being oversubscribed effectively are able to choose their pupils

Fiiish

Rothko said:

Fiiish said:

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

All the numbers from Kent point to the richer you are, the more likely you are to get in, as your parents can pay for the private tuition to get you through the test, you might have the aspiration from lower income groups, but can't game the system, or afford the houses. Should the state fund an effective private education, for those who don't want to pay but could afford a private education?

The idea that poor people don't care about their kids education, is either funny or just odd, if they don't why are schools in some of the poorest areas in London improving at a rapid rate of knots?

1) Yes, because wealth correlates to intelligence and intelligence is hereditary. The issue of private tuition is a fallacy too - should we scrap GCSEs because rich parents can get private tuition for them too?

2) No one ever said poor people don't care about their kids.

The problem is, as your post demonstrates, there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding selective education, both from those who want to abolish it and those who send their kids to them.

Salad

I am against grammar schools, but one of my children went to one and the other went in sixth form. You deal with the current situation but it is undeniable that most of the secondary moderns in Kent are dire.