Grammar Schools: should they be reinstated nationally?

[ToryCynic 10]

What do you think?

 

I know many people that benefited from a Grammar School-education, and l am glad that we still have them in my neighbouring LEAs: Bexley (the LEA I was educated in), Kent (the current L[E]A I live under) and Medway. In-fact, I am a big fan of the Triparite System overall.

 

Many people think that they are elitist - they are not - they were designed to excel students that passed the scholarship (11-Plus) to get in , regardless of social-class. Infact, a working-class relative of mine got in to Maidstone Grammar for Boys' in the 1950s.

Edited March 1, 2010 by ToryCynic

[matsalleh 10]

Governments have messed around with the educational system so much recently I am surprised any one gets any education at all.

I did that 1952,11 plus,grammar school.It just seemed fine at the time as I wasn't aware that what class you were made any difference,you passed or not.Those who didn't went to secondary schools with an option of transferring to grammar if they were late developers.

We also had schools which were more set up to teach a trade and proper 5yr apprenticeships.

We now have plenty of initiatives and that is about it.

[Wildcat 10]

I went to a Grammar school. I think the system is rubbish. At the age of 11 children aren't yet at the stage of development where sensible decisions can be made about their long term educational needs. It failed many people that didn't get many GCEs. In the system in my area I don't recall anyone shifting from Grammar to another school or into grammar school that had failed the 11 plus. If there is such an avenue it is not used sufficiently and would be much easier to do with streaming within a single school.

[Ms Macbeth 73]

I have mixed feelings about grammar schools.

 

I passed my 11 plus with flying colours in 1956, coming 4th in my state primary school. I was put into the academic 'b' class (range from a-h) at grammar school, but couldn't cut it with the kids who'd come from the fee paying feeder primary school. One year later, and having miserably failed maths and science, I was at a secondary modern, where for my sins - I was put into the domestic science stream - one step up from the remedial stream! My father went to see the grammar school head to see if they'd move me down a few classes and let me stay on, but they wouldn't.

 

I left at 15 with no option of taking 'O' levels, but took the school English and Arithmetic prizes, much to the discomfort of the head. However, I took very little confidence out of it, and settled for pretty basic jobs for years.

 

My brother-in-law followed a few years later, and went to a comprehensive school in the same town in Scotland. He was much less academic than me, but excelled at sport and got support and encouragement to get good enough grades to go to college. He started out as a PE teacher, and worked his way up to being one of the youngest rectors in Scotland.

 

Our own experiences colour our views, and although I accept that grammar schools turn out children with good exam results, I don't see them as the answer to today's problems in education. They start much sooner.

[Plain Talker 11]

I know quite a few people who deliberately failed their 11+ exam, when the exam was part of Sheffield's education system.

 

Many of them were very bright and very capable kids, who would have done excellently had they gone to grammar school. A lot of the ones who failed deliberately did so because they knew their parents were in lower-paid jobs, and could not afford to send them to the grammar schools, and perhaps support them through university.

 

I am torn, about it, as I don't think it's right that elitist schools should have all the money thrown at them, whilst the kids in the "sink" Schools get no investment (or very little).

 

However, in the same vein, I do think that the brighter kids should have the opportunities to advance according to their capabilities.

 

Sufficient monies should be available to all schools to help all kids achieve everything within their capability.

[biotechpete 10]

Something needs to be done with the education system to promote excellence for all rather than mediocrity for anyone other than those who can afford to pay. The only route into a good school now, is to buy a house as close as you can to it. It's one of the reasons why house prices have risen so much. Most parents will do whatever it takes to get their kids into the best schools, including coming close to bankruptcy.

 

The comprehensive system, like the Labour party which so readily extols its virtues, is letting down our country badly.

[cgksheff 44]

......... because they knew their parents were in lower-paid jobs, and could not afford to send them to the grammar schools, .....

 

What was there to afford? As far as I recall, the only additional costs involved a uniform and there was assistance for low income families that needed it.

 

The grammar schools provided an extremely valuable escape route from the poorer estates, for which I am grateful.

 

I would see problems in a "national reinstitution" as the bureaucrats would probably manage to screw it up, but allowing them to develop where people want them should be supported.

[KenH 10]

I went to grammar school, and I am NOT a fan of it. I did very well by that system, and it worked for many people, but it was seriously flawed. There was a 12 plus system as well, to catch a few more, but the non-grammar school alternatives were poor.

 

HOWEVER .....

 

We have actually managed to replace it with something far worse. When we had grammar schools it was possible for the child from the poorest family (which was me!) to go to the best school. Now a child will most probably get to go to the school nearest their home and their access to schools is defined almost entirely on the ability of their parents to buy a house in a particular catchment area.

 

We don't necessarily need grammar schools, but we do need a system where children can go to a school that meets their needs regardless of parental income. We have, for example, spent millions in Sheffield on various types of specialist schools. If a school pretends to be a specialist language school or a specialist music school, then they should give priority to children who excel in those areas. Having specialist schools and then simply getting the same set of children as you would otherwise have got, is just silly. It also works the other way, where a child might get sent to the local catchment school which might claim to be a specialist mathematics school and the child might be interested in humanities and might have no interest in maths.

[Greybeard 10]

The Tripartite System system was never properly implemented. In Sheffield I remember only one Secondary Technical School until Rowlinson was opened in 1953, - the middle tier was missing so most kids of my age who failed to get into grammar school were consigned to mediocre secondary schools.

 

Looking back at my time at grammar school I realise now that there were still social divisions at play in spite of the supposed meritocratic claims for the system. Very few if any of the working class kids were in the top stream, aka the 'A' form...I spent all my time in a 'B' form from the second year onwards but still managed to get five good 'O' level passes.

 

The main problem, in the fifties at least, was a lack of financial support to see bright working class kids through the sixth form and on to University.

 

A sibling who failed the 11+ 'moved up' to Rowlinson at the age of 12.

 

Another sibling who failed the 11+ languished in a secondary school until he was 15 then spent years in an apprenticeship and night school to gain his HND in metallurgy and went on to be a senior manager in a steel company.

[harvey19 541]

I came from a working clas background and went to a grammar school in the late 1950s to 1960s. I never found any elitism, everyone was equal.

Now in later life I realise my expectations did not match the opportunities a grammar school education could offer and that was the problem.

[Pighills 10]

Where I live we have 3 outstanding schools and one borderline school (was in special measures last year). The only school we were in catchment for was the school which was in special measures at that time.

 

My dd is very bright but we couldn't afford to move into the catchment area for the outstanding schools (only a couple of miles away but hundreds of thousands of pounds out of reach).

 

The only option open to us, to get a good education for our dd, was either private schooling (yeah right, if we could afford that, we could have afforded to move!!) or a grammar school in a neighbouring town.

 

We got lucky. My dd goes to the grammar school now and has access to a good education.

 

This is what the grammar system is all about!

[ToryCynic 10]

 

The grammar schools provided an extremely valuable escape route from the poorer estates, for which I am grateful..

 

I think this is one of the few things we agree on

 

-

 

Yeah, now in non-selective LEAs, you have to [pay and] move to get the best Comprehensives, which, by-and-large have the majority of students that are Grammar School-standard.

 

I have a friend in Nottinghamshire that went to The High Pavement School (now an independent school, and was when he attended, but was previously a Grammar), as the Comprehensives in Nottinghamshire are pretty dire.

 

Another friend of mine that, at the time, lived in Newark (Notts LEA), and attended a dreadful Comprehensive, and it was suggested he went over the border to the Grammar in Grantham. He did far better, and didn't have to mix with, as he referred to them 'cretins'. This is mainly because the intake of this particular school in Newark were pretty dodgy, but in areas, such, as, say Chichester (West Sussex LEA), the Comprehensives aren't too bad, as it is a wealthy area.