Grammar schools

[Journeyman]

As I said above Grammar school abolition and the end of National service were a big factor in the UK.

Grammar schools because no more could someone from a poor background get a top education and enter the "elite". That bacame limited to those who could afford to pay for private education or afford to live in the catchment areas of the minority of comprehensives that more resemble grammer schools than secondary moderns.

mods note split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/brexit-matters.211154/unread

Oh, you have got to be kidding me.

Grammar schools were never about giving poor backgrounds a good education. For many decades, they've been about keeping the oiks in their place, and diverting all the resources to look after the privileged, which is why grammars became so unpopular and have largely been abolished. Back in the days when grammars were widespread, the compulsory school leaving age was 15, and only one in four people left school with any qualifications at all. You can't seriously want to go back to that!

It's funny how no-one who wants to bring back grammars is particularly fond of bringing back secondary moderns, which were dumping grounds for kids deemed "thick", and if you were lucky, you might get to be a dustman or a hairdresser when you left. The move to comprehensive education was driven by a need to build a much more qualified workforce, as there was an explosion of employment in white collar jobs in the sixties and seventies.

I went to one of the last remaining state grammar schools between 1985 and 1992. I was one of the poorest kids there, and my dad had a brand new BMW! Grammar schools are packed full of kids from middle class backgrounds who have parents rich and devious enough to game the system, and pay for coaching to get their precious little Sebastians and Tarquins in. Even in my day, there were only one or two genuinely working-class kids in my year, and at least one of those was struggling at home, and the school gave him absolutely zero support. He was booted out at 16, without being allowed to sit a single GCSE, lest he drag down the school's league table position.

You'll excuse me if I don't want that back. My kids went to a comprehensive, and got a vastly superior education to the one I had. Children now are given a far, far better education overall than they ever got when we wrote 90% of them off based on the results of an extremely discredited selection system.

National service. Although the middle to upper classes tended to be officers they still spent two years working with, living with (occasionally dying with) and leading the concilliation grades. This bought understanding and some empathy and mutual respect of each others values.

It was actually the leaders of the armed forces that wanted National Service to be abolished, because they didn't want the hassle of having to deal with thousands upon thousands of people who absolutely didn't want to be there.

 

[SuperNova]

As I said above Grammar school abolition and the end of National service were a big factor in the UK.

Grammar schools because no more could someone from a poor background get a top education and enter the "elite". That bacame limited to those who could afford to pay for private education or afford to live in the catchment areas of the minority of comprehensives that more resemble grammer schools than secondary moderns.

National service. Although the middle to upper classes tended to be officers they still spent two years working with, living with (occasionally dying with) and leading the concilliation grades. This bought understanding and some empathy and mutual respect of each others values.

Now the chasm goes ever wider. A good example was the Farage v Clegg debate before the referendum. The good and great immediately proclaimed a comprehensive victory for Clegg and were shocked when opinion polls and interviews etc revealed the man on the street thought exactly the opposite.

Older examples are Dads Army and Red Dwarf, the pilots of which were panned by critics and invited audiences but exceeded all expectations when aired.

I'm sorry, but you don't half talk nonsense. National Service ended in 1960 - that wasn't remotely anything to do with Brexit unless you're over 75 and think that's the solution to anything. Grammar school entry ended in the 60's and 70's and again has zero impact on brexit. This just seems like what you want in the world and both of these things will never return.

 

[Journeyman]

I'm sorry, but you don't half talk nonsense. National Service ended in 1960 - that wasn't remotely anything to do with Brexit unless you're over 75 and think that's the solution to anything. Grammar school entry ended in the 60's and 70's and again has zero impact on brexit. This just seems like what you want in the world and both of these things will never return.

See my comments above. I went to one of the very few remaining grammar schools, and the place was an absolute joke, representing values and attitudes that I've come to find deeply, deeply offensive since.

 

[SuperNova]

See my comments above. I went to one of the very few remaining grammar schools, and the place was an absolute joke, representing values and attitudes that I've come to find deeply, deeply offensive since.

I was writing when you posted, yours is a much better breakdown of why grammar schools are awful. They also effectively abandon kids who are late developers when it comes to academia.

 

[21C101]

I'm sorry, but you don't half talk nonsense. National Service ended in 1960 - that wasn't remotely anything to do with Brexit unless you're over 75 and think that's the solution to anything. Grammar school entry ended in the 60's and 70's and again has zero impact on brexit. This just seems like what you want in the world and both of these things will never return.

Cultural changes like that take decades to happen.

 

[Journeyman]

I was writing when you posted, yours is a much better breakdown of why grammar schools are awful. They also effectively abandon kids who are late developers when it comes to academia.

I write from bitter personal experience. The seven years I spent in grammar school were horrific. I basically had to try and keep my head down and do my best to avoid the thuggery of my fellow pupils and the teachers. It's actually responsible for trauma in my life that I've only recently recognised.

There's ample research to prove that only a tiny minority of pupils benefit from grammar schools among those who actually go to them. Most grammar pupils are subjected to greater stress and achieve less than they would at a comprehensive, and there's no evidence at all to suggest that gifted children are disadvantaged by comprehensive education.

Why would the countries of the EU deliberately put themselves at a disadvantage by giving the UK preferential treatment?

Equally, why are we putting ourselves at a disadvantage? It's absolute insanity.

 

[21C101]

And the EU has explained at length and ad nauseam why that is not possible.

Having originally offered it to May in 2018 and advised her to persue instead of her chequers plan.

Michel Barnier ‘proposes Canada-style Brexit deal over May's Chequers plan’ in meeting with MPs

Michel Barnier has dealt a further blow to Theresa May’s beleaguered Brexit plan by reportedly telling MPs she should ditch the Chequers deal...

www.politicshome.com

I write from bitter personal experience. The seven years I spent in grammar school were horrific. I basically had to try and keep my head down and do my best to avoid the thuggery of my fellow pupils and the teachers. It's actually responsible for trauma in my life that I've only recently recognised.

There's ample research to prove that only a tiny minority of pupils benefit from grammar schools among those who actually go to them. Most grammar pupils are subjected to greater stress and achieve less than they would at a comprehensive, and there's no evidence at all to suggest that gifted children are disadvantaged by comprehensive education.



Equally, why are we putting ourselves at a disadvantage? It's absolute insanity.

Where did I advocate the return of Grammar schools (or National Service)? I just pointed out an (arguably accidental) social effect.

In any case academic selection has made a return big time, this time at 16 though. Sixth form colleges require in some cases ludicrous GCSE grades to get in, with those unable to get them (the majority) having to go to modern secondary moderns called further education colleges and do hairdressing and the like.

I also don't regard a hairdresser or dustman as having failed in life. That is precisely the sort of view that has led to the Brexit referendum result and the Tories winning places like Blyth.

 

[Journeyman]

Where did I advocate the return of Grammar schools (or National Service). I just pointed out an (arguably accidental) social effect.

You implied that life was fine and dandy before these things were abolished. The social effect of grammars was to preserve privilege, and it wasn't accidental, it was deliberate.

In any case academic selection has made a return big time, this time at 16 though. Sixth form colleges require in some cases ludicrous GCSE grades to get in, with those unable to get them (the majority) having to go to modern secondary moderns called further education colleges and do hairdressing and the like.

I don't think you understand how schools work, or what that has to do with what you were saying before.

I also don't regard a hairdresser or dustman as having failed in life. That is precisely the sort of view that has led to the Brexit referendum result and the Tories winning places like Blyth.

I don't consider it as a failure either. I perhaps didn't word my post properly. I was saying that in the past, if you went to a secondary modern, you got the worst facilities, the worst teachers and the worst opportunities to better yourself, and that's all that would have been expected of you.

 

[birchesgreen]

I hold no candle for grammar schools myself (failed the entry exam :P) but my uncle did get a scholarship to one. Looking at him now: posh accent, freemason, long business career, son ex-army officer now MOD, you'd think he'd come from riches not the pre-war Aston slums. So they could work. I accept it may have been a minority.

 

[najaB]

So they could work. I accept it may have been a minority.

Yes, in some cases they achieved the claimed goals. That's not to say that the same goals couldn't be achieved by other, more equitable, means.

 

[Journeyman]

I hold no candle for grammar schools myself (failed the entry exam :P) but my uncle did get a scholarship to one. Looking at him now: posh accent, freemason, long business career, son ex-army officer now MOD, you'd think he'd come from riches not the pre-war Aston slums. So they could work. I accept it may have been a minority.

Yes, in some cases they achieved the claimed goals. That's not to say that the same goals couldn't be achieved by other, more equitable, means.

Exactly. Since the advent of widespread comprehensive education, it's become far easier for people from humble backgrounds to achieve that level of success.

However, I've highlighted a word above that might account for a lot more than the school he went to.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh, you have got to be kidding me.

Grammar schools were never about giving poor backgrounds a good education. For many decades, they've been about keeping the oiks in their place, and diverting all the resources to look after the privileged, which is why grammars became so unpopular and have largely been abolished. Back in the days when grammars were widespread, the compulsory school leaving age was 15, and only one in four people left school with any qualifications at all. You can't seriously want to go back to that!

It's funny how no-one who wants to bring back grammars is particularly fond of bringing back secondary moderns, which were dumping grounds for kids deemed "thick", and if you were lucky, you might get to be a dustman or a hairdresser when you left. The move to comprehensive education was driven by a need to build a much more qualified workforce, as there was an explosion of employment in white collar jobs in the sixties and seventies.

I went to one of the last remaining state grammar schools between 1985 and 1992. I was one of the poorest kids there, and my dad had a brand new BMW! Grammar schools are packed full of kids from middle class backgrounds who have parents rich and devious enough to game the system, and pay for coaching to get their precious little Sebastians and Tarquins in. Even in my day, there were only one or two genuinely working-class kids in my year, and at least one of those was struggling at home, and the school gave him absolutely zero support. He was booted out at 16, without being allowed to sit a single GCSE, lest he drag down the school's league table position.

You'll excuse me if I don't want that back. My kids went to a comprehensive, and got a vastly superior education to the one I had. Children now are given a far, far better education overall than they ever got when we wrote 90% of them off based on the results of an extremely discredited selection system.



It was actually the leaders of the armed forces that wanted National Service to be abolished, because they didn't want the hassle of having to deal with thousands upon thousands of people who absolutely didn't want to be there.

I must admit, I went to one of the last remaining grammar schools (a few years later than yourself) and I found the experience the opposite to yours.

Whilst it was old fashioned in some ways, it wasn't remotely brutal, and I'm pretty sure my own background (my parents would best be described as skilled working class) was fairly average in terms of the intake.

I think some of it depends on where the said school was located. My home town was a fairly sleepy corner of Kent, and not what you would call the stockbroker belt. It did leave me with a handful of GCSE's (including maths, which I'm generally iffy at) and three A-levels.

Having originally offered it to May in 2018 and advised her to persue instead of her chequers plan.

Michel Barnier ‘proposes Canada-style Brexit deal over May's Chequers plan’ in meeting with MPs

Michel Barnier has dealt a further blow to Theresa May’s beleaguered Brexit plan by reportedly telling MPs she should ditch the Chequers deal...

www.politicshome.com

Yes, I'd thought that was the case. Thanks for confirming.

A case of moving goalposts I think.

 

[Journeyman]

I must admit, I went to one of the last remaining grammar schools (a few years later than yourself) and I found the experience the opposite to yours.

Whilst it was old fashioned in some ways, it wasn't remotely brutal, and I'm pretty sure my own background (my parents would best be described as skilled working class) was fairly average in terms of the intake.

I think some of it depends on where the said school was located. My home town was a fairly sleepy corner of Kent, and not what you would call the stockbroker belt. It did leave me with a handful of GCSE's (including maths, which I'm generally iffy at) and three A-levels.

I'm sure my school has changed in the thirty years since I left, but I had a horrible time there, and it's left me questioning the value systems that lead people to support grammars, the consequences of their continued existence, and whether they effectively do what they're supposed to. I've concluded they do more harm than good.

I have no problem with people wanting their kids to get a good education, but state grammar schools starve those deemed less able of resources and opportunities, and I think it's fundamentally wrong that taxpayers' money is used to prop up something that isn't fair, or even particularly effective.

I acknowledge that my opinion is tainted by the miserable time I had at school. If I'd enjoyed it, I might well be an ardent supporter of grammars, but as it stands right now, I'm vehemently opposed to them and would happily fight tooth and nail to see every last one closed.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sure my school has changed in the thirty years since I left, but I had a horrible time there, and it's left me questioning the value systems that lead people to support grammars, the consequences of their continued existence, and whether they effectively do what they're supposed to. I've concluded they do more harm than good.

I have no problem with people wanting their kids to get a good education, but state grammar schools starve those deemed less able of resources and opportunities, and I think it's fundamentally wrong that taxpayers' money is used to prop up something that isn't fair, or even particularly effective.

It seems to me that private schooling is the much bigger obstacle to equality of opportunity these days, but I don't have a strong view on the continued existance of the remaining grammars either way.

From a personal perspective, I do find that the more I look back on that time, the more idyllic it seems.

 

[Journeyman]

It seems to me that private schooling is the much bigger obstacle to equality of opportunity these days, but I don't have a strong view on the continued existance of the remaining grammars either way.

From a personal perspective, I do find that the more I look back on that time, the more idyllic it seems.

I have much less of an issue with private schools, actually. There's something more honest about them, certainly. If parents want their kids to have an elite education, fine, let them pay for it. It shouldn't be subsidised by my taxes to the detriment of the 90% or so who don't pass the 11+. Looking at my former school, it has facilities other schools would kill for, partly because it gets all the best resources thrown at it by the local authority, and partly because the parents of kids there are rich, and make generous donations. That's grossly unfair.

 

[yorksrob]

I have much less of an issue with private schools, actually. There's something more honest about them, certainly. If parents want their kids to have an elite education, fine, let them pay for it. It shouldn't be subsidised by my taxes to the detriment of the 90% or so who don't pass the 11+. Looking at my former school, it has facilities other schools would kill for, partly because it gets all the best resources thrown at it by the local authority, and partly because the parents of kids there are rich, and make generous donations. That's grossly unfair.

Enabling the wealthy to pay to parachute their offspring into the upper echelons of society may be honest, but I see little merit in it I'm afraid.

 

[najaB]

Enabling the wealthy to pay to parachute their offspring into the upper echelons of society may be honest, but I see little merit in it I'm afraid.

That's a consequence of the class system, not private schooling. We still put a lot of emphasis on what school someone attended rather than what they achieved while there.

 

[birchesgreen]

However, I've highlighted a word above that might account for a lot more than the school he went to.

One came before the other so no it doesn't really account for it. It may have helped later of course.

 

[Journeyman]

Enabling the wealthy to pay to parachute their offspring into the upper echelons of society may be honest, but I see little merit in it I'm afraid.

Well, I know, but unless you make private schools illegal, there's not much you can do about it. The state should provide the best quality education possible, but segregating kids at 11 and providing a superior education to a small number based on passing an exam, is not a fair or equitable thing to do with taxpayers' money.

What rich people do with their own money is not something we can do much about, but any government that proposes re-introducing grammars will never get a vote from me.

That's a consequence of the class system, not private schooling. We still put a lot of emphasis on what school someone attended rather than what they achieved while there.

Exactly. My former school is very well known in the area, and people who went there get extremely unfair preferential treatment in certain circles, whether they deserve it or not. I've made a point of generally keeping quiet about which school it is, and letting my achievements speak for themselves. I'm glad I now live 400 miles from where I went to school, because no-one around here has heard of the place, and it's not an issue.

 

[Iskra]

Enabling the wealthy to pay to parachute their offspring into the upper echelons of society may be honest, but I see little merit in it I'm afraid.

It can fill a gap. Where I grew up, there was an incredibly selective Grammar School. Great if you got in. If you didn't the rest of the local schools were unbelievably bad; one I remember had a 29% GCSE pass rate at the time. In this area a number of modest private schools flourished to take those who didn't get into the Grammar school. They weren't massively prestigious, elite or expensive as I don't think any did boarding, but they probably helped a lot of people do better than they would have if left to the severely under performing state schools. In an ideal world, they wouldn't have needed to exist but they did, and people clearly felt they were worth paying for and the clientele wasn't massively privileged.

 

[Journeyman]

It can fill a gap. Where I grew up, there was an incredibly selective Grammar School. Great if you got in. If you didn't the rest of the local schools were unbelievably bad; one I remember had a 29% GCSE pass rate at the time. In this area a number of modest private schools flourished to take those who didn't get into the Grammar school. They weren't massively prestigious, elite or expensive as I don't think any did boarding, but they probably helped a lot of people do better than they would have if left to the severely under performing state schools. In an ideal world, they wouldn't have needed to exist but they did, and people clearly felt they were worth paying for and the clientele wasn't massively privileged.

That's interesting, and precisely the point I'm making - lots of people want grammars back, and will kill to get their kids into them, but they come with Secondary Moderns, schools that no-one wants their kids to go to, and which end up with all the problems, and none of the resources to deal with them.

 

[yorksrob]

That's a consequence of the class system, not private schooling. We still put a lot of emphasis on what school someone attended rather than what they achieved while there.

To an extent maybe, but there's also an element of buying better facilities etc as well.

Well, I know, but unless you make private schools illegal, there's not much you can do about it. The state should provide the best quality education possible, but segregating kids at 11 and providing a superior education to a small number based on passing an exam, is not a fair or equitable thing to do with taxpayers' money.

What rich people do with their own money is not something we can do much about, but any government that proposes re-introducing grammars will never get a vote from me.



Exactly. My former school is very well known in the area, and people who went there get extremely unfair preferential treatment in certain circles, whether they deserve it or not. I've made a point of generally keeping quiet about which school it is, and letting my achievements speak for themselves. I'm glad I now live 400 miles from where I went to school, because no-one around here has heard of the place, and it's not an issue.

That's true, and I don't think we'll see a large scale re-introduction of grammers, but I don't feel particularly exercised about closing the ones that are left.

It can fill a gap. Where I grew up, there was an incredibly selective Grammar School. Great if you got in. If you didn't the rest of the local schools were unbelievably bad; one I remember had a 29% GCSE pass rate at the time. In this area a number of modest private schools flourished to take those who didn't get into the Grammar school. They weren't massively prestigious, elite or expensive as I don't think any did boarding, but they probably helped a lot of people do better than they would have if left to the severely under performing state schools. In an ideal world, they wouldn't have needed to exist but they did, and people clearly felt they were worth paying for and the clientele wasn't massively privileged.

I don't think the other local secondary schools in my area were/are particularly poorly thought of. I did the 13+ and the prior two years were, I suppose comprehensive education (although the school itself was the lower two years of what could be described as the local secondary modern). It definitely had less money and the building was fairly run down (it was closed and demolished after I left), but the teaching didn't strike me as being poor quality. Again, I also look back on this time as quite idyllic.

Actually, I understand that one of the other secondary schools in my home town is quite highly regarded nationally.

There are a couple of private schools in the area, but I don't think that there was a great deal of demand for lower cost private education. It might be down to local circumstances.

 

[Butts]

There are still Grammar Schools around the Birmingham area on which entry is based upon taking a test not financial resources.

My daughter went to one and my son went to a Comprehensive.

The quality of education and disciplinary standards in the former were incalculably greater.

Also someone alluded to them abandoning struggling pupils which was not what my daughter experienced. She was able to abandon her studies for a year mid-way through A-levels and go back the following year.

Their faith paid off as she got 3A* and an A and went onto St Andrews University, where she still is doing a PHD

 

[PeterC]

I was writing when you posted, yours is a much better breakdown of why grammar schools are awful. They also effectively abandon kids who are late developers when it comes to academia.

As most of us only went to one secondary school it is unwise to generalise from our own experiences. Having said that the ethos at my grammar school in the 1960s was to dismiss as "thick" those who weren't university material. Teaching was totally focussed on maximising A level results. "Privilage", however certainly wasn't an issue.

 

[52290]

I went to a secondary modern school and I'm not thick. When I started there no pupil was allowed to take GCE's. While I was at school they changed this rule and I got 5 O levels. The grammar schools didn't like this and started putting it around that our exams were easier than the ones they took. Soon the secondary moderns were achieving remarkable results in O levels but you still had to transfer to a grammar school for A levels. We were also prevented from playing sports with the grammar schools, they played Rugby and we played football, a game that was much more popular with the population at large.

 

[Journeyman]

I went to a secondary modern school and I'm not thick. When I started there no pupil was allowed to take GCE's. While I was at school they changed this rule and I got 5 O levels. The grammar schools didn't like this and started putting it around that our exams were easier than the ones they took. Soon the secondary moderns were achieving remarkable results in O levels but you still had to transfer to a grammar school for A levels. We were also prevented from playing sports with the grammar schools, they played Rugby and we played football, a game that was much more popular with the population at large.

I hope I never implied that Sec Mod pupils were "thick". The issue is that plenty of gifted people won't pass the 11+, and it's extremely unfair to write them off and limit their opportunities. This is the problem I have with selective education. A lot of people have done well despite going to a Sec Mod, rather than because of going to one, and I think a lot of them were deprived of resources, and didn't/couldn't do enough for the bright kids that ended up at them.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[RT4038]

That's interesting, and precisely the point I'm making - lots of people want grammars back, and will kill to get their kids into them, but they come with Secondary Moderns, schools that no-one wants their kids to go to, and which end up with all the problems, and none of the resources to deal with them.

So lots of people wanting grammars back, and will kill to get their kids in them, and a number of modest private schools flourished to take those who didn't get into the Grammar school. Clearly a major demand for a certain type of school.

I am reminded of a quote [tongue in cheek] from (Lord) John Bird of 'The Big Issue' which went something like 'If you want equality of opportunity in childrens' educational outcomes you must stop parents helping their children'. You can't (and shouldn't) stop parents doing the best for their children - it is more an indictment on those who couldn't care less.

 

[jfollows]

I went to Manchester Grammar School, funded by Cheshire County Council on a free place, and it worked for me, I didn't enjoy all my time there but I ended up academically near the top of the school and went on to Oxford University and Imperial College, London.

My brother went to the comprehensive school in Poynton, left school at 16, went into the navy, fire brigade and police force.

Both our lives worked out well. My brother would not have benefitted one jot from my school, and mainly nor I from his.

My schooling missed out on practical education - woodwork, cooking, how to manage money. I had to learn this stuff by myself afterwards. But I think that's true for many people, not just those who went to grammar schools.

I expect I'd have managed OK without a place at a grammar school. I'd have done better in some ways, and worse in others.

My academic ability ran out of steam at university, but I grew up and had the self-confidence then to get on with a job and my life. I suspect a lot of that came from Oxford, even though it's a wierd place in many ways, but at least I grew up enough there to trust myself and my feelings and opinions. I don't think school helped much in this regard.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It depends where you were born / brought up and the era.

South West Wales is hardly achingly posh suburbia - and not so in 1969 when I started secondary education. We had then a three tier system of Grammar , Technical and Secondary Modern.

The whole system was changed (destroyed) by comprehensivation , with the added complication of seperate Welsh only comprehensive schools. Tidy.

The new system basically failed to work very well , as the old system had a "flexibility" - 11+ "failures" were able to get into the Grammar system (as my brother did who failed by a couple of marks - within 6 months) , people who did not like the Grammar system could opt for the technical school (which had very good standards) - and so on. As an example of how over large "comprehensive" schools failed - in m 1969 year group of about 200 entrants - a grand total of 10 made it to university and zero Oxbridge. (previous years in the old system would have been much, much higher)

So in terms of Grammar schools - 70 years of high standards were binned and about 25 years of technical. Over large "mixed ability" classes pulled down overall standards to the detriment of all. Teacher morale plummetted.

In later years , smaller , manageable comprehensives in decent buildings were out in , but a process that took about 20 years. Yes - Grammars were "old style" but they drove high standards and excellence. I survived well enough without them , but a lot of people missed out in the "mixed ability swamp" - as individual care and attention was often lost. Personal views of course.

 

[21C101]

The problem was that all too often a grammar and secondary modern were replaced by either comprehensives that were secondary moderns in all but name or comprehensives that were grammars in all but name.

Those who could afford to moved into the catchment areas of the latter with the result that selection by ability became selection by whose parents who could afford the expensive houses nearby.

A big factor in causing failed comprehensives was a concurrent fashion for abolishing streaming. Ie with streaming, if there were six classes in a year the classes were divided into an ability "league" with promotion/relegation possible between classes (obviating the one off guillotine of the 11 plus).

With streaming abolished, you ended up with six mixed ability classes with teaching aimed at the average pupil. Result. Bright kids bored, not being stretched and turning destructive. Least bright kids not understanding, so bored and turning destructive. Teacher ends up spending much of the lesson trying to keep order and stop mayhem and poor results for everyone.