Forum | Grammar Schools by texasranger

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Grammar Schools 22:17 - Sep 8 with 20105 views

I can't help feeling that much of the currently fashionable condemnation of grammar schools is based on two false premises; that they are socially divisive, and that kids who failed the old 11-plus were branded as 'failures'. I'm an old geezer now who went to a boys only grammar school in the early 1950's but we had all sorts there, bright academics through to some right tearaways. I was just a boy from a working class family but I enjoyed and benefited from grammar school though not enough to go to university, doing two years National service instead, but my mates outside school were a mixture of Secondary Modern, Technical and Grammar school boys. We got along fine and theTech and S/Modern boys went on to become printers, plumbers, builders and engineers, all of whom I suspect made more money than I did. Surely any school regardless of type will grade kids by ability and attempting to force kids of different backgrounds to socialise will not work. Finally, condemning today's grammar schools on account of the number of kids getting free school meals seems totally irrelevant. I realise I may be the only surviving Rangers supporter who went to a grammar school so if I get any response I expect it to be unfavourable. No matter. Come on you RRRRRRRRRR's !

Grammar Schools on 16:34 - Sep 12 with 1274 views

Clive_Anderson

Grammar Schools on 15:28 - Sep 12 by Cliff

I was going to wait until I got to the end of this thread before contributing but I felt the need to step in here.

No you really don't get it do you?

I, like the person you responded to, went to a grammar school, and apart from a being a bit self conscious that I was one off the poorer (financially) pupils there I did enjoy my time. Again like the person you responded to, I'll agree It was almost certainly better than a comprehensive school. But that was because I was lucky enough to get in, there were plenty that didn't. The alternative is not to select, that doesn't leave all kids behind as you suggest, for instance my two sons have been to an academy in Putney and are currently studying Maths at Oxford and Computer Science with AI at Loughborough.

All the expert opinion is that the grammar system is flawed, every educationalist I have ever spoken has told me so. All the evidence suggests that the able kids will still get on in joint ability schools AND a good proportion of the other kids will be dragged along with them as there is no longer such a strong culture of failure and "stigma" associated with achievement.

Education should NOT be elitist, it should be geared to providing the best education suited to a child's needs. Grammar schools condemn too many to the junk heap too soon.

You're right I don't get exactly what you mean as it seems contradictory to me.

If not going to grammar schools is throwing kids on the scrapheap then how is having no grammar schools available helping matters exactly? Is it because it will remove the element of rejection in not getting into a grammar?

Maybe having gone to a decent school you might be a bit out of touch at just how shite some comprehensives actually are. I don't think the good kids did very well at our school where constant screaming and punch ups during lessons meant absolutely no chance of learning anything at all. Sure some did ok in the end, but that was from learning outside of school hours, I fail to see this as a success in the education system.

I also think you misunderstood my elitist remark.

Grammar Schools on 15:54 - Sep 14 with 1164 views

Cliff

Grammar Schools on 16:34 - Sep 12 by Clive_Anderson

You say "if not going to grammar schools is throwing kids on the scrapheap then how is having no grammar schools available helping matters exactly?" which implies that by not having grammar schools everyone is on the scrapheap. That's a pessimistic view, why not take the viewpoint that if we make all schools equal (and call them grammar's) everyone will benefit?

As I think I said in my first post, not having grammar schools doesn't only remove the element of rejection (although it does this as well) it also has been shown to improve grades of the lower performers without any significant detrimental effect on the higher performers.

You can fail your 11+ unless you are good on all things tested. I was fairly poor, and therefore in the lower streams for English and the humanities, but top stream for sciences and maths, which probably swung the 11+ for me, but how many are good enough but in only one area of study and then miss out completely due to a failed 11+?

Your point about some kids making it despite the system again takes the pessimistic view that those that would have gone to a grammar school, but are condemned to a secondary school education would suffer the same fate. What appears to happen in practice is that they don't suffer in this way, and that there is less stigma and bullying on the rest of the students that strive for higher grades.

I do agree that a lot of schools are shite, and I can honestly say in my own little way I am trying to do something about it - most years I take 2 GCSE and 2 A level students on for work experience and I visit schools to give talks and lectures. But the solution to shite schools is surely not to sort out a few of them, call them grammars, and say sod the rest, surely we should all be demanding that ALL schools are improved.

With regards to your elitist remark I'm sorry if I did misinterpret it.

Finally, it has been interesting to read about peoples various experience in school, but that alone does not mean that any of us know what is going on in general, and the fact remains that the vast majority of educationists agree that grammar schools do more harm than good.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread