Should we bring back grammar schools?
Former Labour minister Alan Milburn says children from poorer backgrounds still aren't able to get many of the UK's top jobs -- and that social mobility just isn't a reality. He's expected to say that even though the government's spending millions getting students from deprived families into university, it isn't working -- and a classless society is further away than ever.
So are grammar schools the answer? They gave children of all backgrounds the chance of a good education, and the opportunity to better themselves. Critics say they encourage division -- one texter this morning, David in Kent, called them "legalised discrimination".
So are they part of an outdated system? Or should we bring them back?
That's the phone-in with Nicky from 9am. Call 0500 909 693, text 85058, email breakfast@bbc.co.uk or you can leave your reaction on the blog right here.
Have a listen back to Nicky's interview with Alan Milburn below:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
Subscribe to 5 live Breakfast
You can stay up to date with 5 live Breakfast via these feeds.
5 live Breakfast Feed(ATOM)
If you aren't sure what RSS is you'll find our beginner's guide to RSS useful.
Podcast
5LNPI: Is it time for higher taxes for the rich? 09 Dec 09
10:16 Wed, 9 Dec 09
It's Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report today - the last before the general election. Sources say Mr Darling will speak of the case for fairer taxes. He's already announced increases in the top rate of tax and national insurance and it is possible there may be a further rise today. The government's expected to increase taxes on bankers today. But is it time to ask for more from all the wealthy?
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~26~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Now that is silly - the suggestion that JUST bringing back grammar schools would help enormously. Minds have to be changed too. And I love the word from the texter "legalised".
Just because a law can be found to allow it does not make it "legal" to even the may Secondary Modern educated mind.
Mister Milburn. Can I rudely suggest going back to the House Of Commons and look around you, Sir.
I was aghast by the place as seen on TV.
I suggest the mind changing starts from there. And let us not have another "select" (do you not just love that word?) committee set up to discuss it.
Subject: how to reduce your flu risk - fears over new swine flu phone line - fears over new swine flu phone line
Anagram: Paul neon werewolves free Finnish - Who truly - do Creek - furious - Paul - Finnish newsreel foe rewoven
Complain about this comment
One of my best mates is in his late 50s. He is a Grammar School boy who enjoyed a successful career in The City, both as a Banker and a Broker, without attending university. He is now enjoying a comfortable retirement in an Idyllic village in Devon. Life has been good for him, considering his humble beginnings on a Bermondsey council estate. I believe one of the previous bosses of British Airways had a similar journey.
When I used to work in The City I was surrounded by similar people. They had been given the chance to exploit their intelligence to the full by the existence of a universal Grammar School system. They benefited and so did the companies they worked for.
I believe the current education system fails such people. If you know that no matter how hard you work, you will end up at a Comprehensive, it takes a way some of the incentive to work hard and maximize your potential. Similarly, if you watch people misbehaving or being lazy and receiving no serious censure, these are more reasons/excuses not to achieve. Only by grouping the most intelligent together and giving them a stimulating education, will they reach their potential. This is good for them and the country as a whole. We will return to the time when it was easier to break the social barriers in the commercial world.
I also believe that the current system fails people who are more suited to a vocational education. Not everybody is academic and if they are not suited to this type of education, they will become bored and possibly disruptive. If, however, you are able to offer a type of education that engages them, ie a good mix of academic and vocational lessons, it is more likely that they will become much more engaged with School life and will end up being a much more productive and included member of society. It also means that this group of people may look more favourably on the education experience. This means they would have a much more positive influence on their own childrens educational. With more parental backing, over time more and more children will pass the 11+ and more and more people will achieve, which will lead to greater social mobility.
Complain about this comment
as long as there is social injustice in great britain and around the world then the kids at the bottom of the food chain will allways be held back no matter how bright they might be cos there is not a level playing field the only way kids from working class and deprived areas make it to the top is if they excell in music and sport sadly the majority of the kids are left behind due to the social injustice that exists that does not judge kids on merit and ability
Complain about this comment
The education system is a total mess these days. It lacks focus, discipline and common sense. The WHOLE system needs sorting out.
Complain about this comment
Liistening to the chap from CASE, to use a football analogy, it sounds like he wants everyone wants to be the star centre forward. In the real world, not everyone has that ability and indeed may be better suited to the holding midfield role. We should stop trying to put square pegs into round holes and accept that children have different attributes, which should be nurtured through the education system.
Complain about this comment
beachball64 no pal what the bloke was saying is haveing a level playing field which means you judge kids on there merits and ability regardless of where the kids come from lets take football as a example kids from all over the world can play the game on the back streets to rich suburbs and have the opportunity to reach the top unlike tennis its a middle class sport that only certain people can play and allow there kids to reach the top
Complain about this comment
From a modest home, I went to a girls' grammar school in the 1960s then on to university and a professional career. Many of my friends did likewise and they numbered among them the daughter of a docker, a couple of daughters of caretakers, a couple of daughters of widows living on benefits and they've all done exceptionally well in life, a couple reaching the very top of their professions. Children such as this simply don't have the same opportunities these days.
Complain about this comment
I would suggest to Jimmy-Dean that a level playing field means that those with the most and the least academic ability are failed equally by the current system. Both groups will become bored and disinterested in education and neither group will achieve as much as they might be able to if teaching is tailored to their strengths. We cannot hold everyone back because a few people might be late developers academically.
Complain about this comment
I come from a middle class background, though it would have been very difficult for my parents to pay fees. I attended my local grammar school: there I mixed with boys whose parents ranged from bank managers and doctors to railway porters. We sent a high proportion of our sixth form to Oxbridge and the Redbricks. The railway porter's son, for example, went to Oxford and became a lawyer. Two more of my classmates are now professors at overseas Universities and I could give many other examples.
The school which provided this wonderful education was closed, after 400 years, by Williams' and Crossman's 'reforms'. I will never forgive them, and subsequent politicians, for destroying the post WWII system that worked. The problem is that there were no votes in it, since the prevailing mind-set was that children who were not selected for grammar school had 'failed', though this was not the case since they were instead selected for technical or general education. The only failure was one of presentation.
Complain about this comment
The Grammar I went to was turned into a 'comp' and then closed down. It is now a school for children with 'special needs'.
Complain about this comment
Why should a separate grammar school provide better education than the top stream of a comprehensive school?
If we allow the reintroduction of "legalised discrimination" in education, resources will be poured into the new grammars at the expense of the education of the majority.
Those advocating a return to the grammar system are rarely those who experienced the paucity of resources in the old secondary modern schools.
All schools should be community schools.
Complain about this comment
I come from the colliery rows in a village slightly south of Durham. I remember in the 70's my Mum being so proud when i passed an exam and was selected to go to grammar school in Spennymoor. The first year was very good. We had blazers adorned with school and house badges and gold braid on the pockets.
After 12 months though, somebody decided to change it to a comprehensive school and suddenly we were mixed with girls and boys who wore wrangler and leather jackets, swore a lot, disrupted classes, throwing things around etc. The school went downhill and so did my education, I turned in on myself and didn't enjoy my time there at all. With no one to turn to for advice, i simply plodded on for the next four years, counting down the days to when I could leave. Bit of a shame really, should have been a much better experience.
Complain about this comment
I went to a Grammar School in the 1980's (thankfully it still exists). I was surrounded by people with parents from all walks of life. All the students had one thing in common, a desire to learn.
As a result the teachers achieved very good results, the parents fulfilled their end of the bargain by providing a decent environment outside of the the classroom and ensuring that homework was done and that pupils attended school.
Teachers found it a pleasure to teach there and the career paths that many of my friends have gone on to have included Banking, Medicine and Law (among many others).
I think the system has done wonders and shoule be re-introduced. This time though the investment in the other schools (Secondary Moderns & Technical Colleges) needs to be good enough to ensure that the learning experience for all is good enough.
People should accept that not everybody is academically gifted - let those who are learn Latin and advanced Calculus and go on to University. Let those who are not benefit from a more vocational learning but one that is as valuable and will still lead to them enjoying a fulfilling career.
Complain about this comment
I was listening to the show on the drive to work; unfortunately I've had to stop listening and do some work!
However, I would like to summarise my upbringing and give you a few points to ponder.
I was born in the mid 1960s and brought up in Dagenham, went to a local Infant and then Junior school where my memories are of dedicated teachers. I can also tell you that we did what we were told and if we hadn't, then our parents (even those of us who were 'the lowest of the low') would have dragged us back to school and made us apologise. Somewhat different from today.
As another caller said, my parents did not have any concept of homework. My Dad left school at 13 (although he had a Saturday job from age 5) and my Mum (who was brought up in Scunthorpe) passed her 11+, went to grammar school and then became an SEN (nurse). Both were born in the 1920s and are still alive and my Dad still does voluntary work at 85!
Both my parents worked incredibly hard, my brothers and I were what an earlier caller referred to as 'well brought up' but my Dad was self-employed and there was never any spare money.
My brothers (born mid 1950s) both went to Dagenham County High (not sure if that meant they did the 11+ or not) but then it became a comprehensive.
I went to another local comprehensive school, Robert Clack, 'ruled with a rod of iron' by a Mr Merfyn Ivor Davies - you can tell he has left an impression, but I can assure you, it's a positive one. I don't know what happens in comprehensives now, but there were three 'ability' streams. I was placed in the top stream along with three childhood friends who lived close by. Therefore, the tuition was geared to the ability of the students, nobody struggled because it was beyond them; none of us felt limited because it was too easy.
If we hadn't been streamed to the top, then we would perhaps have been 'lost'. As it was, my memories are of excellent dedicated teachers, a few bad eggs amongst the pupils (who were disciplined very strongly) but in general, a good bunch who I am certain recognise how fortunate we were to go to that school with that Headmaster who had such a strong vision and endeavoured to apply it. This was also the case with sports (not that I was any good).
The work ethic in the school and at home was very strong; that was my role model. But I was expected to be self-motivated where school was concerned, since my parents couldn't have helped with the homework and never told me to do it?
The overwhelming theme was 'your life is what you make of it; the world's your oyster'.
To the disappointment of my parents and teachers, I did not go to University though several classmates did. However, it was uncommon to do so in Dagenham. My brother didn't go until he was married and then got First Class Honours. A classmate went to Oxford but although I was sent to have a look round, I just didn't want to go - so I got a job and worked hard and now I am a Business Analyst and IT Consultant.
I think the key to any school is DISCIPLINE. I think parents have to respect Teachers as they used to. I think children have to be heard and loved, but taught boundaries - there are times when they must listen and do as they are told. I think both grammar and comprehensive systems have positives and negatives - but the key is not to try and make everyone 'average'. Parents should not be jealous if someone else's brighter children get put in a different class - it's a fact that we are all different and have different abilities.
The children in the lower streams in my school did not fail; most of them left at 16 and got a job. At a re-union I was delighted to find that 'most' of my year had done extremely well, regardless of the class they were in - it was down to ATTITUDE, DISCIPLINE, ENCOURAGEMENT.
The band 5-Star were in my year; they were in a lower stream. We had serious 'sports achievers'. We had those who went to Uni (more could have but didn't as it was an alien concept to Dagenham). We all turned out 'decent'!
My last comment? I can tell you the standard of grammar from recent graduates is falling; nobody seems to know the difference between 'its' and 'it's' - thank you Mrs Dawson for that - I might have been dragged up in Dagenham but I am proud of my upbringing and the school I attended but most of all I am grateful to the example of my parents.
Hope the debate has continued to be stimulating.
Complain about this comment
I do think we should bring them back and incidentally labour passed legislation when they came into power that if there was enough public opposition to them to close them down. Both myself and my husband grew up in social housing and the grammar schools were being abolished when I went to a comprehensive school. My parents never had any real qualifications other than manual work so there was no real emphasis on me taking the 11+. The school I went to was a grammar, although my year was the first intake of comp students and when we amalgamated with a local comp, you could see a big difference between the students from the former grammar and the comp. We dont have high paid jobs and live on basically low income now but when our children were young we did not want to chance the education of our sons whilst labour were in power as I had seen what they had done to the education system in the 1960s and 1970s. At the time we were able to afford and make huge sacrifices to send our sons to a small independent school. A number of years into their education, we were unable to afford the full fees and the school gave us bursaries for children from poorer backgrounds. Both my sons attend grammar school, one at Colchester and one Westcliff and children go to these school and travel long distances. A friend who has a son at Chelmsford Grammar say there are children that come from West London to go there, so it just proves how popular they are. We have motivated our children to do well and the great thing about the grammar school is that they are with the same kind of children, the teachers are fantastic and they are all motivated. My sons dont have to put up with chairs being thrown in classrooms as what does happen in some other comprehensives. Looking at our local comprehensive it would not have been able to teach my sons to their ability. They would have become very switched off and likely to fall into bad behaviour and have no motivation at all. For us, our children will be the first in a long line of children to go to university. I always tell my children you reap what sow and if you work harder at school, you will pay harder in later life. I understand that children from comprehensive do just as well as grammar school children but when you have a comprehensive in your town that is over subscribed and if you dont live on the doorstep and want to move home, you only have a choice of a very poor comprehensive the grammar schools are what our children thrive on. They love competition and like to be the best. For us coming from social housing in the 1960s putting out children into independent primary school and then into grammar has been the best investment we have made and we hope it remains that way. We have a friend who went to local bog standard comp and he is a top partner at an accountancy firm, so yes you can do well at comprehensives but with teachers unable to discipline nowadays what chance do children who want to learn actually achieving anything in schools that have children who are out of control. Why is it so wrong for parents to want the best for their children. Grammar schools are the way forward and we should increase them and it has proved that where there are grammar schools, this drives up local results. My son who was in year 9 and will go into year 10 September took a higher level GCSE paper for his end of year exam and achieved a grade B, and yet some children from comprehensives dont even manage a grade B at the end of year 11. My son who goes to Westcliff has an hour journey each way and I always said to him when he got his place that if it became too much we would review the situation but he loves school. He is with like for like children, children who are motivated and want to work hard. The teachers are exemplary as with Colchester and I cant ask for anything more.
As for people saying they are elitist, they are not. I am a secretary and my husband drives a taxi, so not everyone is privileged and earns a huge salary.
Complain about this comment
I went to the local comprehensive. Teaching failed me in the sixth form but I still went to University, got a BSc and a PhD and am now earning a six figure salary.
The trouble with grammar schools is that they are selective, not only for the best pupils but for the best teachers. If you skim off the educational cream, what happens to the rest of the kids?
Wouldn't it be more productive to worry about how to raise educational standards across the board than to keep harping on about an old system that had its own problems?
Complain about this comment
Northern Ireland is the poorest part of the UK, yet its pupils consistently out-perform their peers in England/Wales/Scotland in GCSEs (and formerly O Levels) and A Levels. Northern Ireland still retains a Grammar school system. This outperformance first appeared in the early 70s after the widespread introduction of comprehensive education in England/Wales/Scotland. Even the Guardian newspaper does not deny this.
And the more challenging the subject (e.g. Physics, Mathematics, Further Mathematics), the greater the outperformance.
As a result, pupils from the poorest part of the UK (i.e. Northern Ireland) are more likely to attend University than those from England/Wales/Scotland: as an example there are more Northern Irish students at Edinburgh University than Scottish students.
I benefitted from this system: my parents were unemployed for long periods of my life: money was scarce in our family: my father had to cut turf to heat our house. Yet thanks to the Grammar school system, my 3 siblings and I all averaged 4 grade As each at A Level and attended University (gaining 4 scholarships on the way) studying Medicine & Engineering: one of us came top of the year at University.
So you can see why I am opposed some politically-correct, left-wing, inadequate, jealous loonies who wants to dumb education achievement down to lowest common denominator via mixed ability teaching.
If you want social mobility, the answer is obvious: Grammar schools!(After all theyre good enough for the children of Blair, Harman, Clarke etc).
regards, Sean
Complain about this comment
Frost-fire you're clearly deluded in your belief that grammar schools get more money. When I went to the local state-funded grammar I (being a bit of a nerd truth be told) examined the finances of our school and compared them with the local comp. In fact the comp got slightly MORE money - the odd small grant to help children from poorer backgrounds was thrown in - than us. AND the teachers' salaries were higher at our grammar!
I think honestly the only people who dislike grammar schools are those who were rejected from them, or whose children were rejected from them - or of course the elitist upper-class who resent the riff-raff having a chance to compete for the same jobs as them!!
Complain about this comment
I thankfully grew up in Northern Ireland where grammar schools are still the norm, although some are desparate that this cease which has lead to the scrapping of the 11+ with no alternative and the setting up of individual school entrance exams. I had a fantastic education, the teachers cared, the pupils wanted to learn and I ended up at Queen's university getting a good degree. For those that want to do that it should be available but also those not academically inclined should not feel that they have to go to university. Vocational apprenticeships should be just as highly thought as universtiy degress. Everyone can't be a Dr or a lawyer, we need plumbers and joiners as well and right now they can name their price. The education system needs to be suited to all individual students. The academic ones should be allowed to shine in streamed education and the kids that want to do more vocational jobs should have the oppurtunities of apprenticeships, and will probably in the short term anyway earn much more!!
Complain about this comment
I think there's not much doubt that Grammar schools work well for those who go to them. The real problem is how to provide the 75% that don't with an education that is not, and is not perceived to be, second-class.
A good start would be to stop closing 'failing' schools as a matter of policy and start by looking at how to turn them into better-performing establishments. New Labour's obsession with this experiment in social Darwinism has probably been a major contributor to the poor performance of many state schools.
Then, of course, there are the teachers. Let's face it, not all of them are inspirational, saintly figures 100% committed to helping their students achieve to their potential. There are far too many teachers who drifted into it for no particularly good reason and stuck there - it really ought to be a career that is both aspirational and vocational as much as law and medicine are.
Complain about this comment
I was born in the 50's and lived on a council estate in Birmingham, my primary school along with my parents wanted me and my siblings to get on so, although not tutored especially, grammar school was where I wanted to go, along with I should say 60% of my class. There were many grammar schools, I was fortunate to go to one of the King Edward schools and the confidence, education, vision, and opportunities gave me a wonderful start to my working career. I did not go to University but that did not stop me achieving goals. Grammar schools gave ordinary working class children a chance.
Complain about this comment
Just as there is a need to provide a different education for the bottom decile, there is also a need for a different education for the upper decile. I went to a Grammar School in the 60s and was surprised on arriving at university that average IQ seemed to be lower than at school and that the pace and flow of radical, even extreme ideas seemed lower.
Equally, I have children progressing through Secondary education at the moment and know that they a bored with the slow pace that lessons are presented and that is hindering them. Education is about stimulating and encouraging kids and not boring them, or holding them back through political ideology.
Even the top streams at a Comprehensive can't compare with the typical middle stream at 50s or 60s Grammar school and that is why they have to set the pace so slow.
Complain about this comment
The point I was trying to make - it doesn't matter what you call them, grammar or comprehensive - the education needs to be streamed to the kids' abilities and parents need to accept that every child is different with different abilities and different types of skill. I was academic, but not so good at sport. Others shone at sport but not at the academic stuff. Classes were tailored to the ability of the child, so those that needed it got extra help, those that needed more complex material to study got it so their mental development was not stunted. Discipline at home and in school was strict by today's standards and the Teacher was 'almost' a god. My parents were pleased I was in the top class but not dismissive of those who were not? It's not a fight of 'grammar vs comprehensive' it's about accepting differences and promoting them where to do so is beneficial rather than trying to pretend we're all the same. As I said, the less academic at my school either went to work at 16 (and they wrote 2-300 letters and got 3-4 interviews and perhaps 1 job offer, since this was when unemployment was at its highest) and nobody wanted the 'stigma' of being on the dole, even in Dagenham? Failing that, they went to Tech college or on an Apprenticeship. They were encouraged and supported by our teachers just as much as I was encouraged to study and develop academically.
I find it very frustrating that everyone sees things so black and white when both comprehensive AND grammar worked for my family.
Complain about this comment
I am chair of governors at my local comprehensive. I went to a small girls grammar school which was OK. My husband went to a superior public school, which was OK. We deliberated over several years about what would be best for our children.
We eventually decided on our small local comprehensive school which we are very happy with.
The education and experiences that my children get are so much better than that I got. It is not a perfect school, but would be so much better if all the other local children decided to do as we do. I genuinely do not believe that there are perfect schools - you have to make the best of what you have available and get involved.
Complain about this comment
Hi all
I live in an area that still has Grammar Schools, Buckinghamshire.
Now I'm not old enough to know exactly what the original idea but I would imagine that the idea was to enable the brightest no matter what their family circumstances to get an excellent academic education, it's just a shame that those ideals no longer apply.
The children who get into the grammar schools are nearly all now from well off families, many have external tuition and the cost of that tuition excludes those bright children from poorer families.
You also have the situation where because of the demographic make up of the schools the non selective schools have a majority of poorer families who sometimes struggle to support the school in the manner that the schools need, while the Grammar schools the parents simply open the cheque books for the school.
You can also land up with the situation where there is a general flight away from the non selective schools, many families in my area send their children out of the town to avoid the very large and historically underperforming local non selective schools, meanwhile our roads are clogged with Grammar school children being brought into the town from the villages.
When you look at Buckinghamshire CC education figures they are good, but scratch away at the surface and you'll find that the upper schools struggle with their results, when you take into account the fact that the 11+ system and exam are not fair, children at state primary schools are restricted in the amount of preparation they can do, while the many privately educated children in the area are not, I'm afraid that the 11+ system sucks for the vast majority of children.
For those of you who misty eyed want the 11+ back, be careful what you wish for, we need education for all, not just the wealthy as we have in Bucks.
Complain about this comment
Labour brought in legislation that allowed local "democracy" by allowing people to vote to close grammars, but not allow them to vote to open new ones ("You can vote for anything we agree with"). The least the Tories could do is allow a vote for them.
It's self evident that scrapping grammars has reduced social mobility. The other main contributing factor was the left wing politicisation of the education establishment in the 60s and 70s. Many teachers were themselves anti education (in the traditional sense) and wanted to develop a Soviet style proletariat to rise up against the oppressors. Giving people the knowledge to escape their background militated against that aim. Instead, children were encouraged to "explore" themselves and much of education became ego centred with the acquisition of knowledge being considered bourgeois. The product of this style of education is today's underclass, whose own negative views of education have been passed to their own children.
These children then make it extremely difficult for brighter children to succeed in comprehensives for three reasons: there is frequently a gap in ability between the brightest and least bright which makes teaching mixed ability difficult; these children are likely to be disruptive in class; and worst of all, they encourage an atmosphere where those who want to learn and do well educationally are singled out and bullied. My daughters went to a comprehensive which was one of the best performing in the country, but even there there was bullying of "swats" which encouraged children to under perform.
Bring back grammars but build into the "secondary modern" the flexibilty for gifted children to move up.
Steve Edwards
Complain about this comment
I agree with so many comments and as you say all children have different abilities but why not have the grammars so they can teach the academically bright children and then leave the comps to concentrate on those with other abilities. Also, from comments from people who lived in Dagenham, I came from a rough part of the East End; Hackney but as you say you had discipline and you would have been afraid to get into trouble at school but now the kids know they are untouchable. I had the ruler across my hand a couple of times and it did me no harm, it wasn't physical abuse but you knew where you stood with the teacher. And as had been said there was a "stigma" to being on the dole, I remember my dad who used to drive lorries and if he ever became out of work and I remember my mum saying if you don't have work by Monday you will have to sign on and I don't think my dad has signed on throughout his whole life and he is 68, to hime it was the lowest of the low and that is a big problem of our society now, no aspirations. They live on benefits where quite frankly I know they have a larger disposable income than I have, okay I have my house but I have a burden of a mortgage, council tax, school transport for the children. These people have never had any aspirations when the state take care of them and so that is the cycle. If we had more grammar schools, I believe it would bring about social mobility and raise educational standards across the board
Complain about this comment
I was born in the fifties and due to my fathers job moved around about every 2/3 years. This was unusual then - l always made friends but not very close ones. I came from a middle class family, was articulate and went to faith schools.I failed my 11+ and was the only child in my street to go to a secondary modern. My parents were devistated, but not enough to pay for my education. I had a hard time at secondary modern- first day we took an exam which streamed us and we were toldit was our last chance to have a chance to do o levels. i was 11 - one of only a handful of kids with full school uniform.I was selected for a stream, then at 14 we had choices and had no guidence so chose pitman shorthand and typing - dropping subjects l liked. But unemployment was high in this area.Dispite my home life l was influencd by school. Luckily we moved, this time from North East to Buckinghamshire. Secondary modern here was appauling in comparison and we could only do CSE's. This did rouse my father to action - and with the help of acouple of teachers ( most there felt l had ideas above my station) got enough to scrap into 6th form at thelocal grammar.BLISS - teachers were so helpful and understood what it had been like. ' Have never looked back.
My son at primary school had difficulty reading and writing, dispite getting terrific sats at 6! ( as if that ment anything.) Sadly his first teacher was ill and we had a succession of bankstaff. School were very unhelpful, l was told he was lazy etc etc.
I/we took him to be assessed by an Ed Psyc. Hey ho , he's very bright but dyslexic. We were also told that unless we got him into a school that understood the problem he may well end up in the bottom sets, drop out of school and possibly turn to crime due to fustration to gain what he wants. We paid for help and his reading age went from 5 to 13 in a year. Dispite sharing reports with state school they were unhelpful. History repeats itself - except we had the means to send him to a good public school.l was not going to let him have the experience l had. We do not have grammas where we live - but if we did l would have sent him to one.l plucked up the courage and paid for assessment and l have the same problem. My point is that had l not gone to Grammar, even for those few years l would have ended up in a typing pool - that was the best there was and dyslexia was hardly known about. Interestingly my husbund was one of 5 all of whom went to the local comprehensive - all went to uni and are successful professionals - in different fields. It took a while for me to convince him not to leave our son's education to a postcode lottery.
Complain about this comment
There is indeed legislation to close grammar schools but it has never been used or really attempted as it requires a vote of parents who's children attend the grammar schools, that will never happen.
To those misty eyed readers born and educated in the 50s and 60s, times have changed, going back to a system where children are failures at the age of 11 simply isn't an option, if we do that our economy will be in tatters.
We MUST have good education, well funded for all, not just the elite and wealthy.
Complain about this comment
To Aylesbury Sting - A few of points:
1)The vote against grammars isn't restricted just to those people who have children there. It's for all parents in the catchment area.
2)If you haven't noticed, under the current system our economy IS in tatters.
3)I don't think anyone's suggesting that we only have well funded education for the elite and wealthy. Neither do I think that anyone is advocating discarding children at the age of 11. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise an education system that nurtures the brighest and yet still gives continuing opportunity for others to maximise their ability. Unfortunately, the comprehensive sytem does neither.
Complain about this comment
Presumably AylesburySting just wants to give everybody the chance to fail. Everybody should get a good education, but this education should be tailored to the individual talents of the pupils, whatever they may be. One size does not fit all. Why should the brighter pupils be penalised just to satisfy a socialist ideal that in reality does not work? And for that matter, why should pupils with more practical talents be forced to sit through what to them might seem like endless boring academic classes in which they have no interest or engagement?
If the product of State education is not to be regarded as a poorly educated, homogeneous mass, not really worthy of serious consideration for employment in the "professions", things have to change. And remember, "professions" also means plumbers, electricians or bricklayers, where many people are losing out to European rivals who probably had a much more vocationally based education.
Complain about this comment
To beachball64 & stevejedwards
"Presumably AylesburySting just wants to give everybody the chance to fail."
I don't understand where you are coming from with this absolutely ridiculous and stupid statement, yes education should be tailored, but by a child's ability and not by the wealth of the parents, ability is secondary in the Bucks 11+ system wealth is the primary factor in deciding where a child is educated in tory bucks, the rich succeed the poor fail, oh and I never mentioned socialism, there has to be a system where education is FAIR to all, we do not have that in Bucks.
To answer a couple of points
"1)The vote against grammars isn't restricted just to those people who have children there. It's for all parents in the catchment area.
2)If you haven't noticed, under the current system our economy IS in tatters."
I must admit to not knowing about the voting system for Grammar School abolition because I can't remember anyone ever having had a vote.
The economy may be in tatters but not because of the education system, unless it's the fault of ermmmm Grammar school educated bankers that is, just because you've had the best education the state offers doesn't mean you can run a bank.
Complain about this comment
The trouble is an education system that is "fair to all" is fine for the people in the middle, but lets down the people on the fringes, these being both the most and least academically able. Social mobility not only counts at the top, it counts at the bottom as well. If you get an education that allows to make the most of your practical talents, this will give you the means to improve your life and the life of any children you may have in the future. And so on and so on.........if you are disconnected from your school life because it doesn't engage you, it is unlikely that you will make the most of it and your social mobility will be hindered, not enhanced.
Complain about this comment
To AylesburySting
There have been votes on scrapping grammar schools - Ripon, and I think schools in Kent and elsewhere. None have been scrapped as a consequence which indicates that parents favour them, whether their children attend one or not. The aspirational working classes really let the socialist side down.
You're right - the economy isn't in tatters because of the education system - it's as bad as it is because of a failure by politicians. Against which, the economy went through highs and lows when we had grammar schools. The logical deduction is that the education system has little bearing on the performance of the economy (except perhaps to the extent that the education system carries a lot of the blame for the unemployable underclass). What it has done is reduce the opportunity for working class children to succeed. The nature of the comprehensive system is to level the brightest down to the average whilst not being able to educate the least bright up to the same level.
Complain about this comment
Surely it's obvious that if you put any child into the right school for them they will be happy and achieve or even exceed their potential? What we need is proper choice - bring back Grammar Schools everywhere AND let's update the existing schools to provide a sensible and valuable education for all. Let's have young adults who are ALL numerate, literate, able to use ICT to the very best of their ability and who have skills that are relevant to the workplace. Of course we need good doctors, lawyers and teachers etc but we also need good plumbers, mechanics, bus drivers, waiters etc etc. We need to raise standards for everyone so we can be proud of our national identity. One size fits all actually fits no-one properly, an attitude of 'it'll do' actually won't do. Why any child disengages is because they don't believe that the education put in front of them relates to them. Give a 'non-academic' child a series of mathematical equations to solve and if they don't understand why they are doing this they won't attempt the task. Give that same child a budget and a day out with their friends to choose, arrange and book and it becomes relevant, they understand the 'why' and go on to complete the task and have a sense of achievement and begin to believe they 'can do' (just don't tell them they used the same methods the equations demanded!) It really is all about attitude, expectation and peer pressure which is why our children deserve better than what is on offer - more choice, right child right school, and expectation of achieving personal best for all - is the minimum we should demand from any government regardless of their political beliefs. If Every Child Matters - why don't they matter enough to put education before politics? Even in very rural areas of France and Germany there is a choice between Grammar, High and Vocational Schools (often on the same site so they can share some facilities and staff) and it is taken for granted that the pupils will be literate, numerate and able to use ICT. In mainland UK is it really surprising that the expensive places to live are those that have retained Grammar Schools and therefore choice? Every Child Matters, Every Parent wants the best for their child and we ALL deserve to have a wider choice to choose from.
Complain about this comment
As you know parents who don't even have their children there can vote them in and yet we can vote for more of them. A socialist idea and like the The_Deluded_Granny_Magnet (musn't grumble)I too went to a school that turned comprehensive. For the first two years, I did extremely well amongst the grammar girls, the teachers were of high calibre, the headmistress ruled with a rod of iron and when we joined with the local comprehensive I lost interest, there were many badly behaved girls and you were shunned if you didn't want to learn, many teenage pregnancies, incidents of assault on teachers and I feel very let down by the system. I wasn't coached to do well as my parents came from a working class background but I know I want my children to aspire to make their lives better and the grammar school is going to help them do this, not the local sink comp where there is a high percentage of absenteeism, children with special needs. I used to attend Clapton Girls school that was once was John Howard one of the best girls school in London and it has never ever returned to being that since it turned comprehensive. My son who is at Colchester sat a GCSE higher tier maths paper for his end of year exam; year 9 and got a grade B. I was looking at the foundation paper and it asked a question "write down 6180 in words". I was dumbstruck that we are asking 16 year olds to answer a question which they should be able to do in primary school. The whole education system is failing so so many of our children and it's about time politicians took into account what parents want for our children, we bring up our children yet their education is mostly decided by politicians and they isn't right. Expand grammars and raise the standard of comps to concentrate on those in the middle and bottom to help them with their subjects and vocational skills which some are better suited too. Unfortunately labour's ideologies that one size fits all just doesn't work. If we had everyone trained to be a doctor, we would have no plumbers
Complain about this comment
I took the 1st 11 plus in 1944. It was one exam. just onemorning. Now 10year old have to take exams in English, Maths & Science. In Middx. Grammar schools were in all the poor areas. I went to one in what became Ken Livingston's constituency. Over 100 of us went on to University. If you failed but were obviously clever enough there was a REPECHARGE system, so it was NOT a once in a lifetime chance, nor in Notts. Also my cousin went to a Sec. Mod. School and became a Chartered Accountant. The weakness was it was left to the Local Auth. to administer with all their prejudices. & the Comphrehensive sysytem was introduced because the offspring of Labour activists failed it. I was a shcool governor for 25 years, the school spent all the time & money trying to pull the bottom class up the scale a small amount & ignored the brighter child. If you wish any mire info please e-mail
Complain about this comment
I agree with a lot of what Alan Milburn and his fellow panellists have concluded but I differ, with a heavy heart, about the reintroduction of grammar schools.
I was a product of the grammar school in the 70s, daughter of a lone parent and entitled to free school meals. I was the first member of my family to go to university because it was what the majority of the girls in the school did and I went along with it - parental involvement and aspiration was non-existent.
As a typical product of university in the 80s I was a left-leaning, Guardian reading supporter of meritocracy and anti grammar schools because of my perception of lives on the scrapheap due to a failed exam at 11.
My children now attend an "Outstanding" 1400 student comprehensive in which Ofsted can find no areas for improvement in any category. So I should be very smug... and yet...
The school has a very high standard of behaviour expectation and zero tolerance of misbehaviour. Therefore, many middle income parents strive to find their children places at the school. Hence there is a reasonably large cohort of high-achieving and talented students in the top set and they motivate one another. The able students also experience the diverse comprehensive environment and learn what life is about which is precisely what the system is meant to be about and what Michael Gove would consider an example of best practice.
And yet, even in such a paragon of a school, there are, inevitably, flaws. In Years 10 and 11, the students are still set in the core subjects of Maths, Science & English but, in their GCSE option choices, mixed ability teaching is reintroduced and so the most able are taught alongside the least able. I concede this can work but it all depends on the ability and competence of the teacher and NQT's - ideal for tight school budgets - struggle.
In the neighbouring county where the grammar system exists, a friend's daughter going into Year 11 with exactly the same predicted GCSE grades as my child has already been identified as Oxbridge material and is being groomed - they can do this because they are dealing with creamed off children.
In a Comprehensive school of 1400 students, no matter how fantastic the school, they just do not have the resources to concentrate on a narrow band of the most able and, inevitably, a lot of the effort is put into the C/D borderlines - the Gifted & Talented programme is, quite frankly, an utter waste of time.
I conclude, reluctantly, that the Comprehensive system is failing the brightest especially, as Alan Milburn has discovered, entry into the elite professions has narrowed alarmingly.
Complain about this comment
This is a topic which could and does run and run...
Several posts have demonstrated exactly why grammar schools should not be resurrected. There are many examples which people are happy to boast of where people have succeeded by passing the 11 plus and going to grammar schools but there are a lot less examples of successes coming from failing the 11 plus and going to secondary moderns. Of course there are lots of these but more often inspite of a system that consigns children to a poor educational system rather than because of it. Surely we owe it to all children to provide a system that all children can thrive in and achieve their potential, whatever that might be, academic or not. Surely we need lots of 'outstanding' schools like the one where sugar hiccup's children go to, which can be improved, to set appropriately at GCSE level to benefit all students and so that all students can be groomed at A level for the appropriate university for them, whatever their ambitions. I am convinced that this is possible. Good schools need to become outstanding for now is a great time for the state sector to get its act together.
Complain about this comment
It is all the news you know. Sven back? Good grief. Again. Was it so long since he last - allegedly failed at something in football here in Britain and that forgiveness has set in? There was a 1ate 1960s Christopher Plummer film - excellently funny - all Fops and Armstrong Miller Dance skits - "Lock Up You Daughters". WAGs too might I suggest? lol
And if the BBC announcers intoning "A Death Unnoticed" and producers could stop producung programmes where I have to hear MoPs whinging about 5 minutes of discomforture too.
I do not laugh at personal trauma but yesterdays thing on MoPs Expenses - well - I laughed again. Age Eon Epoch and Period. Only connect!
Parker and Lady Pen in Thunderbirds
"And what can we do for you today Mi Lady? Have the villain misused again. Yes, Mi Lady!"
Subject: it will be a few hundred years before such along lunar eclipse will be seen again - a death unnoticed
Anagram: (Capture Derby)s wife line - lowballing - snarled beliefs - aware hue - housecleaning - Tine Dna - Cad he out
Complain about this comment
Despite the best intentions of all involved, there is no getting around that fact that some people are more intelligent than others. Others are more musically gifted and some are better at sport. If we put the intelligent people in the same class as those who simply want to cause trouble then it isn't the misbahaving pupil that benifits, its the clever kid who loses out. Equality - no-one wins. In school where this group of people who will never, no matter how good the teachers/school are, acheive anything is removed from the classroom a different mentality takes hold. Instead what happens is that the intelligent pupil becomes the role model and those in the middle, who always seem to be ignored in these debates yet form the majority, aspire to acheive. Healthy competition pulls them up. The current system, where the focus is on the bottom drags them down. Ask yourself, "Why do private schools acheive the exam result that most state schools can only dream of?" The answer is simply the attitudes of the pupils. The teachers are no better, but because the pupils act like adults, they are treated like adults. Having the latest computer system doesn't make a good school. If the government truly wanted what was best for pupils then it would copy the model of private schools who appear to have had it right all along.
Complain about this comment
There should be no such things as failing schools.
In a decrepit market economy like the UK that from time to time has to be bailed out by taxpayers anyway there can only be one type of just educational system and that's comprehensive that caters for all children in the surrounding area regardless of what social class their parents belong to.
The fact that schools today appear to many as if they are items stacked on supermarket shelves, where some 'custmers' go to the degree of lying just to get their offspring into a school they regard as better highlights the divisions the current economic systems creates.
There should be no choice in education; not out of prejudice or a desire for equality but out of practical necessity in order to enable one comprehensive system to enhance in the interests of parents, teachers and pupils and which is insulated as best as possible from the traumas of the market place.
Complain about this comment
Harriet:
i think it is a good thing to bring back the grammar school...
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
just make all schools grammar schools. just as all colleges became universities. everyone is suddenly elevated with academic achievements to their credits . make everyone think they achieving by making them carry out pointless projects, essays, etc make them believe that their perceived hard work is all about being educated to a high standard.
this is how one creates the institutional dumbing down of a society. if the teachers are taken from a pool of less well educated individuals because that is what the system is designed to produce .. what chance do their students have?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS