Should new Grammar Schools be opened?

Discussion of the 11 Plus

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now
Cats12
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:51 pm

Post by Cats12 »

Lookingforhelp, I do sympathise with you and your DS - did you appeal against non-qualification?
You say: "I would be very concerned for his future should he be attending a secondary modern with vocational choices only".

But these sorts of secondary modern no longer exist. The choice shouldn't be either grammar or vocational but grammar or secondary that has many options within. This would enable those who have only slightly missed the grammar option a good academic education. If we increased diversity of schools further the stigma often associated with not attending a grammar school in regions that have them would be greatly diluted.
There are some very good secondary modern schools around - really - but they shouldn't be the standalone model for such a diverse range of children with such a diverse range of abilities.
Looking for help
Posts: 3767
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:12 am
Location: Berkshire

Post by Looking for help »

More grammars mean more secondary moderns, QED. Although that said, more grammars would have meant he would no doubt have passed the test. However, there will still be borderline children, possibly immature for their years, who will still achieve great things at A Level. Creaming off the top means the rest end up with a totally different type of education. I would not want that for my child. At least where he is he will achieve his academic potential. He is not suited to DT, or PE or woodwork, he wants to be a doctor. He is the only one of my children to make statements like that at 10 or 11.

Of course we appealed, and went to the ombudsman, all to no avail
mattsurf
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:44 am

Post by mattsurf »

The problem with an accademic / vocational system is that you are setting chidren down a particular path at 11 years old. This is a real issue in Germany, where the vocational education is excellent.... however, it is very unusual for a child to transfer from the vocational route to accademic.

I believe that there should be 3 different streams, Grammar for the most able, and a choice of a vocationally focused education or a more traditional education.

Removing all of the most able children into grammars means that the remaining children have poorer education. It is essential that the none grammar education is not a second class one
wonderwoman
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:07 pm

Post by wonderwoman »

I would much prefer comprehensives. Of course like most people here I am basing this on what we have - grammars and secondary moderns and friends have in other areas - comprehensives.
I have children at GS and sec mod schools. The problem with the grammar system for me is - 2 of my DC are given a very academic education with a huge number of GCSEs to study, too many in my opinion.
My other DC at sec mod gets a very different education and has a very limited choice of GCSEs as I don't think the practical courses offered are suitable for DC talents.
I like both schools but my DC are all very similar in ability and I am upset they don't get the same opportunities.

A friend's children attend a massive comp - all the children from their primary transferred there. The comp gets fantastic results. Friend's DC middle of primary, middle of secondary - but on course to get Bs and above at 10 academic GCSEs. I would like that for all my DC.
Cats12 wrote: If your (am talking to a hypothetical person here) child isn't clever then why should he/she be taught in same class at same time as mine? Mine would lose out, yours would gain. No sense in that.
I don't see this happening at primary schools, also my DC at sec mod ('failed' 11+) has been assessed as in top 4% nationally for maths, also gifted at science, I don't think he is losing out from being taught with a very wide ability group. In Y7 he has a target of 7B.
Cats12
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:51 pm

Post by Cats12 »

wonderwoman wrote:
Cats12 wrote: If your (am talking to a hypothetical person here) child isn't clever then why should he/she be taught in same class at same time as mine? Mine would lose out, yours would gain. No sense in that.
I don't see this happening at primary schools, also my DC at sec mod ('failed' 11+) has been assessed as in top 4% nationally for maths, also gifted at science, I don't think he is losing out from being taught with a very wide ability group. In Y7 he has a target of 7B.
I have seen it a lot at primary - in fact the middle, least demanding stream often loses out most at primary level. At senior schools many classes are streamed now - those that aren't need superpower teachers - i don't believe you can teach mixed ability (which includes mixed behaviours) classes adequately for all without a large proportion losing out
loopylou
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:08 am

Post by loopylou »

We live in an area of super selectives (Sutton and Kingston) and actually feel our choice of school is limited despite having 6 Grammar Schools within easy travelling distance.

Our Grammar Schools do not have catchment areas and competition is beyond fierce (as I suspect many of you know). This has totally skewed the dynamic of all schools in the local area. For example the Grammar Schools aren't what they were when my DH was younger and attended one. They are more serious, more pressured and less cohesive (many of the children aren't in the same borough let alone same street as their friends). The schools get great results (but then they always did) yet we feel they are nolonger the right environment for an able child who is anything other than naturally confident. Once they catered for the top children in Sutton, now they cater for the top children in a 30 mile radius. this creates a very different learning environment and expectation.

The comprehensives are over subscribed because they were never intended to cope with such high numbers of local children. To get into a reasonable one you have to live very close and all other local children are allocated poor schools miles away. This is very hard for children who narrowly miss a Grammar School place as their needs are not going to be met.

It does not seem likely that more Grammar Schools will be built but, if this was a serious policy, there would need to be enough to cover every borough else it would just create more super selectives and similar problems elsewhere
Milla
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:25 pm

Post by Milla »

very good point, LL.
Sassie'sDad
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:36 pm
Location: Rugby

Post by Sassie'sDad »

The real reason superselectives exist is that grammar school numbers have been frozen for ideological reasons. The large size (in terms of pupil numbers) of grammar and comprehensive schools is a bad idea. Regardless of one's values regarding an academic education, the fact that vocational training is not properly valued in this country is just one of the many resons it is in the mess it is in!

I get very anoyed hearing justifications for allowing immigration on the grounds we are short of certain skills! It is an argument which is given time-out-of-mind by all parties. We should be educating our own; not importing other countries brightest and best. Our own young are the National Interest. Polititians would do well to remember that!
Romanlover98
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:05 pm

Post by Romanlover98 »

To many GS would bring down the standard of them- one on every town would mean more average people would get in. Then we're turning them into comps(I'm not saying they're bad) but then what's the point?
In Poland they have schools were people go to learn practical skills and schools for academic people- a very good idea!
loopylou
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:08 am

Post by loopylou »

I disagree Roman. There are far more children of GS standard than there are Grammar School places (demonstarted in areas of super selectives by the number of children who pass the 11+ but fail to secure a GS place).
Only 20 years ago, the top children at Primary School could all go to a GS and standards were very high as were the GCSE and A Level grades achieved.

Obviously we don't need a ratio of one GS to every comp but even one per borough would be a start. In areas of super selectives where 180 places exist for children from a 10 mile radius (or more), there is no way that it could be argued that the hundreds of children denied a place weren't of GS ability especially when many of them do pass exam but don't get in because of the restriction on numbers.
Post Reply