Do you agree with Grammar schools?

Question

My fiance went to school in Kent where they still have the 11-plus/Grammar school system.

He failed his 11 plus by just a few marks - (not surprisingly as his family was in utter turmoil at the time with his parents' divorce) - and went to a secondary modern, which he left with just a handful of low grade GCSEs.

He now works in a low skilled job and claims he is not "academic" enough to do anything more.

The awful thing is - he's really, really intelligent! I've been to University myself (I grew up in Wales under the Comprehensive system) and he's brighter than half the idiots I went to Uni with. But he just can't see this.

I honestly feel that his schooling was to blame - secondary modern kids simply don't seem to be pushed/encouraged to do well or even made to think that they can!

Is it right to map put a child's future life on the basis of one simple exam which they sit at a very young age?! I can't beleive parts of the UK still use this antiquated system!

Answer 1

you are absolutely right secondary modern schools always make student doubt themselves and not believe they can do well it is a real shame

Answer 2

Yes I do think Grammar schools work well as it gives children with an academic flair a chance to explore this without being held back by others who are less interested in academic things. Sec Mod's are good in that they can focus on more practical things. There are chances for students to move between schools if the teachers feel that a mistake was made. My brother-in-law failed his 11+, went to a Sec. Mod untill his O levels, transferred to Grammar School then - and graduated from York Uni with first Class Honours. So don't blame the schools.

Motivation is what counts, whichever school, Grammar, High, Academy, Comprehensive or Secondary Modern, you go to doesn't really matter - what's important is what is inside YOU. If you want to succeed you will, if you use any excuse for your failure  - you'll fail.

Answer 3

Going to a grammar school has nothing to do with it. Yes if you pass the 11-plus you go to a more able school and mix with other children of similar abilities but that what the test is there for...to weed out the weak.

Its even more frustrating if you are intelligent and can't go to a grammar because your parents don't believe in God. The case with my little brother. He's been denied despite a pass because places are filled by CofE and catholic children before the atheists and other faiths get a chance.

He's a year ahead of his peers, has passed his grade 6 piano at the age of 10 and is well known in our community for his talents as an athlete. But none of it helps...so my parents are having to pay for him to go to a private school as opposed to the crappy comp one he's been given.

I sympathise but I really think your fiance needs a kick up the back side and needs to stop making excuses. He seems to be in a rut and needs you to slap him out of it or your lives and the lives of your children are going to be one long struggle...kids grow up to be like their parents you know!!

Good luck - I hope he sees his potential soon

Answer 4

The real issue is not whether grammar schools and secondary modern or comprehensive are better or worse than each other!

The real issue is the snobbery in academia which does not recognise the difference between a 'passive learner' and an 'action learner'.  Passive learners tend to develop better in a classroom environment, where action learners tend to develop better learning by example.  As little is ever done to identify the natural aptitudes and abilities of our young people there is no way 'action learners' are going to progress at the same rate as 'passive learners'

I did not like school, it was boring!  I did like organising everything at school and was always the one who was approached to do these tasks - societies, sports fixtures, events to encourage community spirit and voluntary work etc etc.  

I rarely did my homework and played truant frequently in the later years.  What knowledge I did own when I left school was the ability to read, write, spell, good basic grammar, adding, subtracting, dividing, simple fractions and simple percentages.  I never did see the point of algebra and never mastered a simple equation!  However, because of my communication, organising and visionary talents I eventually retired from a Chief Executive post - where all my natural talents were given breathing space and I enjoyed the spirit of achievement.  Yes, in the opinion of 'academia' I was a 'slow learner'  but I was successful in spite of academia.

There is so much talent out there hanging around on street corners just waiting to be recognised and put to use - to give a sense of pride and achievement for young people.

I couldn't wait to escape academia - thank goodness this wasn't during the New Labour Government where they want some huge percentage to go on to further education when they leave school.  That's just a way of keeping unemployment numbers down.

I live in hope!

Answer 5

The system is fallible, it has always been so. The answer to your fiance's scholastic plateau is open enrollment in a private college; although the cost could prove prohibitive, it would allow him advancement opportunity and also improve his self-worth and self-esteem.

In the US, we have the 'No Child Left Behind' system that has dumbed-down primary education to the slowest of the slow. If children cannot master the subjects required to pass a national testing regimen, they change the test. It is to the point that all a child has to be able to do is write his/her own name correctly three out of five times.

There has to be a universal answer, but neither your qualification testing nor our advancement of the inept system is it.

Answer 6

My children go to a local comprehensive school, both are doing fine and are expected to get decent grades and go onto university. They both say there are teachers to teach you if you wish to learn. It is my opinion that alot of people hide behind having had a mear comprehensive education to hide a huge chip on their shoulder.  Its not where you come from that matters its where you end up and how you got there that counts. A great many of us have been comprehensively educated regardless of our social class and are making a decent living, so perhaps you should stop waving your university education at your boyfirend and find a constructive way to try and make him feel more ambitious

Answer 7

I went to a couple of comprehensives and managed to get into university, so thankfully avoided all this.

What the example of your fiance shows is that young people develop at different times in their lives, and the age of 11 isn't the be all and end all. Which is why I am still against testing young people at 7, 11 and 14 - which isn't for their benefit, but to bump up a school's place in a league table.

Answer 8

I'm in Kent too and I got into a grammar school, I think that the problem is that state comprehensives are so bad that the parent feels their only choice is to try and get the kids into a grammar - although the grammar schools are probably not helping, you can't expect parents to sacrafice their kids education to help the country!

If there were no grammar and private schools I don't think education will be 'brilliant', I think it would improve as its not having all the working class kids in one place and all the middle class in another, but the government have proved they just cannot look after education - my children will either go private or abroad.

Answer 9

If you almost pass your 11.plus exams or you want your kid to go to a grammar school you can appeal for them to go.

Maybe his parents didnt know this but he could of gone to grammar school.

Answer 10

We need to realise that everyone is not the same life is a competition and will always have people of differing abilities but the education system continually ignores this fact.Many people have neuther the capacity or the will to learn.

University is not for all it is primarily for higher education and that is obviously for the more able. The current drop out rate is terrible and a direct result of allowing too many people with neither the will nor the capability in many cases to cope.

More emphasis is placed on the experience than the educational advantages or the need to do something while there.

University should be for those that earn it by being among the best not a direct tool of social policy and government manipulation.

Answer 11

Of course I do.

I go to one, after all, so maybe I'm biased, but here's why I think they're good:

1.) If i had gone to a normal comprahensive school, I'd be so bored and unchallanged, I'd have failed miserably, and it's the same for thousands of kids in grammar schools.

2.) The normal schools around here are all focused on kids with "special needs", meaning that the normal and intelligent kids there are left behind, not getting the support they need. Without grammar schools even more children would be in this sort of limbo, uninterested, unchallanged, and without the investment required to teach them to the best of their ability.

3.) Just because you don't go to a grammar school doesn't mean clever people will fail - I know plenty of people who go to normal comprahensive schools, and get 10A's at GCSE, but stick someone who is really bright in a normal school, and the school will not know how to engage them, so they will end up with 5 D's at GCSE (seriously, i've seen this happen).

I think that if a child works hard, then what school they go to does not matter the majority of the time, they will still get the results they deserve - after all, you can go to the worst school in the country, but if you put the effort in at home and so on, then you will do well.

Yes it's a flawed system, but getting rid of grammar schools doesn't make an area better academically, and it is likely to make it worse.

and why didn't he just appeal? He'd probably have got in. And if he only missed by a few marks, why didn't he just wait and take the 14+ a few years later?

One or two bad experiences doesn't make the whole system useless.....and after all, get rid of grammar schools, and you'll just end up with schools dividing people up into "sets", so the clever people will still be seperated and given the better resources etc.

Answer 12

I go to a Grammar School and I think Grammar schools benefit people like me. I live in a run down area with a single mother and for me to have this chance is something I will always be grateful for. However this isn't the case for most people living in the sort of area that I do, the schools are filled with students we like to refer to as Middle Class. Their parents have an unbelievable amount of money. I'm 99 percent sure I'm the poorest person in my school and it makes be realy proud that I am. However I do feel that I'd be under a lot less stress in a Comprehensive since Grammar schools are a lot more demanding and I feel that I would definitely have done well in a Comprehensive. Maybe I would've been better at a Comp. My sister has done her GCSE's this year and she is predicted mostly A's and B's and that is pretty good. I've sat two so far and I don't want to sound like I'm boasting but I am predicted A*'s in both. The rest I'll do next year. Remeber though that GCSE and A level results are improving each year and the pass rate is going up and up. I think the education we get in this country is brilliant and it is one thing along with the NHS that we should really be proud of. It's not just an exam we have to sit a percentage of our grades come form coursework that we are required to do. I think the Grammar schools we have now should remain as they are, we should not get more. I realy do believe inner-city kids should be given more oppurtunities.

Answer 13

I don't know that I disagree with grammar schools but I do definately disagree with the 11+ form of testing.  I know a couple of kids going to secondary school this September who the Junior school were certain would pass.  They had a bad day during the exam and failed.  How can we judge a child's aptitude on one day's testing when their work over the year is of a very very high standard and they would obviously do well in Grammer.

On the other hand, my daughter did not take the 11+ as I didn't think Grammer was right for her.  She is in the top streams of the secondary modern and doing fantastically.  If she had got into Grammer she would probably have been in the lower groups and would not have the confidence she has now.  Locally, it is said that if a child wants to achieve, they can do it there and in many more ways than they ever thought possible.  

I think it is more unfair that had she taken the 11+, she would have had the choice of 5 grammar schools to choose from but as it was, the only real choice was the local school which has improved in leaps and bounds over the last few years or a really crummy secondary modern in the next town.  So, the 30% have 5 times the choice of the 70% - where is the fairness in that?  

Also, most of the kids that got into Grammer schools from the state primaries were middle class kids whose parent's could afford private tutors.  Those that couldn't got a couple of lessons after school in preparation for the 11+.  This makes me question whether the brightest get in or those that have been taught how to pass the exam.  Another reason to get rid of the 11+ and use another means of selection.

Secondary moderns are changing alot now.  My daughter is definately encouraged to try new things, work hard and accomplish well.  But they also have things that those who are not accademic can do so all feel they have achieved something - with the exception of the few who would not achieve if they went to the best school in the country due to lack of decent parenting and any sort of moral guidance at all!

Answer 14

It is surprising that everybody who failed their 11 plus seems to have failed by only a few marks.

If he wants to achieve anything it is up to him, don't blame the system there are plenty of opportunities.

Answer 15

I also failed the 11+, however this was due to returning to England from India. the result was that I was able to float through my secondary education with little effort as the secondary modern did not push students. the type of job you end up with depends on you not the school qualification as I eventually took and passed Masters Foreign Going which gives me the right to be Master of any ocean going vessel.

Answer 16

Having been expelled from one I have to say no. Then the system really was class based - the sons and daughters of those who were from middle class backgrounds seemed to be given preferential treatment. This is not just my feeling. I've met with old school friend over the years since and a lot feel the same.

I can empathise with your partner's situation. I left school with no qualification whatsoever and did various low paid jobs - from hospital porter to merchant seaman (actually that wasn't so low paid but it played havoc with family life.)

When I was 30 I went back into fulltime education and now am more academically qualified than those who expelled me. As you point out there are a lot of people at uni who, to be kind, are not too bright. But they learned the technique of passing exams.

As for your partner not being "academic" - I went to an Adult Education college similar to Harlech College. Within two years I was accepted into the second year of a B.Sc Economics course at Cardiff University.

Tell your partner it is never too late to learn and as a mature student he will have advantages gained from life experience.

The Grammar School/Secondary Modern system was flawed from its inception and sought to emulate the public school system. It was more about socialisation than education - a means of maintaining the class structure and not about giving all kids the chance to advance themselves on their own merits.

Answer 17

I believe in Grammar Schools although I personally never went to one!

Answer 18

there is a big difference between intelligence and being academic.

there is a lack of trade access points for after-school leavers which needs to be sorted in the UK.

Answer 19

We don't need to take an either or approach in the UK. In Germany for example they have three or more grades of school and pupils can move freely between those schools according to their academic progress.

I also went to a comprehensive school and it set me back years. I said this to the headmaster when I'd finished my A-levels and he told me that his "priority was the average children".

Grammar schools help bright working class kids to join the professional workforce.

Answer 20

Yes.  Failed 11+.  Obtained 5 GCE`s at O level.

Answer 21

Yes, I do. Unlike your fiance I did pass my 11+ but was unable to get a place at the local Grammar so had to settle for a place at the local state school. Like Clive who answered above, this didn't stop me applying myself personally and achieving what I needed to at school. I think I came out of the system quite well basically through my own hard work and determination.

The problem with scrapping Grammars as Ed Balls seems intent on doing is that instead of raising the level of education in the State system, they lower the bar. Basically, instead of some people getting a good education and some people getting a bad or indifferent education, Labour's policy is to ensure that everyone gets an equally bad education. Equality for all!

There's an old saying. Those who can, do. Those who can't, become Labour front benchers. So weak!

EDIT - if you don't like the answer, don't ask the question. We are all different, but this 'one size fits all' approach to education that you and others are advocating simply does not work. Some children are academic, some are not. Grammar schools should stay other wise all you end up with a mish-mash where no-one achieves. You really need to lose that chip off your shoulder.

Answer 22

I agree with grammar schools which should be expanded and  reintroduced nationally.There are only 170 grammars left - no where near enough to be responsible for all the damage they are still (after all this time) alleged to cause the rest of the system.You yourself say you went to a Comprehensive and on to University.You also say that the Secondary Modern is at fault for not pushing its pupils.  

The argument about being put on the scrap heap at 11 does not realy hold water.

Answer 23

Two words, special needs. Not all children have the same learning capacity, thus those with lower are classified as special needs, while those at the top of the pile should be, and as a result given the schools they need. Has anybody noticed that since we went comp, our M.P.'s have become terminally useless.

Answer 24

I understand exactly what you are saying.  The failure rate at the 11+ exam was very high when I was at school back in the 1940s and 1950s.  I failed but could care less.  My dad was a lorry driver, so I had no great ambitions beyond what I knew.

In my case I joined the Army at age 15 and carried on my education until age 18 - blimey!  I even managed to pass a couple of Army exams and get a trade as a telegraph operator.  When I came out of the Army my 'trade' as a telegraph operator earned me a big income.  I was senior telegrapher for the American Broadcasting Co here in London for nearly 25 years.  During that time I earned enough to buy my house, pay off the mortgage and even grab a pension.

Not bad for a dunce.

Funny thing is, a mate of mine I knew when I was a child worked his entire life in a clothes store - he loved it, rose to manager etc., but as a Grammer School boy was expected to have achieved much more by his parents. . . .hmmmm!

Another mate of mine from school, failed the 11+ now lives in Devon, is a millionaire, owns a yacht, spends the winters in Cyprus etc. . . .blimey....what a dunce!

Answer 25

I go to a grammar school and i think it's great. it is all girls and we can just have fun! i don't think it means we are all clever but i think some aspects of grammar schools can improve already able pupils and the pace is a lot faster than some other schools.