I went to a Grammar School and as I type this, my 10 year old daughter is currently sitting her 11+. My dear old parents didn't have a penny compared to most so I certainly don't come from a middle-class family.
I can't say a Grammar school education has helped me in anyway. It's interesting to read Suzi's comments above. I wasn't thick but I wasn't one of the high flyers either. I was bang average academically and those students, in a similar boat, were left to sink or swim pretty much. If they sunk, the teacher's couldn't be bothered to help. Generally, they were only interested in helping those that didn't actually need the help. On the other hand, I had a couple of fairly inspirational teachers and I had an awful lot of time for them, which clearly reflected in my GCSE grades, getting my top marks in those subjects.
My daughter's Mum is hoping that she ends up going to the local all-girls Grammar school as that's where she went but I'm not convinced its the best option for her. She's as bright as a button at the moment but don't think she'll be top of the class so I wonder whether she would be better off in a mixed comprehensive, where she will be the big fish in a small pond.
At the end of the day, education and grades can only go so far. The cream will rise to the top. I ended up with 8 GCSEs, 4 A Levels and a Degree and a fairly standard, average job and my wife left school at 16 with 5 GCSEs and she's at Senior Director level in one of the big 4 Accounting firms.
We are going back nearly 30 years now but I went to a grammar school - if not I had the option of Dartford West, Swanley Comp or Wilmington High School. None of those schools were any good.
I was possibly middle class but that had nothing to do with me passing the 11+ - I was just a bit geeky. Once I got there I realised there were some people more intelligent and some less so. There were also some far richer and some far poorer. The common ground was we all passed an exam.
That's not to say everyone in non-selective secondary education turns out to be a fuckwit - there's just as many at grammars that are too.
Where I live now we have a couple of secondary schools but neither are particularly great. My wife and I have said all along we will pay for a tutor once our daughter is a bit older - we want to give her the best chance of getting to a grammar school (Rochester or Maidstone) as I would hope she would get a better start in life. Judging by the "League Tables" that are issued that would seem to be sound logic.
I didn't want to send her to a private school because I think those students tend to come out like robots - that and the cost is ridiculous. If I genuinely thought it would benefit her (and in turn her brother) then we might consider it but it's extremely unlikely.
As has already been said there are a lot of crap schools out there so if your child is clever then why shouldn't they try to get a better education?
We are going back nearly 30 years now but I went to a grammar school - if not I had the option of Dartford West, Swanley Comp or Wilmington High School. None of those schools were any good.
I was possibly middle class but that had nothing to do with me passing the 11+ - I was just a bit geeky. Once I got there I realised there were some people more intelligent and some less so. There were also some far richer and some far poorer. The common ground was we all passed an exam.
That's not to say everyone in non-selective secondary education turns out to be a fuckwit - there's just as many at grammars that are too.
Where I live now we have a couple of secondary schools but neither are particularly great. My wife and I have said all along we will pay for a tutor once our daughter is a bit older - we want to give her the best chance of getting to a grammar school (Rochester or Maidstone) as I would hope she would get a better start in life. Judging by the "League Tables" that are issued that would seem to be sound logic.
I didn't want to send her to a private school because I think those students tend to come out like robots - that and the cost is ridiculous. If I genuinely thought it would benefit her (and in turn her brother) then we might consider it but it's extremely unlikely.
As has already been said there are a lot of crap schools out there so if your child is clever then why shouldn't they try to get a better education?
As I said earlier, my two boys went to MGS but I didn't and wouldn't use a tutor to either educate or prep them for the 11+. As someone else said above, grammar schools tend to be quite ruthless and I wanted them to prove they were right for grammar without additional help. I knew some people who spent fortunes on getting their little Janet or John through the 11+ only to see them struggle once they got to the grammar school.
I went to a Grammar School. I lived on a council estate. Our family were poor. Early 70's and we had no car, no washing machine, no telephone etc etc. There were no posh kids at Roan Grammar Blackheath, as far as I recall. Ok they weren't the roughest, but they weren't snobby either.
All I know is I'm grateful for my education, which in no way equates to a private education, which I think I read posted above.
All us old Eaglesfieldtonians went to a grammar skool
Having attended the Bloomfield school for young Gentlemen, I was there when when we joined up with Shootershill Grammar school for the more fortunate. It was a feckin blood bath. Having my claim to fame as be the second boy to be caned can never be taken away.
I have just started teaching training in Kent (primary). I looked at some secondaries before deciding to go into primary (grammar and not) and the differences were amazing.
The facilities at the grammar school were better than what I had at university in many ways, the staff were much happier and therefore more enthusiastic teachers and the kids wanted to learn (both probably aiding the other).
The comp school was understaffed, the classes were all about behaviour management and very little learning and anyone that wanted to learn just didn't really get a chance.
I think kids who develop slightly slower miss out massively in education in Kent if they just miss out on grammar school.
As has already been said there are a lot of crap schools out there so if your child is clever then why shouldn't they try to get a better education?
I think it's hard to quantify what is or what gives you a better education.
A grammar school that could fail your child by worrying about league tables rather than an individuals education? a non-selective school that doesn't have the resource to nurture your childs intelligence? A private school that costs a lot, but has a different focus? A private tutor that might cost a bomb and get your child an unrealistic educational leg up? A religious focussed grammar school that may give a skewed view on the rest of modern society?
Grammar school boundaries are massive where I live, eg having kids from Greenwich, Thamesmead etc. going to school in bexley/ bexleyheath. Ultimately if you live within a catchment area, doesn't have to be next to it your child has every chance of passing. Believe me you get some shockingly stupid kids in grammar school and some amazing smart ones in comps. But to say that anyone who goes to a grammar is a middle class elitist is ridiculous.
I grew up on a council estate and went to Grammar school, father was a blue collar worker, haven't done too bad in life if I do say so myself, what's the problem?
Ditto for me, however the principle of comprehensive education stacked up for me, to raise the standards of the secondary modern towards those of the grammar school,
A good education should be available to everyone who wants one (some don't desire or controversially deserve one) sadly it is the over interference and dumbing down by politicians that has screwed it up.
Fantastic first question from a travel and tourism GCSE
Tick all that apply
Which of these foods can you commonly get as a takeaway
Indian
Chinese
Thai
Italian
Some failed because they didn't appreciate Pizza was Italian!
@Rothko when you include 'middle class sharp elbows' in sentences, then nothing anyone says is going to make you think differently about them are they? ;-)....(although, I would say that anyone on this board who owns a home in the south east of England is middle class, whether they like it/think it or not...and am not sure we all have those sharp elbows?) I think that education begins at home and you either encourage it (do you/did you read to/with your child each day, do you/did you encourage your child in art and so on) or you don't. It's this early start that then sets a child up for education through the rest of their lives and if they achieve and want to be in an environment where they learn, then they will do well (definition tbc depending on how you judge yourself to have done well) in whatever school they go to...and if it is a grammar school, surrounded by like minded pupils, then brilliant. State schools have the 'gifted and talented' programme where they push the brightest in their care...so those who don't get to selective schools can still get the education their brains require...and kids who aren't in that programme can either be inspired to reach for it or they can choose to ignore it..again, a lot of what they do will be dependent on the home they come from... My personal opinion of education is that everyone should aspire to be the best rather than everyone should be brought down to the common denominator. So, build new grammars and inspire new minds.
I went to a crap secondary modern where I got a few o levels but made some excellent friends who I still see 30 odd years later, so, as far as I'm concerned, secondary school was a success! My son just started at a fee paying school..he took various entrance exams (as well as the Kent and Bexley 11+) all of which he aced and he was offered scholarships (as well as a guaranteed place at the grammar of his/our choosing), leaving us grateful for the chance he has now been given and remembering that the hard work we put in as parents in his early days helped get him there. It's up to him now to make the most of it.
I went to a grammar school but I am not a fan. Simply because they don't solve the problem. The challenge has to be to make standards in all schools high, not have elitist schools. I always thought I would have done a bit better being a big fish in a small pond confidence wise. But the problem is, there are schools that are considered to be good and schools that are considered to be bad. The parents who care about their kid's education try to get their kids in the good schools, grammar or not. I can't see how it solves anything bringing back grammar schools. We need to up teaching levels and kick parents up the backsides who don't want the best for their children. The point in this argument that nobody dare say is that middle class parents care more about their kid's futures than working class ones. Ok there are exceptions but this is generally true and is something that needs addressing. Too many parents send their kid's to school without caring about their behaviour and what they do and encourage them to work and learn.
A lot of private schools get good academic results but produce complete ar**h*les - again with exceptions.
I went to a Grammar School and as I type this, my 10 year old daughter is currently sitting her 11+. My dear old parents didn't have a penny compared to most so I certainly don't come from a middle-class family.
I can't say a Grammar school education has helped me in anyway. It's interesting to read Suzi's comments above. I wasn't thick but I wasn't one of the high flyers either. I was bang average academically and those students, in a similar boat, were left to sink or swim pretty much. If they sunk, the teacher's couldn't be bothered to help. Generally, they were only interested in helping those that didn't actually need the help. On the other hand, I had a couple of fairly inspirational teachers and I had an awful lot of time for them, which clearly reflected in my GCSE grades, getting my top marks in those subjects.
My daughter's Mum is hoping that she ends up going to the local all-girls Grammar school as that's where she went but I'm not convinced its the best option for her. She's as bright as a button at the moment but don't think she'll be top of the class so I wonder whether she would be better off in a mixed comprehensive, where she will be the big fish in a small pond.
At the end of the day, education and grades can only go so far. The cream will rise to the top. I ended up with 8 GCSEs, 4 A Levels and a Degree and a fairly standard, average job and my wife left school at 16 with 5 GCSEs and she's at Senior Director level in one of the big 4 Accounting firms.
I had a couple of inspirational teachers too and have a similar story. The quality of teachers is important. But it is much more than them knowing their subjects, but knowing how to build confidence and make lessons interesting and rewarding. All I did in history was take notes until my hand went numb. I failed this subject, but I love history now and lap anything related up! Another solution is to have sexy teachers. We had a French teacher who was drop dead gorgeous. Even the badly behaved kids worked in her class and listened to everything she said. Although sometimes in a dream like state! I passed French!
Grammar school boundaries are massive where I live, eg having kids from Greenwich, Thamesmead etc. going to school in bexley/ bexleyheath. Ultimately if you live within a catchment area, doesn't have to be next to it your child has every chance of passing. Believe me you get some shockingly stupid kids in grammar school and some amazing smart ones in comps. But to say that anyone who goes to a grammar is a middle class elitist is ridiculous.
The missus went to Dartford Grammar for Girls but lived in Bexleyheath. As you say, the boundaries are hardly that close.
Meanwhile, I went to Wilmington Grammar for Boys, essentially, and as I've written before when this subject has popped up - some of my closest mates lived in council houses, got free school lunches (and coaches) and were far from well-off. Not to mention there were those who attended on appeal after failing their 11+ but having strengths elsewhere and/or mitigating circumstances. There were also those there who were monumentally stupid - but got support and were dealt with suitably.
My own personal experience wasn't great at all, and the school did wash their hands of issues that they should probably have had a more proactive role in supporting, alas those issues were created by treatment at a religious primary school which were tantamount to child abuse. (I can honestly say that the only real source of anger in my past is rooted in that primary school.)
I will say the difference in attitudes between grammar schools is - like other schools - vast. The attitudes and views of those in Dartford Boys were vastly difference than Wilmington Boys, and the same could be applied to the Girls schools. That's to be expected as they are after all simply schools.
When I have children I'll probably look towards a Grammar education for them, but at the same time, I fear the schooling element of a child's upbringing is only one factor (albeit a major one) of several that will dictate their future. Something which can be seen in children as young as the Nursery/Reception if the girlfriend's experiences teaching are anything to go by.
Rather than have a huge debate about Grammar schools, I think the government should perhaps explore more fundamental issues to childhood and education - and unfortunately, that means placing parental support and responsibility under a lot more scrutiny.
If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.
Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith
I would bet my mortgage, that within 5 years those grammars in poorer areas would become grammars is richer areas, as those who could afford it would come in buy the cheaper housing, and use those middle class sharp elbows to get the places.
As a Kent resident my children had the opportunity to go to grammar school.
Two of them spent their whole secondary school career at a grammar, one was at a high school up to GCSE level and then went to a grammar for A levels.
I have read a number of posts above relating to the 'ruthless nature' of grammars. All I can say from our personal experience of both types of school is that the grammar was far more supportive of special needs issues than the high school which does not bear out that 'ruthlessness' viewpoint.
If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.
Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith
Just been through this with my son who started at Comprehensive this week. I live in Borough of Lewisham and I have to say around here it's become ridiculous. Kids are tutored to within an inch of their life to get into the Bexley and Dartford Grammar schools. Last year drove me absolutely crazy, parents were obsessed with it. Most of my sons old class are up at 6am on the train and off to Dartford, Bexley and Orpington. Really don't know what to make of it. I went to Wilmington Grammar and my brother to Downs in Dartford and we both have done well but it wasn't a big thing back then. I feel that at 11 you shouldn't be judging a kids future on who has spent the most on private tutors.
If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.
Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith
I would bet my mortgage, that within 5 years those grammars in poorer areas would become grammars is richer areas, as those who could afford it would come in buy the cheaper housing, and use those middle class sharp elbows to get the places.
Win win then.
Rothko has a point. The poor have the right to remain poor and it would be unfair if their property should increase in value to make them rich.
If I had a child I personally wouldn't want them going to a grammar school. You hear of them telling their pupils that if you don't go uni you'll never amount to anything, that grades are everything etc. I thinks being in a comp school makes you a bit more in touch with the real world. Plus grammar kids are absolute divs, can't bare them.
Grammar school boundaries are massive where I live, eg having kids from Greenwich, Thamesmead etc. going to school in bexley/ bexleyheath. Ultimately if you live within a catchment area, doesn't have to be next to it your child has every chance of passing. Believe me you get some shockingly stupid kids in grammar school and some amazing smart ones in comps. But to say that anyone who goes to a grammar is a middle class elitist is ridiculous.
The missus went to Dartford Grammar for Girls but lived in Bexleyheath. As you say, the boundaries are hardly that close.
Meanwhile, I went to Wilmington Grammar for Boys, essentially, and as I've written before when this subject has popped up - some of my closest mates lived in council houses, got free school lunches (and coaches) and were far from well-off. Not to mention there were those who attended on appeal after failing their 11+ but having strengths elsewhere and/or mitigating circumstances. There were also those there who were monumentally stupid - but got support and were dealt with suitably.
My own personal experience wasn't great at all, and the school did wash their hands of issues that they should probably have had a more proactive role in supporting, alas those issues were created by treatment at a religious primary school which were tantamount to child abuse. (I can honestly say that the only real source of anger in my past is rooted in that primary school.)
I will say the difference in attitudes between grammar schools is - like other schools - vast. The attitudes and views of those in Dartford Boys were vastly difference than Wilmington Boys, and the same could be applied to the Girls schools. That's to be expected as they are after all simply schools.
When I have children I'll probably look towards a Grammar education for them, but at the same time, I fear the schooling element of a child's upbringing is only one factor (albeit a major one) of several that will dictate their future. Something which can be seen in children as young as the Nursery/Reception if the girlfriend's experiences teaching are anything to go by.
Rather than have a huge debate about Grammar schools, I think the government should perhaps explore more fundamental issues to childhood and education - and unfortunately, that means placing parental support and responsibility under a lot more scrutiny.
There was a much bigger focus on families under the last Labour government, but that got pushed aside by Michael MR I wish it was the 1950s Gove. I have always liked Cameron, even though I thought I shouldn't, but the fact that he dislikes Gove has pushed him even higher on my respect list! It is simple - you get it right in the early years, you spend a lot less money trying to solve the problems when it is too late - When kids are set in their ways! It amazes me how in the 21st century we still don't get that the solution is with families.
My daughter went to primary school in Greenwich, we moved to Bexley when she was in year five. She was getting good grades at her primary school and got top marks when she left. She took the 11+ and failed it by 2 pts. The only person disappointed in the result was me. She was happy to go to the local secondary school. She has just finished her GSCEs where she got 1A*, 8A, 2 B & 1 C in art. She often moaned that she was bored at school and she wanted to learn more. It took a lot of phone calls and visits to remind the school that they were they to teach all the pupils to the best of their abilities.
Had she got to grammar school, I'm not sure how much better her results would have been, along how happy she would have been, which in someways is more important.
I went to Grammar School, my 3 sisters all went to secondary moderns. None of the got any qualifications, I got 3 A levels and went on to do a degree. The whole of our lives was shaped by a test taken whatever the developmental readiness of the child. We didn't understand its importance other than the sense of anxiety transmitted by our parents. My sisters were given to understand that they were failures and had that reinforced for the remainder of their school lives during which nothing was expected of them and they expected less. That's what Grammar Schools mean.
Comments
I can't say a Grammar school education has helped me in anyway. It's interesting to read Suzi's comments above. I wasn't thick but I wasn't one of the high flyers either. I was bang average academically and those students, in a similar boat, were left to sink or swim pretty much. If they sunk, the teacher's couldn't be bothered to help. Generally, they were only interested in helping those that didn't actually need the help. On the other hand, I had a couple of fairly inspirational teachers and I had an awful lot of time for them, which clearly reflected in my GCSE grades, getting my top marks in those subjects.
My daughter's Mum is hoping that she ends up going to the local all-girls Grammar school as that's where she went but I'm not convinced its the best option for her. She's as bright as a button at the moment but don't think she'll be top of the class so I wonder whether she would be better off in a mixed comprehensive, where she will be the big fish in a small pond.
At the end of the day, education and grades can only go so far. The cream will rise to the top. I ended up with 8 GCSEs, 4 A Levels and a Degree and a fairly standard, average job and my wife left school at 16 with 5 GCSEs and she's at Senior Director level in one of the big 4 Accounting firms.
Postcode (which links to income/wealth)
Wealth (which is linked to postcode)
Religion (lol)
Or academic ability.
I'll let you make up your mind what's fairer to the pupil.
I was possibly middle class but that had nothing to do with me passing the 11+ - I was just a bit geeky. Once I got there I realised there were some people more intelligent and some less so. There were also some far richer and some far poorer. The common ground was we all passed an exam.
That's not to say everyone in non-selective secondary education turns out to be a fuckwit - there's just as many at grammars that are too.
Where I live now we have a couple of secondary schools but neither are particularly great. My wife and I have said all along we will pay for a tutor once our daughter is a bit older - we want to give her the best chance of getting to a grammar school (Rochester or Maidstone) as I would hope she would get a better start in life. Judging by the "League Tables" that are issued that would seem to be sound logic.
I didn't want to send her to a private school because I think those students tend to come out like robots - that and the cost is ridiculous. If I genuinely thought it would benefit her (and in turn her brother) then we might consider it but it's extremely unlikely.
As has already been said there are a lot of crap schools out there so if your child is clever then why shouldn't they try to get a better education?
All I know is I'm grateful for my education, which in no way equates to a private education, which I think I read posted above.
The facilities at the grammar school were better than what I had at university in many ways, the staff were much happier and therefore more enthusiastic teachers and the kids wanted to learn (both probably aiding the other).
The comp school was understaffed, the classes were all about behaviour management and very little learning and anyone that wanted to learn just didn't really get a chance.
I think kids who develop slightly slower miss out massively in education in Kent if they just miss out on grammar school.
A grammar school that could fail your child by worrying about league tables rather than an individuals education? a non-selective school that doesn't have the resource to nurture your childs intelligence? A private school that costs a lot, but has a different focus? A private tutor that might cost a bomb and get your child an unrealistic educational leg up? A religious focussed grammar school that may give a skewed view on the rest of modern society?
Karl Marx sent his kids to a private school, although in his defence I doubt there was the option of a nearby comp in Victorian London.
I'm guessing right nearly every time
A good education should be available to everyone who wants one (some don't desire or controversially deserve one) sadly it is the over interference and dumbing down by politicians that has screwed it up.
Fantastic first question from a travel and tourism GCSE
Tick all that apply
Which of these foods can you commonly get as a takeaway
Indian
Chinese
Thai
Italian
Some failed because they didn't appreciate Pizza was Italian!
I went to a crap secondary modern where I got a few o levels but made some excellent friends who I still see 30 odd years later, so, as far as I'm concerned, secondary school was a success! My son just started at a fee paying school..he took various entrance exams (as well as the Kent and Bexley 11+) all of which he aced and he was offered scholarships (as well as a guaranteed place at the grammar of his/our choosing), leaving us grateful for the chance he has now been given and remembering that the hard work we put in as parents in his early days helped get him there. It's up to him now to make the most of it.
Good luck to your daughter @JohnBoyUK
A lot of private schools get good academic results but produce complete ar**h*les - again with exceptions.
Meanwhile, I went to Wilmington Grammar for Boys, essentially, and as I've written before when this subject has popped up - some of my closest mates lived in council houses, got free school lunches (and coaches) and were far from well-off. Not to mention there were those who attended on appeal after failing their 11+ but having strengths elsewhere and/or mitigating circumstances. There were also those there who were monumentally stupid - but got support and were dealt with suitably.
My own personal experience wasn't great at all, and the school did wash their hands of issues that they should probably have had a more proactive role in supporting, alas those issues were created by treatment at a religious primary school which were tantamount to child abuse. (I can honestly say that the only real source of anger in my past is rooted in that primary school.)
I will say the difference in attitudes between grammar schools is - like other schools - vast. The attitudes and views of those in Dartford Boys were vastly difference than Wilmington Boys, and the same could be applied to the Girls schools. That's to be expected as they are after all simply schools.
When I have children I'll probably look towards a Grammar education for them, but at the same time, I fear the schooling element of a child's upbringing is only one factor (albeit a major one) of several that will dictate their future. Something which can be seen in children as young as the Nursery/Reception if the girlfriend's experiences teaching are anything to go by.
Rather than have a huge debate about Grammar schools, I think the government should perhaps explore more fundamental issues to childhood and education - and unfortunately, that means placing parental support and responsibility under a lot more scrutiny.
Two of them spent their whole secondary school career at a grammar, one was at a high school up to GCSE level and then went to a grammar for A levels.
I have read a number of posts above relating to the 'ruthless nature' of grammars. All I can say from our personal experience of both types of school is that the grammar was far more supportive of special needs issues than the high school which does not bear out that 'ruthlessness' viewpoint.
Plus grammar kids are absolute divs, can't bare them.
She was happy to go to the local secondary school. She has just finished her GSCEs where she got 1A*, 8A, 2 B & 1 C in art. She often moaned that she was bored at school and she wanted to learn more. It took a lot of phone calls and visits to remind the school that they were they to teach all the pupils to the best of their abilities.
Had she got to grammar school, I'm not sure how much better her results would have been, along how happy she would have been, which in someways is more important.