Abolishing Grammar Schools
Posted: Wednesday, February 04, 2009
by Sara O'Rourke
I remember the day very distinctly. My dad shook me awake at dawn and drove me to a secondary school somewhere far away where I was made to sit and take a written exam I knew nothing about. It was all over very quickly. What I didn't realise, at the time, was that hundreds of thousands of kids my age would also be taking that same test to gain entry into grammar schools in their area, and hook every hope and dream and aspiration on their performance.
The existance of grammar schools is an ongoing topic of controversy. There are endless questions, central of which is very basically whether or not the grammar school system should be abolished. In order to answer that question, I felt it was necessary to re-live my academic experience and try and draw on my sentiments.
First of all, I was treated very much like a statistic. There were, of course, the kindhearted teachers with whom I did build friendships, but overall your role in the school body was to achieve and shine. If you excelled at your exams, you were definitely treated better than if you fell back a little.
Second, having been both to a grammar school, and before that, to a comprehensive school, I sincerely feel that I missed out on a lot of social education. The school environment lacked extra curricular unwinding activities - discos, dances, gigs. We had a good time, but everything we did for fun we had to arrange ourselves. For that reason, I think the school year became relatively segregated - cliques were quite common and hard to shake or penetrate. When we did come together as a class, it was almost awkward to be talking to one another.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the pressure of going to a grammar school and the prejudice and expectations that come in that package were unbelievable and often hard to cope with. Not only did it fend of many potential friends the minute they found out where you were being educated, but it also meant that you had no room to mess up, no room to make a mistake. If you started to lag behind, people would automatically question your place at the school, question your potential and your worth. You had to be on top all the time, and it was truly exhausting, sucking all the fun out of learning.
On the other side of the scholastic spectrum, our neighbour school, a comprehensive, also had its negative aspects. For starters, I think they had severe trouble hiring and keeping staff, resulting in one of the highest staff turnovers in the county. Because of this, students rarely finished a course with the same teacher who guided them through its beginning. This kind of chop and cut change always has consequences on results and attainment.
Moreover, the sheer fact that the school is right beside the grammar school makes it a target for comparison on a daily basis, losing every time. Sure enough, it receives plenty of government funding, shares sports grounds with the grammar school, and outwardly is quite attractive, but behind the gates the attitude is very different. At the age of eleven, children sit this exam which determines their next seven years - and those seven years are critical. Friends are separated, families have to move to get into catchment, lives can turn completely around, and all for what, exactly?
I think the problem arises when the 11+ results come in and the children who do not score highly enough are automatically cast aside and feel as if already they have failed. There is so much hype and pride about grammar schools that all comprehensives become filled with a lot of kids who have lost motivation to work and to make something of themselves. With that lost will, it makes the school into an institution which doesn't produce very impressive average results. It's all a terrible, downward spiral.
My conclusion, thereby, is that with education, it's got to be all or nothing. That is, if we want to keep the grammar school system working, we have to improve and specialise the comprehensives. They have to be made out to be expert in certain fields, perhaps having colleges which teach particular trades. Not everyone should be pushed down the academic route. At the end of the day, a grammar school is just an enhanced school for the academically gifted, so having schools for the creatively gifted, actively gifted and so on and so forth, would level the measure of prestige and see more specifically qualified, happier young adults emerge from compulsory education.
This Article has been viewed 144 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)Hi Sara,You say you receive prejudice for going to the grammar, but have you thought that it works both ways? When I went to the grammar for the day and had my interview I felt that I was looked down upon by my would be teachers and peers because I went to the comprehensive across the road. Like many of my peers (from the comprehensive) who went to the grammar for the interview, we all felt that we were unwanted and looked down upon, so in some respects the prejudice you may receive can be earnt on a general aspect of the school.I believe that the grammar system weakens the whole schooling system. I believe this because it tries to pick the crème de le crème of students, it doesn’t always succeed and some do escape the net but a comprehensive will not succeed next to a grammar because of this reason. No matter how many specialities it has or how much funding it receives because if it doesn’t have the raw materials in the students it is going to fail. On the other side, yes the grammar school does benefit the system but only a minority.You are right that not all people are academically gifted, but the majority of secondary schools are specialised, I don’t know if you know but Buckingham is specialised as a Sports College. This means we train sports teachers so they can become qualified and then move to another school, this is the same for many schools and results in a high staff turnover. But I think you mean by specialising schools completely so they act like grammars accepting only students that are strong in that area but isn’t that why we have colleges and universities.Overall, I feel that schools should receive funding for each student and not by the schools success but yes a school should have the choice to specialise if it wants but I do not feel that the grammar school helps the system.Thanks for such a thought provoking article! :-)AlexAlex, I disagree with nearly every thing you said, here, I'm afraid. Allow me to explain. First, I am well aware that prejudice works both ways and is a mutual sentiment between different elites. Yes, the grammar school 'selected' are looked upon as exactly what you have just described - people that will look down their noses at others. Your words are the perfect example of what I meant. The truth is, only the minority of students act that way, and it is due to immaturity. In the same way exactly, the minority of comprehensive students will treat us that way, due to closed-mindedness. Prejudice is something that we cannot escape in any walk of life and therefore you have to push the boundaries and prove people wrong. Second, I think that the top students suited to grammar school teaching are selected by the examination process. Yes, perhaps some will 'escape the net', but that is what the chance to do a 12+ the subsequent year is for. Perhaps they could introduce a 13+, too, if that would please parents, but at the end of the day, it is a test that is an example of how teaching is going to be at that school, and people who cannot perform very well will struggle. That doesn't necessarily make them less intelligent, just not suited to that way of teaching and thinking. Third, I know that Buckingham school is specialised as a sports college. My school also was, as well as for science, maths and ICT. I think that these are great first steps to a system where students can finally learn what they are destined to learn - that which they have a natural flare for. If that be sport, then a sports college is going to suit them very well. If that be arts, then a creative college, and so on. University is too late for most students, as they would have already been pushed through a system that doesn't allow them to specialise, and may not have the required grades as a result. Also, university is not an option for everyone. And it is here that I think you are particulary mistaken - you contradict yourself saying that grammar schools try to crop the top academics and yet that you think some escape the net, and immediately that a school will fail without the raw materials - i.e. the intelligent students. Specialisms and an all-round better attitude to education would mean that schools will not fail. Students will feel proud to attend a school where they can do that which they love. Everything will be level. Because, you see, in the 1970s when the Labour party decided it should try to make everything equal in the education sector, it took a country full of grammar schools and closed all of them down with the exception of those in three counties. The new model was a 'one size fits all' and of course, that doesn't work practically. Standard comprehensives being the only option for education will do fine for the majority, but will hold back the gifted and push those below average, who need extra help. Thanks for your feedback.Your theory, that schools should specialise and admit students that are good in that area is a great idea but in practice it would not work. There are many reasons why this would not work but im going to categorise them into three areas.1) You would need to have a school for each specialism in a region or a group of counties. The problem with this is that it would be expensive to put in place and would cause mass movement of students because you can not expect people to move or commute. In turn were would you accomodate the students if they moved to the school (as in bording schools).2) If a school specialises in theory it will get the best teachers in that area and a budget to match this could result in great education in that area but possibly lacking in other areas of the cirriculum.3) The 11+ would be taken in year 6, would you expect children of the age 10-11 to take multiple tests to see if they are suited to a certain area and expect them to follow that through, no you wouldn't it is to young an age to be thinking way into the future. This is why i mentioned universities. Which is now very accessible with grants and loans, you could even argue that it is harder to afford to go to university if you earn over a certain amount because you no longer recieve the financial support on offer.When Labour came up with the idea of making every thing equal, yes i believe this is a better idea than grammar only if every school has the equal amount of funding, facilities etc. But yes you are correct in some ways that comps will hold back the gifted but only if they allow themselves to be. And in some cases going to a comp will give you a better grounding than going to a grammar because it allows you to work in an enviornment with many different social categories and improves your ability to adapt.By the way, wouldn't you agree that the 11+ is slightly flawed in areas, wouldn't it be better if teachers give reports about students who wish to go to a grammar and say if they are suited or not. OR if you bring back the grammar wouldn't it make more sense for students who excel in a comp school get transfered to the grammar without taking the 12+ and people struggling in the grammar get transferred to the comp?AlexRight. Let's see. 1. People commute or move houses for schools already, so yes, you can easily expect people to do that. 2. No, I don't think that at the age of 10 or 11 you're too young for a test like the 11+. The 11+ separates those who think in one way and those who think in another. The way in which you think is part of your makeup from a very, very early age, and will not change. And even when you get to university, some people don't know what they'd like to do, but that will happen in every walk of life and that's why people move around and change their minds. 3. Comprehensives and primary schools alike DO recommend pupils regardless of their 11+ result to grammar schools.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.