Peter Hitchens: the sabotage of the grammar schools | SpectatorTV

James Heale, The Spectator's diary editor, speaks to Peter Hitchens about how utopian egalitarians ruined the British education system and sabotaged the grammar schools. Could the grammar schools make a comeback, James asks.
This is the second episode of The View from 22, a new show from The Spectator's offices at 22 Old Queen Street. Each week, we'll have a look at something that doesn't quite fit into our usual offering on The Week in 60 Minutes.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 Amazon voucher
www.spectator.co.uk/tvoffer
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspec. .
/ the-. .
/ spectator1828

[@jp80a68]

My working class parents, Dad worked in a foundry, Mum part time in a laundry, struggled to buy the extensive uniform needed for my grammar school, it was the 70's and inflation hit 20%. However they thought that it was worth the effort when, in the late 70's I went to university, at a time when only I in 20 students did. In that year two girls from my school went to Oxford , many became doctors, lecturers, nurses and nuns. My life has been so much richer than it could have been and I hope that by volunteering, I have been able to share that richness, with the faith Community that supported my Grammar School. Grammar schools were a engine of social mobility. The sad thing is that the labour ministers, who benefitted from those Grammar Schools are the very ones who distroyed them.

[@davideldred.campingwilder6481]

Well, in all fairness, Thatcher did get the ball rolling and Blaire wasn't a left winged card carrying Labour politician, was he?

[@Anonymous-qw]

@@davideldred.campingwilder6481 Margaret Thatcher converted more grammar schools to comprehensives than anyone else.

[@yp77738yp77739]

As an ex grammar pupil, we had a mixture of students from all economic strata and all received a fabulous education. Including several whom went on to serve as MPs. We have lost that driver of upward social mobility. It is so wholly obvious, that when you have a normal distribution of intelligence, that it is an impossibility to teach those at either end of this distribution concurrently and effectively. Unfortunately, in our area there are no grammar schools. So I was forced to send my son to the local academy. The first 2 years were spent largely dancing, drawing cartoons and other nonsense. The next 3 were spent with him bored out of his brain on an unambitious GCSE curriculum and then in theory 2 years of 4 A levels ( we had to lobby hard for that). So the reality was that we spent at least 2 hours a day, teaching him at home what the school had omitted. By his final year, he was helping the teachers to understand mathematical problems. His best performance were the times during covid shutdowns when he could self study. I’m absolutely disgusted at what has happened to Britains education, it’s not even third world. I have friends whom went through the Chinese system, while our kids are learning to break dance or to rap or being kind about transgender freaks, they are busy studying Plato, Nietzsche and classical thought and literature. It seems to me the primary objective is to prevent learning and restrict social mobility. My dream is to dismantle it and start afresh. Rant over, but I’m really angry about it.

[@sisiphas]

Me too

[@winstonscott4195]

@@sisiphas The term academy as used today in the English education system is only a description of the way the school is run funded . It means the state school is no longer run by the local authority. It is independent of the local authority. Academies in the sense can be grammar schools, comprehensive schools or ex private schools which have become academies to get more funding and to broaden their intake.Some partially selective comprehensive schools are academies.

[@TheNobbynoonar]

“It seems to me the primary objective is to prevent learning and restrict social mobility” Exactly. It is now illegal to start up a new Grammar school in England. I wonder why the powers that be are so against them? Never made sense to me.

[@yp77738yp77739]

@@TheNobbynoonar It’s liberal doctrine. The problem is that selective education, whether it be in the state or independent sector, delivers better outcomes than the comprehensive system. So, like they are targeting independent schools today (see PMQs), Grammar schools are unpopular with liberals because they perform better than academies (or comprehensives). Academies were supposed to be better, however, having sent my son to a so called “highly performing” example, they are very much not. They, by design, drag down the performance of the able cohort. The Swiss/German model is far superior. They test at about 10, then stream into 3 different types of school. For low academic achievers they go to a system where they are professionally educated into a trade. An upper stream for the academically able, that feeds into the universities and then a middle stream where they get diverted either way. It works brilliantly for both technical tradespersons and the academically able. I have a friend in the UK whose daughter is artistic and wanted to go into make prosthetic masks for films and stages. She was made to retake her English and maths GCSEs for 4 consecutive years before she was allowed to go to a tech college to learn her trade. It’s all bonkers. The elephant in the room is that actually, the two major correlations for academic achievement are not related to schooling at all. They are related to the degree of parental input into their child’s learning (particularly early years) and the IQ/genetics of the child. Don’t want to open up that minefield!

[@yp77738yp77739]

@@winstonscott4195 But, for example in our area, Cheshire east, there is no other option other than academies. There is no selection process at the end of KS2. Even the local Catholic school is a voluntary academy. They are all equally unambitious in their learning offering and weak in their outcomes. I remember about 10 boys from my year (circa 90 students) going on to Oxbridge. Of the 3 academies in our area, in excess of 2000 students, this years Oxbridge output was 2. So much for social mobility.

[@vincekerrigan8300]

I was lucky enough to live in Surrey in the 1940's, which had one of the few Education Authorities which embraced the tripartite system, with four Junior Technical Shools, as they were called. They were situated at Redhill, Guidford, Kingston and Wimbledon. I was out of the country at the age of eleven, arriving back just too late to take the Grammar School exam. I attended a Central School until being entered for the Junior Tech. entrance examination for the Wimbledon school. I attended there from 1946 to 1948, and I have to say that the school was outstanding. We were told in a pep talk on arrival, not to concern ourselves that we weren't at a Grammar School, because we were going to do in two years what they did in five - and by golly they were right. The way we had to work, and the standards we were expected to achieve would probably send pupils of today into a decline. Although there were practical subjects, obviously, the emphasis was academic, and all the pupils went into the building and engineering professions, qualifying as Archtects, Civil and Structural Engineers and the like. I qualified as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor. The system was excellent, and it was great pity that the tripartite system had such a limited take up, since the 'second chance' it offered was so beneficial for many.

[@dianastevenson131]

We also had technical schools in Bromley, Bexley and Chislehurst - my brother went to one. It was very impressive, better than the grammar school I attended in many ways. His school provided the Art Foundation Course as an option in the sixth form, and the girls' technical schools provided a commercial/secretarial course as an option in addition to A Levels. The later OND and HND courses were in some ways a development from the technical schools I believe, and they prepared people for work in a better way than A Levels or University degrees.

[@joeclarke7048]

I enjoyed your interesting and constructive post. Thank you.

[@RalphEllis]

The policy was…. Quote: “we will identify all the best schools in the country, and close them down.” The result of the policy was… Quote: “social mobility is reducing, and we don’t understand why.” I was a grammar school boy, and it was the best system ever. It took children of road sweepers and toilet cleaners, and propelled them into Oxbridge (if they were good enough). R

[@hughn]

Grammar schools were excellent for social mobility and were often staffed by teachers who had aspirations for their pupils, many of whom would be doomed to dead-end jobs in the local area and/or just inherited jobs from their families. Rather than embedding political opinions in pupils, the teachers were politically neutral and rather than teach-to-the-test actually gave pupils an Education (capital 'E' intentional' with lessons for life.

[@mikecarroll6358]

My school was destroyed in 1968 as it went comprehensive. A great school offering O level and A levels to kids from a council estate was wiped out and within a few years an educational heritage of many decades vanished.

[@lawolsten]

The comprehensive school that replaced it..... I'm assuming no great academic achievements have been achieved from it's alumni? No great tradesman have spawned from it's system, no nurses or doctors.... Of course there have! I'm sick of this narrative you types spout, that "it all went to pot just after my days"... It's nonsense, you're just out of touch, which is common theme for all prior generations to the next.

[@Anonymous-qw]

Didn't it do just the same as a comprehensive?

[@oliverford5367]

How did it get worse as a comp?

[@Anonymous-qw]

Did it no longer teach O and A levels after it went comprehensive

[@mikecarroll6358]

@@oliverford5367 Exam selection ceased. Catchment selection only which meant the feckless, stupid and generally numb skulled filled the school. The catchment was unfortunately the largest council estate in Manchester.

[@acm1137]

I went to my local state school, which to use a Glaswegian colloquialism, was a complete "midden". No facilities, no extra curricular activities, teachers who didn't care or struggled to barely control classes, violent, rife with bullying and racism. Myself and my fellows were left to our own devices and I learnt more on my own reading the Classics and learning a foreign language. I was one of three who left at seventeen to attend university. I would have benefited greatly from the grammar school system.

[@Anonymous-qw]

Should have worked harder to pass the 11+ then

[@djbarbergreen3388]

My last two years at school were destroyed by Strikes 85-87, no one seemed to care about our education, I had o'levels in Art And physics, yet I was advised to work in a factory as an engineer, under my own steam I trained to be an electrician , then a carpenter because the council cut the electricians course..30yrs later im a therapeutic Counsellor. School didn't help me they undervalued me and others of my social standing

[@Mark_Dyer1]

I was the only one, of four boys, in our family to attend Grammar Schools (Wallingford and Chatham House, Ramsgate) but my surviving brothers both had an excellent education (they are numerate and literate: not something one can guarantee today) at a Church of England Secondary Modern School. It was the embittered products of PRIVATE SCHOOLS, within the Labour Party, who realised that the children of "lesser mortals" were getting as good an education as their parents had paid for, who decided to destroy Grammar Schools. Petulant Communists: just as we see all around us, today. Petulant Communists destroying the UK.

[@unusedsub3003]

Communists are unpleasant. But let's not forget the damage that Thatcher did. Replacing the stable and trusted old banking establishment with a bunch of East End barrow boys.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

@@unusedsub3003 Oh, I don't! It was Thatcher who removed all the regulatory infrastructure with which our (wiser) forebears has fenced in the BANKERS, so as to restrict their GREED. And - once the wretched woman (it had to be a woman!) - had let GREED out of its cage, there could be no returning it to the cage. Today, the chief characteristics of the 'successful' in our society are LIES and GREED.

[@unusedsub3003]

@@Mark_Dyer1 Well said, Sir! I am a reluctant Labour voter, but I sort of like the trusted old class system that you refer to. Thatcher did as much damage to our country as any communist. My dad was an officer in the Army, an old fashioned reactionary, and he hated Thatcher.

[@Mark_Dyer1]

@@unusedsub3003 I didn't hate her. Back in the 1980s I was in my 40s; had just met my partner (we're still together), and felt better about "being British" than I had since I gained adolescent consciousness. She did raise us up: but her successors have seen to it that we should know our place!

[@unusedsub3003]

@@Mark_Dyer1 I was born in 85, my dad was 43 at the time and serving in South Armagh. He was every inch the High Tory, which meant he was protectionist and despised liberal economics as much as any Marxist. Oddly, out of rebellion, I went to university and became a pacifist and a socialist. Now I'm much older, my dad has died and I have children of my own, I oddly find myself arriving at High Tory conclusions. I think overall, Thatcher did more harm than good. There are a lot of places up North that have been deindustrialised and just left to rot. I'm privately educated and from the Home Counties, so I admit, I'm probably not the best commentator, but I don't like seeing my own people suffer.

[@MrMjp58]

I went to one of those rare Technical Schools in the late 60's. My impression was that it was a grammar in all but name. I was not really equipped for the rigorous education they offered there, having scraped through the11 plus by a mere whisker. Having said that, I still benefitted in various ways from having gone there.

[@georgesdelatour]

Societies like ours cannot have non-selective education systems; all they can do is choose different criteria of selection. For instance, we used to select by the child's ability to pass an exam at age 11. This was the grammar school / secondary modern system. Now we select by the child's parents' ability to buy a house in the catchment area of a "good" school; and/or their ability to feign a religious affiliation they don't actually hold. This is the comprehensive system. It's possible the comprehensive system is far better at selecting a robust future elite caste than the old grammar school system was. Success in modern Britain requires one to lie well. And the comprehensive system delivers its best educational service to the children of good liars.

[@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive]

Great guest choice. God bless 🙏🏾

[@oliverford5367]

Best way to think of grammar schools is as the opposite of special needs schools. We accept some children have special needs, neurodiversity requiring special attention, etc. Extend it the other way and some children need a very intellectual environment, and in that they'll thrive.

[@BrianSinai]

Fascinating subject. I look forward to reading more about it in Peter's new book.

[@peggyunderhill601]

I still remember the horror of the 11+ exam. From always being at or near the top of my class I was reduced to a gibbering idiot. I desperately wanted to succeed but My brain turned to mush and I doubt I got one question correct. My teachers were baffled when I didn’t pass.

[@winstonscott4195]

What most people understand by what was called ‘selectivE’ education, was the selection of pupils at the age of 11 for academic education at a grammar school. This primarily occurs now at 16. 16year pupils who acquire a brace of GCSES at the top grades will go to top academic 6th form colleges post 16 or go to 6th forms of existing grammar schools or academic comprehensive. The attempts to bring back secondary moderns in the name of University Technical schools often sponsored by the new universities ex polytechnic had failed in areas where immigrants want the benefits of a highly academic education which enable their children to be lawyers, doctors, engineers and scientists.

[@davideldred.campingwilder6481]

By brace, do you mean 2?

[@teamcoalhapcharcoal]

True to be fair.. it's all just delaying the inevitable separation of high flyers and average joes

[@blackbaron0]

I come from Buckinghamshire and we still have the Grammar School system. As has been noted elsewhere on these comments, the pupils were from all backgrounds and entry was based on academia. Those that went to Secondary School concentrated on practical skills, which are just as valuable as academic skills. Of course the 'Well -meaning' people like Shirley Williams saw this as some sort of discrimination, and helped get rid of a system which allowed people to escape their sometimes tough background. now it seems your education level now depends on postcode. I've also been told by those who favour practical skills that if the school favours academia then there is nothing for them. So many of my friends back then hated school and just wanted to get out and work. And fair play to them, they got work and worked on their skills. Given the system now in place, is it any wonder we have a skills shortage for Electricians, Plumbers and the like? Once again we have been dominated by people who 'know what's best for you'. Yeah right !

[@oliverford5367]

The evidence shows that since grammar schools were largely abolished, more top achievers have come from private schools and it's distorted the housing market to get into better-performing schools.

[@stephenrose1343]

I can throughly attest to what Peter Hitchin has written. I went to a Secondary modern school in the 70's. From its inception it had a Grammar school ethos of Latin motto, houses and school colours. The staff were largely ex servicemen and women who were highly motivated, the balance of whom were slightly more to the left. My headmaster was an Austrian refugee, who worked for Army intelligence during WW2. His name was Gordon Pieser, he was a Liberal and former president of the Headmasters Union. Under his tutelage we had a sixth form, practical classes designed to help boys into trades and rigorous academic courses for those who wanted to go to university. The academic results exceeded all expectation, regularly getting better A level results than neighbouring Grammar and Public schools. I myself got 4 A levels and some of my contemporaries excelled in law, government and the arts. One or two can still be seen weekly on the British media. I had the opportunity of painting his portrait a few years after leaving the RA. He confined in me that everyone wanted the school to fail, the left because it undermined the universal utopian idea of the comprehensive and the right because it eroded the academic differential between state and private.

[@sebastianvella8992]

This man is a living legend.

[@oliverford5367]

I often agree with him, except on Ukraine. I think he's naive when it comes to foreign policy. But on domestic policy, he's a sensible conservative voice.

[@benz.]

Great guest and a great video. But please, for the next episode, can you fix the audio settings so that it doesn't top out when anything which contains the letter 's' is said, it is very jarring.

[@barbaralukas1453]

I was told by a sound engineer that that irritating whistling sound whenever the letter "s" is spoken, is the most difficult issue to deal with because it's caused when the speaker is wearing false teeth and is, therefore, not anything the sound engineer can have control over.

[@AVMamfortas]

Interesting. I was 'selected' by what was a crude IQ test (The 11+) to attend a Grammar school in the mid '50's while my brother was sent to a Secondary Modern. The divide did my family and our brotherly relationship no good at all. I recognise that my school was fine but cannot say that my school experience was notable for 'excellence', indeed, it was subverted by my own Truancy. I was a very successful truant. My brother was just as non-excellent despite working far harder than I.

[@jonathangammond3019]

Researching for an exhibition called Back To School and found out lots about Llay, Madoc and St David's Secondary Moderns in Wrexham, north Wales. All three schools in 1950s and 1960s come across as having an intriguing mix of old fashioned Welsh academic learning, vocational training and forward thinking. Wrexham also had its own 'technical grammar' where you could be studying technical drawing alongside learning useful foreign languages rather than Latin and Ancient Greek. There were also the three grammar schools as well which were top class or 'top of the form' since their pupils appeared on that show many times.

[@paulgilliland2992]

I failed my eleven+ but ended up in a grammar school in Belfast. After a few years of struggle I went to comprehensive school and obtained 5 O Levels . From there I went a 2 year technical college and received an OND in Building Sciences. Then 2 years day release for a HNC . Then 4 years at Manchester University previously known as UMIST. It goes to show that grammar school isn’t for everyone and if you’re committed people have opportunities.

[@davideldred.campingwilder6481]

How'd you get in if you failed your 11+? Do you believe that Catholic schools gave a better education than protestant ones? Well done in your successes.

[@stmatthewsisland5134]

For your information Tunbridge Wells Kent had a technical school (and has now become a Grammar school)

[@winfrank1]

His brother is my hero good to see he's still around .

[@hitchikerspie]

Grammar schools are brilliant at increasing social mobility for highly talented students from less well off areas, however for increasing social mobility across the board the grammar/comprehensive system isn’t as good as the current system. Which option is preferable isn’t a question I can answer, but it’s important to be clear that there are drawbacks to both (larger number left behind with grammar/comp system) and less high social mobility for the highest achievers. Survivor bias means plenty adore their grammar schools, but there’s many more let down from comps.

[@giftokoh7153]

how does denying the opportunity for highly talented student from poorer backgrounds the opportunity to go to grammar school denying them the education they need help anyone in any way? You claim that the comprehensive system helps social Mobility is fanciful as the current system requires that you move into an expensive catchment area which many can not afford in order to get into a good comprehensive school as many of the comprehensive are big standard and standards have declined since the adoption of national comprehensive system in the uk.

[@TomRogersOnline]

@@giftokoh7153 I agree with this, but have you considered the possibility that no matter what system is adopted, middle-class and wealthy parents will find a way to game it? Had the tripartite (really bipartite) system continued officially, I'm pretty sure we would have seen it collapse in day-to-day reality. Pushy middle-class parents would have started pressuring teachers to let their thick children pass into grammar schools, even if they had officially failed the Eleven Plus (that was already going on actually, as teachers were able to exercise a discretion, which suggests to me that the tripartite system was not as meritocratic as it appears from a distance). The private sector would also have expanded, probably with a profusion of low-fee private grammar schools to cater to the offspring of middle-class children who had failed the Eleven Plus.

[@stephenbarden6121]

The abolition of Grammar schools has undoubtedly played a major part in Britain's stalled social mobility.Abolishing the private schools, thereby forcing wealthier parents to engage with the state school system, is problematic, due to the issue regarding people's freedom of choice to spend their money in a manner of their choice. Nevertheless, it would be a solution. Another solution would be to re-introduce Grammar schools across the country, as Peter Hitchens suggests, which would undoubtedly provide greater opportunities for working-class boys and girls. What isn't fair, and is totally hypocritical, is the current system loaded against bright working-class pupils, with both Labour and the Conservatives having vested interests in the destruction of Grammar schools, albeit for different reasons. Most Conservative politicians use private education; heaven forbid if exceptionally well-educated working-class pupils usurped their own children and gained the top university places they had pencilled in for their own offspring!! Our privileges must be maintained!! Labour, in contrast, is ideologically obsessed with egalitarianism, so prominent Labour politicians sometimes send their children to one of the top elite comprehensives, usually dependent on living in expensive houses in highly desirable locations, and self-righteously play the "comprehensive card"; as I think Peter Hitchens says in his book, Holland Park is technically a comprehensive school, yet only in the way that 10 Downing Street is technically an inner-London terraced house. Alternatively, they "do" a Harriet Harman/Diane Abbott, and simply send their children, with the greatest reluctance naturally, to a private school. As is all too often the case with many on the Left, it's do what I say, not do as I do. I've also never understood why the Left view selection by natural ability as unfair, unethical and unacceptable, whilst selection via the sheer size of the parental wallet is fine and dandy. Sadly, both parties have vested interests in keeping the system as it is, and it's very unlikely to change anytime soon.

[@robertallen591]

yes we need midle class advantage sod the great unwashed

[@andyscusting7783]

My schooling at Ballarat Grammar School was a big waste of my parents money ....... Bombed out and became unemployed .

[@danieldecides7894]

The question for PH is i think based on the assumption that schooling continues - in the sense that what is known as a school - a physical, defined building dedicated to educating younger minds carries on. I could write an essay - if i had the grammar, to provide an interesting examination and exploration over an alternative. But i will focus my question on the basis of a continuance of broadly the concept we have today in the UK. The objective i presume is choice of schooling for parents and children. To fulfil this objective it follows that a grammar school is available to the population but to what degree is i think less clear. The desire for a grammar school in a locality could be reasonably ascertained i think, which then could be depending on the demand side of the equation supplied by central government planning and funding to those localities thus facilitating choice and demand. I think that it is necessary to ‘come up’ with a selection process that amounts to anything basically, that is not ‘an exam’ on ‘a day’ which determines so very much. That is cruel, counter productive and unnecessary. Once you get past all of that, you then look at the alternatives with education - as in schooling age or lower education. It is necessary to replicate the same equation with view to supply and demand. This means that if you had for example, parents and educators who wished to begin their own school, then surely they are also entitled to do so by equal measure of central government planning and funding. You then have faith schools and before you know it you have a reflective schooling offering to the society of the year 2022 in the UK. So my question to PH would be based on that landscape as described - as in meaningful, truthful reflective choice upon public need, sentiment and matched incrementally by administrations of every stripe in perpetuity. What would PH advocate that is by equal measure to such an actuality for children as outlined, for teenagers/adults who for one reason or another, do not fulfil their potential at an early age? Is it not incumbent on a civilised society that has for one thing, a productivity lag to efficiently safeguard all talents by some defined mechanism that prevents, negates the loss of productive, creative and special people, albeit having developed/blossomed outside some arbitrary cut-off point age inserted by a higher authority. Thanks.

[@TomRogersOnline]

I agree with what you say. If I were asked to redesign the system, I would start by abolishing the system. Then I would say that it is down to parents, children, educationalists, local government, entrepreneurs, teachers and so on to decide what 'education' means, with some funding and direction from central government. The problem with the tripartite system is that it unintentionally created a needless hierarchy and reinforced an unnecessary class distinction between white collar and blue collar, which made it politically untenable in the long run. It fell because of the failure to invest in technical education. The lesson some people draw from this is that we need to recreate an updated version of the same system, this time with well-equipped technical schools. Maybe that will work, but possibly a better lesson is that people should be given choices.

[@markbateman9222]

As an product of the grammar school system - at least until the age of 16 - I agree with a great deal of what PH says. However, when he comes to Secondary Moderns he is far too easy going on the nature of many of these schools. Based on the experiences of friends who did not pass the 11+ and went to a a local secondary modern school, I cannot accept PH's description of those schools. They provided a very limited curriculum and were clearly designed to prepare pupils for a lifetime of unskilled, low paid jobs in industry. (In the 1960s and early 1970s we still had some of that!) On the whole, however, PH is right; when the grammar schools went a great deal was lost. It would be interesting to look at the schools where subjects such as Latin, or any serious study of the classical world, medieval history at examination level etc. etc. are taught.

[@davideldred.campingwilder6481]

Mark, many Comps are Catholic and Anglican. There you will get a pretty good education. Perhaps your mates went to Protestant ones. There is a great deal of a difference...

[@Anonymous-qw]

Your grammar school forgot to teach you grammar. It is "As a product of the grammar school system".

[@Anonymous-qw]

@@davideldred.campingwilder6481 FYI. Anglicans are Protestants.

[@shughy1]

Am I the only one noticing the whistling? Is there no way to EQ that out with a notch, it's like there's a budgerigar in the background 😃

[@barbaralukas1453]

A sound engineer told me that such "whistling" happens when a speaker has false teeth and that it's an extremely difficult issue to resolve.

[@Jopasd]

As a lefty who went to a comprehensive, I'd tentatively agree that comprehensives are a fudge, mainly because we were separated by ability anyway and then tended to socialise with similarly able classmates. The problem is Hitchens offers no suggestion about why having grammar schools on one site and secondary modern on another site might be better. I suspect its because it enabled the teachers to be more specialist. I wonder if a better arrangement might be to have essentially grammar and secondary modern on a shared site but the teachers only focus on either the grammar students or the SM... 🤔

[@oliverford5367]

You could have a federation, just as there are infant and junior schools in federation? And the end of the year, each child in the secondary modern can go up to the grammar?

[@iR3vil4te]

Huh! That’s my school in the old video at the beginning! RGS Guildford for anyone interested - now an independent selective day school.

[@kayedal-haddad]

How many Grammar Schools are there left in the UK?

[@oliverford5367]

132

[@paulwilson7622]

So how do those "bad" Secondary Moderns stack up against the more recent academic educational results, over last 10-20 years in modern education & schools? I think I know!

[@Anonymous-qw]

Please tell us then.

[@RalphEllis]

Peter Hitchens would be a really great man. If he did not talk to his invisible friend. My sister had an invisible friend. But she stopped talking to him when she was five. R

[@rc-vd8vm]

Unless primary schools prepare students for eleven plus those who are interested in the top sets esp, then grammar school would only be for those that can afford private tutors. Then their children go to grammar and remedial classes would be added because the children aren't meant to grammars anyway but parents can actually give more money for additional class hours. Hence I didn't get my kids tutoring, one is grammar and the other grammar streamed but they are not into remedial classes else I'll send them to the school nearby that's not grammar.

[@henrybn14ar]

The 11+ included an intelligence test which was difficult to train for.

[@Anonymous-qw]

A question to grammar school supporters. In your ideal system what percentage of pupils would go to the grammar school and what percentage of pupils would go to the secondary modern school? In the old system in England about a quarter of schools were grammar schools and between 20 to 25 percent of pupils passed the 11+ for the grammar school depending on the area. In the Northern Ireland systems 45% go to the grammar school and 55% go to the secondary modern school?

[@oliverford5367]

Roughly top 25%

[@Anonymous-qw]

@@oliverford5367 That used to be the percentage during the heyday of Grammar schools in the 50s and 60s. But other people have argued for different amounts like 50% like it is in Northern Ireland or to make them super exclusive so only the top 1 or 2% passed to Grammar School. The argument for that is that 25% pass 75% fail ratio was less than half so 75% of parents would feel hard done by. But the 25% pass rate was high enough to feel shameful if you failed. If they were super exclusive and only 1 or 2% passed it would be less shameful failing like not getting a scholarship to Winchester.

[@oliverford5367]

@@Anonymous-qw Do you think there's a percentage which would work better than comps?

[@themsmloveswar3985]

Solution : help Farage, and design the curriculum around a proper sense of purpose. Get on board. Destroy the Mainstream media. Switch it off, and focus on personal development. Then inspire others.

[@bertharius9518]

Sibilance! Audio de-essing required.

[@costakeith9048]

It was deliberate, Egalitarianism is the most evil ideology in human history.

[@NyalBurns]

Quite interesting anecdotes from old folk here in this comment section on their grammar school experience.

[@stormdancer25]

In continental EU, grammar schools are preparatory schools for University education. Other students go to trade schools.

[@martinsaunders2942]

Abolishing Grammar schools was one of the biggest mistakes in British history. They were the best way to create upward social mobility, and so much more. The socialist ambition was alway to drag everyone down to the lowest possible denominator. The current requirement for all the immigrants by the NHS, and business is absolute proof of the catastrophic failure of the British education system, that is simply unable to produce people who are employable In anything other than a warehouse or supermarket. And No the socialist want to also get rid of private education as well. Why don’t they just look honestly at the end result of their works!

[@eddyk2016]

Write your memoir Mr H

[@billyy123]

Not so popular is Peter it's when he changed his tune book is a fire starter for logs

[@KimPhilby-kw6gu]

Just don't vote and concentrate on yourself.

[@rookiediver]

Hitchins is always droning on about grammar schools

[@scottbuchanan9426]

Well, don't listen to him. And try and get his name right.

[@burtingtune]

8 words from you qualifies as more of a drone than an entire book by Peter Hitchens.

[@scottbuchanan9426]

@@burtingtune Well said!

[@unusedsub3003]

I get that he means well, but grammar schools are a fantasy. I guess that when the boomers were young, the grammar school system worked. However, I went to a grammar school in the 90s. Almost exclusively middle class pupils. Very ethnically diverse, plenty of sons of police inspectors, NHS Consultants, GPs, headteachers, Army officers etc, but no sons of call centre workers, hotel night porters or warehouse workers. I never met this mythical "council estate kid" that boomer Tory voters get misty eyed about. Grammar schools are a con, just more privileges for those that are already privileged. I'm a 100% against them. Thatcher destroyed the working class, there is just no way a child in a housing association home is going to achieve a grammar school education. Stress travels down, if parents are living a life of anxiety and stress due to low paid unstable employment, children pick up on that and it takes up mental energy that they should be putting into academic studies.

[@Trevski2001]

@unusedsub3003 I went to grammar school in the '70's (at least it was grammar when I joined, it was comprehensive when I left) and although I have mixed feelings, the school I attended did have a mix from working class to obviously quite well-off. Reading through the comments, everyone's experiences are different depending on where and when you went. As you allude to in your comment, I think the system did work when the powers that be wanted it to and supported it. Attitudes change and by the '90's the grammar school sector had probably shrunk from (say) 25% to 10%. It is in the nature of things that those with the least influence and resources were the ones to be squeezed out.

[@coastmansingha9980]

I went to a Secondary Modern school without knowing what one was, so please excuse my poor grammar and English skills. Only after leaving did I learn I was being prepared as factory fodder. Yet there were no factories where I lived. I agree with Peter when he talks about education being lost and what happened to grammar schools as wrong because the motives to destroy them were political. However, aptitude in Latin, Greek or indeed French should not have been used as a measure of someone’s ability or intelligence. Grammar schools were elitist and it was this that got up the noses of the Leftists & Socialists.

[@ageoflistening]

My sons both go to a grammar school and apart from the extreme leftist wokish agenda it is largely a good school. Problems I'm seeing is that the school has recently opened its doors to a broader spectrum of children that even my sons cant work out how they got in. There is a high percentage of children on the autistic spectrum and so repetitive groanings and ticks, behavioural control and repetitive tapping on desks etc are a daily issue. Massive distractions for all. These pupils arent able to learn, work and contribute in class with others at this supposedly higher level of education but the school gets money for them. My children don't understand how they had to work so hard to get in but be faced with other pupils that simply can't keep up with the level of work or the expected standard of behaviour for the school. The extension to working class students (as we are) is high also but the problems lie in not stomping on bad behaviour from the get go. On the whole the working class kids who are intelligent enough, do fabulously but dragged up kids who are pushed by parents to go to grammar schools when they dont want to be there, make the lessons miserable for all.

[@gavaniacono]

ZZZZZ ......SSSCHTZZZZ ..... Beware! Those with headphonez.

[@MRCAGR1]

I went to a grammar school and it was the worst thing I could have done, but at 11 you didn’t get a lot of input in the 1960’s. Just after I left the boys grammar school and girls high school joined the adjacent secondary modern school and became comprehensive. The grammar school had been founded in 1521 by the local abbey. Now I cannot stand to be associated with that school.

[@onlymeloni]

Because?

[@crozwayne]

Explain?

[@J-SH06]

We’re you tampered with?

[@winstonscott4195]

@@J-SH06 Don’t you you mean, ‘Were you tampered with?’

[@barryday9107]

As a non-leftie teacher who has taught in comprehensive, grammar and private schools, I can say that Peter is barking up the wrong tree here. Arbitrarily separating the top 25 per cent in terms of ability from everyone else will make no difference to the enormous problems in education. Top sets in comprehensives are taught in exactly the same way as in grammar schools and get the same results. Kent has grammars and has a pass rate of 50% in maths and English at grade 5 and above. That is exactly the same as the national average!

[@TomRogersOnline]

Selecting (you call it separating) the top performing 25% of pupils is not arbitrary. I think you are misusing the word. Given that you're a teacher, I'm rather concerned by your poor grasp of English. I hope you don't teach in the humanities. You say that top sets in comprehensives are "...taught in exactly the same way as in grammar schools and get [sic] the same results." That is clearly untrue. A comprehensive is not a grammar school, for a start. It's a completely different environment, in which bright youngsters typically don't have to dodge mindless louts on the way to double German. For another thing, the examination system has been completely altered since the official demise of the tripartite system. The statistic you quote about Kent grammar school results is nonsensical, which also makes me hope you're not a maths or science teacher. That leaves us with woodwork or PE. Woodworkers do need to be good at maths.

[@coastmansingha9980]

@@TomRogersOnline I went to a Secondary Modern school without knowing what one was, so please excuse my poor grammar and English skills. Only after leaving did, I learn I was being prepared as factory fodder. Yet there were no factories where I lived. I agree with Peter when he talks about education being lost and what happened to grammar schools was wrong because the motives to destroy them were political. However, aptitude in Latin, Greek or indeed French should not have been used as a measure of someone’s ability or intelligence. Grammar schools were elitist and it was this that got up the noses of the Leftists & Socialists.

[@TomRogersOnline]

@@coastmansingha9980 To be fair, grammar schools also taught a bit of maths and science now and then.

[@coastmansingha9980]

@@TomRogersOnline Just as well. Never woodworking, metal work or any other practical skill I doubt!

[@henrybn14ar]

That comprehensive schools were a recipe for disaster was evident from the early 1950s. We ended up with area schools ie rationing by ability to pay to live in a "good" area.

[@GuyLegge]

The only schools that don't have catchment areas Henry are boarding schools.

[@muhammadusamaRABIULAWAL13]

Muhammad Qasim has seen in many dreams exactly how Islam and Muslim Ummah will rise again in the entire world. This is also present in many hadiths of Prophet Muhammad SAW, and predictions made by popular Islamic Muftis. Muhammmad Qasim Dreams

[@doodlebrighton124]

Much as I love Peter, his whistling teeth make this an extremely painful listen.

[@hughn]

Perhaps he's running them in for a friend?

[@bertharius9518]

This sibilance could have easily been corrected in post-production, or better still, prevented/lessened with microphone adjustment at the time.

[@stormdancer25]

He has a posh accent, but bad teeth? Ironic🤔

[@maxwellglover9598]

Sounds like the floor of a sports hall

[@barbaralukas1453]

Sound engineers find this almost impossible to "fix" so apparently it's not as easy as you seem to think.

[@deepzepp4176]

The Spectator is awful. This was a good interview, though.

[@jfinn3575]

Is this the Spectator or the Daily Mail? because half the guests are DM columnists.

[@MichaelE.Douroux]

‘GASLIGHTING’ Merriam-Webster Word of the Year The Merriam-Webster dictionary has declared “gaslighting” to be the word of the year for 2022, as searches for the term skyrocketed - though there was no specific incident or usage of the word to spark the sudden interest. The term refers to the practice of intentionally deceiving someone by telling them that the state of the world is not what they perceive it to be. The term is used often in online political debates to accuse opponents of lying. But “gaslighting” goes beyond lying. To carry out the deception, the perpetrator must be seen to believe the lie and to act as if it were true, interpreting subsequent events through the prism of an illusory claim about reality. For example, when the Biden administration claimed inflation was “zero,” critics accused President Joe Biden of “gaslighting” by citing the month-to-month change in prices rather than the massive annual price increase. Likewise on gas prices, when the president claimed to have lowered gas prices because by late 2022 they had fallen below their record highs in the late spring, while they remained higher than when he took office in 2021. Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor at large, told the Associated Press (AP): “It was a word looked up frequently every single day of the year.” It also led searches on Monday morning on the dictionary’s website - beating “sentient” (#2) and “LGBTQIA” (#3). Merriam-Webster traces the term to a 1938 play, Gas Light, by Patrick Hamilton, and two films in the 1940s. “The term gaslighting was later used by mental health practitioners to clinically describe a form of prolonged coercive control in abusive relationships,” the AP added. ...as reported by Breitbart Across their entire waterfront, the thoroughly corrupt corporate media must be very pleased with how it has weaponized or replaced with 'gaslighting' what use to be known as the 'news' as a way to exercise power and control over the people for purely self-serving reasons. Journalists have been replaced by word-smithing corporate advocates whose top priority or mission is to weave and sell storylines that serve whatever agenda at any given time, with, of course, the occasional 'news' sprinkled in to make their entirely crooked enterprises look legitimate.

[@onlymeloni]

You could have said - " watch the film ".

[@MichaelE.Douroux]

@@onlymeloni It's been some eighty years since the film was released and people are now just starting to wake up to how they are being totally manipulated by the media like never before.

[@maxwellglover9598]

Park life