This is a list of the current 163 state-funded fully selective schools (grammar schools) in England, as enumerated by Statutory Instrument.[2][3][4] The 1998 Statutory Instrument listed 166 such schools. However, in 2000 Bristol Local Education Authority, following consultation, implemented changes removing selection by 11+ exam from the entry requirements for two of the schools on this original list.[5] Two schools (Chatham House Grammar School and Clarendon House Grammar School) merged in 2013.[6] This list does not include former direct grant grammar schools which elected to remain independent, often retaining the title grammar school. For such schools see the list of direct grant grammar schools.
Under the Tripartite System of secondary education in England between the 1940s and 1960s, approximately a quarter of children were selected by the eleven plus exam for entry to grammar schools, either LEA-maintained grammar schools fully funded by the local education authority, or direct grant grammar schools funded by the Ministry of Education. Most of the maintained grammar schools were closed or converted to comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 1970s, though a few local authorities resisted this move and retained a selective system.There are also a number of isolated grammar schools, which admit the candidates who score highest on their entry tests.[7][8]
Oxford Grammar For Schools 1 Pdf Free Download
Download Zip 🔥 https://shoxet.com/2yGbMm 🔥
Selective education has been a feature in the British education system for centuries, but modern grammar schools can be drawn back to the Education Act of 1944. This aimed to reduce inequality in post-war secondary education by making it free, but at the same time created a two-tier system. Grammar schools were to focus on academic studies, while secondary modern schools encouraged children to enter into trades.
Beyond the problematic access to grammar schools, once a student joins is their attainment significantly better than at state comprehensive? The Attainment 8 measure totals students on eight government approved subjects at GCSE before averaging for the school. In 2022, grammar schools received 74.1 under this analysis. In contrast, state-funded secondary schools achieved 44.2 in highly selective areas and 48.9 in non-highly selective areas, referring to how significant the presence of selective education is in those areas.
From such statistics it would appear grammar schools achieve what they set out to do: selective social mobility by promoting high academic standards. However, the truth in these figures is that prior attainment is the driving factor. Measuring those with high prior attainment makes the scores 77 for grammar schools, and for non-selective schools 62.6 in highly selective areas and 68.4 in other areas.
This would make grammar schools a channel for students with existing talent and privileged backgrounds rather than a significant tool for social mobility and development. On average, their pupils only achieve a third of a grade higher across eight GCSE subjects than their comprehensive counterparts. Though it would be wrong to ignore the inequality they promote, even within their own parameters the model is a failure.
It also fits the democratic image of a Shakespeare just like the rest of us only more so. He was, in this view, better off without an education, given the restrictive quality of what was offered: Grammar school being largely a flogging institution concerned to thrash Latin grammar into the heads of unwilling schoolboys, and the universities (Oxford and Cambridge) being little more than vocational schools for clerics, lawyers and physicians. He was lucky, in this view, to have escaped the clutches of the educational system.
The other school of thought recognizes that, according to the poems and plays credited to him, he was clearly a man of considerable learning, especially in the Latin classics. He must have been able to read many of the original sources in French, Italian and even Spanish and Greek, translations not being available at the time. This school has then to account for how the boy from Stratford-on-Avon acquired such mastery. The author of the plays also shows evidence of a detailed knowledge of English history, legal and military matters, the sea and sailing, aristocratic sports and pastimes, the geography, art, theater and customs of northern Italy, and courtly life in England and France and even Denmark.
[pullquote]This question of whether anything in the Works specifically indicates Grammar School experience, becomes a real issue because there is a ready solution to the problem that bypasses the Grammar School altogether.[/pullquote]This question of whether anything in the Works specifically indicates grammar school experience, becomes a real issue because there is a ready solution to the problem that bypasses the grammar school altogether. This proposes that the author of the works was not the untutored boy from Stratford at all, but a nobleman who indeed was privately tutored in the way that noblemen were, by the very best teachers; a nobleman who went to the university (or even both of them) then to the Inns of Court to study law, traveled in Italy and France, knew the royal courts intimately, served as a soldier and a sailor, spoke French and Italian, wrote a graceful Latin and French, devised poetry and plays for his fellow aristocrats at court, and was involved with his own companies of players, and with playwrights and authors of whom he was a patron and employer: a known man of letters and the theater.
There were thus a lot of poorly qualified teachers out there in what were often flyby-night operations. This makes Stratford all the more admirable, both in its secure foundation and funding and in the high standards required of its schoolmasters.
If William had gone to the school it would have been between 1571 and 1579. There is something of a mystery about the existence of a petty school for the teaching of letters. The records seem to imply that the usher would start the boys on grammar at seven, assuming them to have been taught to read and write. The critics have not failed to point out that this tuition could not have been from illiterate parents. But even the sons of literate burghers were not educated by their parents; they would have gone to a petty school.
This leaves the issue of the portrayal of the schoolmaster in the plays, with Sir Hugh Evans as the most prominent. How could the author have painted such accurate pictures without direct knowledge of the Grammar School scene? But first, there are some little-quoted specific references to the schools themselves that demand attention. The following is from Henry VIII, where Griffith is replying to Queen Katherine, who has been rejoicing in the fall of her archenemy, Cardinal Wolsey. Griffith asks her to reconsider and praises Wolsey in general (this and future quotes from the Folger Shakespeare Library editions):
We cannot avoid the famous scene with Sir Hugh Evans in The Merry Wives, even though it has been quoted to death by now. It is regarded as conclusive evidence that Shakespeare, as the author, went to the Grammar School, since he seems to recollect his experience directly. The scene is odd since it has all the appearance of being inserted for its own sake. It has no relation to the plot whatsoever. In this it is like the equally curious scene of the German visitors and the mysterious duke (IV.iii). But this is a sprawling, peculiar play altogether. No one seems to doubt it is part of the canon, but it is more of a knockabout farce than a Shakespearean comedy.
Fifth: the Earls of Oxford were guardians of a local free Grammar School, and Oxford was familiar with its ways and its schoolmasters, and concerned, however clumsily, with the running of it.
As to the vast learning displayed in the plays that Baldwin lays out in his two volumes, while this might have been available from the best of the larger schools, it was even more available from the kind of private tuition that was given the little Prince Edward, and his young nobleman namesake, Edward de Vere. Even Baldwin finds it hard to imagine an advanced knowledge of Greek, Italian, French and Spanish being available at Stratford. The fact that we find numerous references in the plays to texts that were taught in the Grammar Schools, as Baldwin indefatigably does, does not tell us that the knowledge was gained there, any more than from the private instruction given to noblemen that mirrored it line for line.
[pullquote]We do not need to claim that the author of the plays must have been to a Grammar School. On the other hand, neither do Oxfordians need to trash the Stratford school and grammar schools in general to make their case.[/pullquote]We know that Oxford was a precocious student. By the age of thirteen, Nowell figured he had no more to teach him. He wrote an elegant Latin, and letters in French, and he spoke both French and Italian, could read Spanish, and bought books in foreign languages. We do not need to claim that the author of the plays must have been to a Grammar School. On the other hand, neither do Oxfordians need to trash the Stratford school and grammar schools in general to make their case. If William Shakespeare did go to school in Stratford, he could have got for himself a good education, depending on the time he spent there. The extent of this will perhaps always be a mystery.
Robin Fox, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is a distinguished sociologist/anthropologist currently at Rutgers University, where he founded the Department of Anthropology in 1967, and helped to establish the biosocial study of human society with the help of Lionel Tiger and the H.F. Guggenheim Foundation. He has written well-known books on human and primate kinship systems, the evolution of the brain, and the relevance of both to the study of the origins of mind and human society, and is a member of the National Academy of Science.
This essay is an abridged version of a talk given at the Shakespeare-Oxford Society Conference at White Plains NY in October, 2008. Several people offered useful suggestions, corrections and help: Frank Davis, John Hamill, Stephanie Hughes, Alan Macfarlane, Sarah Harrison, Earl Showerman, John Shahan, Richard Whalen, Ramon Jimnez, Charmaine Smiklo and Michael Egan. 152ee80cbc
failed to download snapshot information for the specified date