Well the Govt. has allowed a new* grammar school to be opened in Kent. The first for 50 years.
I was schooled in a county that had closed their grammar schools. The schools that were previously grammar schools had a good reputation and houses in their catchment areas had a significant price premium. The pupils that come from them got the same “O†levels as everyone else, but local employers seemed keener to employ them. The schools also had more facilities than other local schools.
I am not against selective education alone, but do not think it fair that one school should get extra funding over others, if they are funded by the state, especially as it seems that grammar schools students tend to have parents from the A & B classes, i.e. managerial and professional who can afford the private tutors to get them through the 11+ exams. I.e. entrance success is not a level playing field.
So, build grammar schools if you must, but don’t use them as an excuse to limit funding or the quality of education given to others. Selection at 11 is not a good indicator of performance through life.
(I have paid for private education – both of my children were offered sixth form scholarships to good private schools locally – though only one chose to take the offer up.)
*It is technically an annex of an existing school in Kent, some 9 miles away.
|
>> >>
>> I am not against selective education alone, but do not think it fair that one
>> school should get extra funding over others, if they are funded by the state, especially
>> as it seems that grammar schools students tend to have parents from the A &
>> B classes, i.e. managerial and professional who can afford the private tutors to get them
>> through the 11+ exams. I.e. entrance success is not a level playing field.
>>
>>>>
>>
The best comprehensives also get a high proportion of pupils whose parents are higher earners because they can afford to move to the catchment areas of those schools, pushing local house prices up into the bargain.
|
|
Noticed the typo: Came from them... not come from them... ho hum.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 15 Oct 15 at 20:44
|
>> I.e. entrance success is not a level playing field.
That will always be the case.
|
>> >> I.e. entrance success is not a level playing field.
>>
>> That will always be the case.
>>
>>
And so isn't even worth trying to mitigate against?
|
>> And so isn't even worth trying to mitigate against?
>>
... and how would you propose doing it?
Life isn't 'fair', never has been and never will be.
Soak it up and get on with it. Those with enough drive and ambition work through it anyway.
|
> ... and how would you propose doing it?
>>
>> Life isn't 'fair', never has been and never will be.
>>
>> Soak it up and get on with it. Those with enough drive and ambition work
>> through it anyway.
What a very odd thing to say, to my mind anyway. I can't see how trying to assist people in making things more fair is a bad thing. If we applied that line of thought across the board we would have a strange set of affairs.
|
>> What a very odd thing to say, to my mind anyway.
I don't see what's odd about it.. it's fact
>>I can't see how
>> trying to assist people in making things more fair is a bad thing.
Neither do I, however, I did say 'how will you achieve it'?.... if there was a quick fix that was fair to all, and by that I mean both sides of the story... then why not. However, I don't think there is.
There will always be 'couldn't care less' parents... and conversely there will always be those who give their children a bit more...that's life, the State won't change that.
>> If we
>> applied that line of thought across the board we would have a strange set of
>> affairs.
>>
I don't think so. "Can you do anything about it in a meaningful, fair manner"?.... "No".... well accept it then... and get on with it.
|
> I don't see what's odd about it.. it's fact
As are many things but we attempt to mitigate them rather than just tell people it's tough luck./that's life/etc.
>> Neither do I, however, I did say 'how will you achieve it'?.... if there was
>> a quick fix that was fair to all, and by that I mean both sides
>> of the story... then why not. However, I don't think there is.
What about long term fixes?
>> I don't think so. "Can you do anything about it in a meaningful, fair manner"?....
>> "No".... well accept it then... and get on with it.
>>
People have thought that about all sorts of things particularly social issues. Its too difficult just leave it alone. Yet they do change.
The system we have now goes some way to remove the arbitrary system from the past.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 16 Oct 15 at 09:29
|
>> As are many things but we attempt to mitigate them rather than just tell people
>> it's tough luck./that's life/etc.
>>
I take your point... however, sometimes people need a straight answer, not one that gives them false hope or allows some in society to use as an excuse.
I firmly believe that straight talking, done in a polite manner, is a responsible way forward.
>> What about long term fixes?
What, like allowing the brightest pupils across the whole spectrum, to go to a school where they can learn, be pushed, achieve their potential?
The day a bog standard crappy comprehensive can do that, will be the day I agree with you.
I see no difference, by the way, in the principle of Grammar Schools and University. Both achieve a higher standard of education, accept the brighter pupils only and have an entrance system.
I don't see the people that dislike grammar schools saying the same about universities.
|
> I firmly believe that straight talking, done in a polite manner, is a responsible way forward.
>>
Correct as do i but that still shouldn't remove our ability or will to try and fix things that are unfair.
>> The day a bog standard crappy comprehensive can do that, will be the day I agree with you.
I went to one and it did all that. Of course i don't pretend that they are all liked that. But neither should we think they are all crappy if you had a bad experience. I think the principle is sound. It's how we impliment it.
>> I don't see the people that dislike grammar schools saying the same about universities.
Sufficiently different for it not be an issue. The principal is similar but the detail sufficiently separates the two.
|
>> I see no difference, by the way, in the principle of Grammar Schools and University.
>> Both achieve a higher standard of education, accept the brighter pupils only and have an
>> entrance system.
>>
>> I don't see the people that dislike grammar schools saying the same about universities.
I'm almost left speechless by that.
Can you really not see the difference between:
(a) a set of tests with a binary outcome applied on some random day at age (around) 11 with no second chance;
and
(b) A set of choices open to young adults with multiple permutations based on results over two/three groups of examinations over three academic years and most of which it is possible to re take?
|
>> I'm almost left speechless by that.
You've had problems with this before... you seemingly cannot get your head around a general principle... and then apply a literal sense to it.
I cannot be bothered to reply any more than that.
|
>> You've had problems with this before... you seemingly cannot get your head around a general
>> principle... and then apply a literal sense to it.
>>
>> I cannot be bothered to reply any more than that.
Well I think your general principle here involves declaring apples identical to bananas.
|
>> Well I think your general principle here involves declaring apples identical to bananas.
>>
They are both fruit.
|
>> They are both fruit.
So are tomatoes but you wouldn't add one to a fruit salad!!
|
>> And so isn't even worth trying to mitigate against?
Cough.
Militate? Closer to what you mean I think.
Sorry, no offence.
- Resident pedant.
|
>>Selection at 11 is not a good indicator of performance through life.
Isn't it? Admittedly it wasn't in my case. But I think its not a bad indicator overall.
|
>> Isn't it? Admittedly it wasn't in my case. But I think its not a bad
>> indicator overall.
Rather than rely on anecdata there is plenty of proper academic research on the subject. Unfortunately I'm off to work in a mo and won't finish until 19:30.
Will see what I can dig up later.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 16 Oct 15 at 07:54
|
>> >>Selection at 11 is not a good indicator of performance through life.
>>
I think the criticism usually made is that it is a self-fullfilling indicator.
If you select someone at 11, on whatever basis, and then give them a good education, they will tend to perform better than if you label them thick and send them to a sink school.
|
|
Good idea....at least the brightest will get a chance not be be levelled out with the dumbest. The Minister (female dunno who she was) spokesman on the Today programme mentioned the alternatives as "Secondary Moderns" - up to speed then ?!
|
There were never any Grammar Schools in Scotland. The equivalent was High School which took some 30-40% of 11/12 year olds. All my brothers went to High School and it seemed to be the norm as far as I was concerned.
I did not realise what a privilege it was - in my class most went to University which was surprising as only 1 in 20 went to Uni in the 1950s/60s. In the whole school there a handful of troublemakers in any one year - the whole ethos was working hard and achieve the best that you do.
My 3 sons went to the local Comp and all did well - they just avoided the 30/40% who had a different agenda from them. They all did well at school & Uni but I still believe they were lucky as the overall performance of comp schools in our area is well below the Scottish average for the National exams @ 16, 17 & 18.
Of the younger 2 boys there were approximately 15 boys in their primary class at a village school 5/6 are dead and they would be 37/38 today if they had lived. 1 died at work in an accident, 3/4 died from drugs and 1/2 have committed suicide (related to drugs?) 2/3 are continually in / out of prison...................the education @ the local Primary was really good and still is - it is a real shame that the outcomes for so many is very poor as they spiralled downwards from 12 onwards - not blaming the Comp School but the large part of Society in general that is out of control.
|
Education starts at home.
Caring parents, who make an effort to at least teach their children the basics of reading and number, will always make a difference. Similarly instilling the basics of good behaviour will enhance the whole learning experience both for teachers and children,
Later, when the children are at school, those same parents will take a keen interest in progress and will attend school meetings, plays, sports-days and such.
Grandparents can help, too; our grandchildren benefited from my wife's sitting down with them and spending much time with Ladybird books.
Those children who have ability, but no familial input, do suffer, but history has shown that the brightest will usually rise to the top.
Personally I think grammar schools are a good thing for academically inclined children, but these need to be combined with a good parallel tier of education for those whose bent is artistic or practical.
Our grand-children's school has this approach of parallel tracking, as later in the youngster's passage through school there are two separate, but equal sets, with independent, but linked titles, staff and Heads - one for traditional academia and the other for arts, sport and hands-on technicality.
GCSE results from both of these sets are virtually identical, taking the % of passes and grades, so a more practical approach does not have to lead to lower standards, aspirations or results.
|
That’s not reality unfortunately. It is not necessarily the brightest, it is those whose parents can afford the private 11+ tutors to get their children through the exams that get to the schools.
The schools would also be very biased to girls because they do a lot better at the 11+ exams than boys but the numbers are restricted in some instances to allow a semblance of an average split between boys and girls.
|
Reading gets over the gender imbalance by having a girls' grammar and a boys' grammar.
My lad's 11+ results should arrive early next week. I'm pretty sanguine about it, our local non-selective is a specialist maths and computing academy, which are his strengths, and it churns out very good exam results as well as having an exceptionally nice site and facilities for a state school. Couple of Oxbridge places gained this year for example. Good school.
We sent him to private tuition for a year, on top of being in a private prep school already (hence driving a shagged out old SAAB). If he doesn't make it to the grammar, it's obviously not meant to be. But at least we'll know we gave him the best chance.
Onwards and upwards.
|
>> Reading gets over the gender imbalance by having a girls' grammar and a boys' grammar.
>>
Ours is the same set up.
|
>>I think the criticism usually made is that it is a self-fullfilling indicator.
Didn't know that was the criticism, thanks.
|
I have no problem with assessment and streaming in education. Don't really have a mind about how streaming is carried out, specialist or grammar schools seem as good as any other.
I have a problem with how assessment is carried out tho. Arbitrary tests at single arbitrary age slots are inaccurate, unfair, and as pointed out, self fulfilling.
Kids, (specially boys) mature at differing rates, assessment should be continual.
And if we have proper streaming, then maybe we will get those who are worthy sent off to university, instead of every tom dick and harriet sent off to 2nd rate universities doing second rate degrees, and devaluing the whole damn thing.
|
>> I have a problem with how assessment is carried out tho. Arbitrary tests at single
>> arbitrary age slots are inaccurate, unfair, and as pointed out, self fulfilling.
Absolutely. Further, because so much hangs on results and league tables the assessment tail wags the educational dog. Kids are not taught about the subject but how to pass the test. Mine were constantly told "the examiner is looking for x, y and z". Teachers are told exactly, to the page and paragraph, where their classes should be at end of each lesson - no flexibility to use their professional skills or a personal approach.
One outcome is that 18 year olds arrive at Uni and need to spend chunks of the first term improving understanding of basic concepts.
|
"no flexibility to use their professional skills or a personal approach"
Is that not the way many things in life are going now, with many roles working to scripts, methodologies and/or and expected behaviours? This was apparent in one of this weeks Apprentice losers (ex-Forces) who was making fishcakes "to the specification" and couldn't see beyond it, or inject a bit of common sense.
Often these days I find myself saying "well I suppose he's only doing his job" when I can see how a bit of "personal approach" would have a better "outcome" for everyone. Makes me feel like I'm being processed much of the time.
|
>> Arbitrary tests at single
>> arbitrary age slots are ... self fulfilling.
Spot on. A lot of work has shown that pupils tend to fulfil their teachers' expectations. Even good manners and appearance helps academic achievement, so being labelled a dunce will certainly hurt chances even without being sent to a less good school.
|
>> A lot of work has shown that pupils tend to fulfil their teachers'
>> expectations. Even good manners and appearance helps academic achievement, so being labelled a dunce will
>> certainly hurt chances even without being sent to a less good school.
>>
It doesn't help when a school does not know its children.
My eldest is currently studying year 4 on a medical degree.
Took GCSE maths 2 years early and got an A*. Still had to go to Maths classes and in reports was told that they would be lucky to get a "C" grade!
Took triple science a year early with the same results.
Mind you, all the studying was done at home on eldest's own initiative on the dining room table because the school just taught to the "C" grade level. They didn't expect higher results.
Even the head said eldest should aim for being a nurse and not a Dr.
A local private school saw the results and offered the most generous support package it had ever given as a scholarship and bursary to get the eldest there. Edests, exam percentages at A level were always in the high 90's.
So state schools need to buck up and teach their students to expect to do as well as is possible at what ever they do. Some will be mathematicians. Some will be plumbers. Just don't leave anyone behind.
|
>> self-fullfilling indicator.
Is that what BMW (and Audi) drivers assume is fitted to their cars? That would explain a lot.
|
My son has recently passed his 11+ and he worked damned hard for it. I would hate to see his education ruined by being stuck in a comprehensive with 30+ kids and half of them being grunting tearaways who don't want to be there and who have a teacher who is unable to control them.
I want the best for my children in early and later life and their education is the start of that process to ensure they make the best of it. I don't care what other's think. Selective schools are needed and if they cream the best off from the comp's then so be it.
Build some more I say and give parents a choice. Life is tough and its a competition from day one. There is no such thing as a level playing field in thie world and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fantasist or a commie.
|
|
Don't be so quick to dismiss "comps". It's not 1985 any more. Besides, even in comps (including the one I went to), classes are streamed by ability. I never experienced disruptive pupils at my comp, not in lessons anyway. And you learnt to avoid them in other places.
|
|
Believe me, the ones in our catchment area are dire and were Academies which have been taken over because their results were so bad and teachers were leaving in droves.
|
Why more grammar schools is a bad thing?
It is a good way to isolate your kids from chav class without paying private school fees.
Some random grammar schools will also reduce local spike of house price near existing grammar schools.
|
Selection is not the problem. It is the inequitable split of state funding that I have an issue with, based on postcode and parents’ wealth in the main.
It is also very difficult to change once in the system. Every child deserves excellent education and disruptive oiks should be weeded out.
Our local academy has class sizes of 90 and one disruptive pupil ruined a lesson for 90 other children.
(reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/138895
Page 3 of the report 22nd May 2015 report. Though this is to change.)
|
I had a bit of a brainwave on this a few years ago.
Instead of selecting the best 25%-30% and giving them a better education, send them all to the compo and whenever one is persistently disruptive select them and move them to a selective school for yobs so the rest can get on with it.
There'll be something 'ist' about that idea I have no doubt. But I think the mere threat of it would cure most of them.
|
>> I think the mere threat of it would cure most of them.
Not sure Manatee. Children don't care about that sort of threat. They think everything can always be readjusted and put back on the rails, so they just go for whatever they want to go for. They're all psychopaths really. Moral consciousness and canny caution take time to develop.
|
|
Proper punishments should be brought back, that would keep the kids under control. In the old days we used to get the cane, teacher made us bend over and usually three good wacks on the chops.
|
>> There'll be something 'ist' about that idea I have no doubt. But I think the
>> mere threat of it would cure most of them.
>>
Doubt it, theres a few specialist schools for that sort of thing. Not been in one, though I do remember various shows on tv about them. Seemed to have little impact on them.
|
>> Don't be so quick to dismiss "comps".
My kids both went to the local comprehensive along with everybody else from their primary and the dozen or so other feeder schools. Both got good GCSE and A level results and went on to University. Maybe in a Grammar school they'd have got a grade better in one or two subjects (somebody on the radio said half a grade across all subjects was average grammar gain) but they'd have lost the security that sticking with friendship groups gave them.
Another puzzle is why there's so much fuss and controversy over post 11 education while we seem to retain a consensus over Primary.
|
>> Another puzzle is why there's so much fuss and controversy over post 11 education while
>> we seem to retain a consensus over Primary.
>>
I'm not sure either, if I understand correct the grammar school system/11+ was in place for about 20 odd years and got rid of (started) about 50 years ago?
|
>> >> Don't be so quick to dismiss "comps".
>>
>> My kids both went to the local comprehensive along with everybody else from their primary
>> and the dozen or so other feeder schools.
Where did you go?
|
>> Where did you go?
You know the answer to that because we've done this before. My experience in the seventies has little evidential value in assessing schools today.
|
"You know the answer to that because we've done this before."
I don't know; can you give us the link?
|
H,
I was at school in the eleven plus era albeit in the West Riding where a large part of the decision was based on continuous assessment. I passed and went to a Grammer school - although it went comp while I was there.
|
|
It sounds, Brompt, as though you were there to witness the very start of the decline in educational standards. The trouble with continual assessment is that it is so subjective and, well, open to bribery.
|
>> It sounds, Brompt, as though you were there to witness the very start of the
>> decline in educational standards.
I deeply resent my time in a comprehensive.
I went to a 11+ selected school for my first year and a term.... then moved to an area that only had a comprehensive.
The two schools were utter chalk and cheese.
For those of you that don't want grammer schools, well sort the crap out in comprehensives then.
Discipline has to come back in and meaningful at that... followed by a ditching of the dreadful left wing ideology that has ruined many schools... combined with minimal union content.
If you want every child to have a decent education, make the mediocre schools improve.. not ensure the good schools sink.
|
My daughter, being a primary school teacher, takes a keen interest in the nuts and bolts of her children's education.
Our elder grandchild was due to start secondary school in September of this year and she researched the Ofsted reports and anecdotal tales of the comprehensives in Ipswich and was dismayed/horrified.
She and her husband have no choice where they will live, either now or in the future (SIL is in the Forces).
Luckily her husbands skills are in short supply and they qualified for the MoD Continuity of Education Allowance for both the children, by no means a foregone approval these days.
Our grandchildren are now in private education, which still calls for quite substantial parent contribution in fees per term. Uniforms and even minimal extras are costly, so we help in our limited way. This is a struggle financially, for them, but the chance of the children having such an opportunity, well beyond our family's expectations, or realistic ambitions, is considered to be worth the costs.
I spent the last four years of my education as a boarder at a state run grammar school - still quite rare then, as now. My parents paid boarding fees, but not, of course tuition. I know they had no help in those days and I expect they struggled to pay, too.
It seems to me to be not only natural, but desirable, for parents to want the best for their offspring and if the opportunity arises, I praise all parents who grasp the chance to better their children's chances in life.
|
>>For those of you that don't want grammer schools, well sort the crap out in comprehensives then.
I agree. But when comprehensives have 90 kids in a class (see my post above) it will never happen.
People want grammar schools because they are better funded than comprehensive schools.
Discipline needs to be re-introduced. This does not necessarily mean the cane. I had a lady form tutor who could stop unruly behaviour with the sharp edge of her tongue and not a cane, when another teacher that used a ruler liberally always had trouble in his class.
Disruptive pupils need to be weeded out. Disrupting a class almost needs to become a crime. Do it once and you are punished. Do it again and it is expulsion and perhaps remedial school. The kids that ruin it for others should be treated much harder.
|
>> Disruptive pupils need to be weeded out. Disrupting a class almost needs to become a
>> crime. Do it once and you are punished. Do it again and it is expulsion
>> and perhaps remedial school. The kids that ruin it for others should be treated much
>> harder.
Exactly. Make the selective schools the remedial ones. It might not cure them but it will solve the problem for the rest. And I think it would reduce the number of troublemakers - the parents would take a bit more interest in their children's behaviour instead of just blaming the teachers.
|
>>the parents would take a bit more interest in their children's behaviour instead of just blaming the teachers.
Some parents don't care - from all social classes - their offspring are seen as little angels (even after they have almost throttled the life out of a fellow student) and everyone else must be wrong in the assessment of their loved ones.
Either that or the parents are so self occupied in their own little world that they don't care.
Either way, if the child screws up, correction. If the child screws up again, punishment, but not only the child but the parents as well - perhaps a fine or removal of a prized possession like the 50 inch LCD TV and Sky box!?
|
>> grammer schools
Spelling mistake.. not intended. Sorry.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 11:07
|
Another view:
tinyurl.com/onjjet9
Hopefully it works for non Facebookers too.
|
"Another view: "
No wonder things were going badly in your neck of the woods, Brompt; in Leicestershire, the 11+ was generally administered to critters of the same species.
|
>> For those of you that don't want grammer schools, well sort the crap out in
>> comprehensives then.
They're not alternatives. Bad secondary-moderns would still need sorting out. Indeed it's arguable that there would be a greater social gain in focussing attention on the bottom 20%. The cream will float to the top anyway.
|
>> >> For those of you that don't want grammer schools, well sort the crap out
>> in
>> >> comprehensives then.
>>
>> They're not alternatives. Bad secondary-moderns would still need sorting out. Indeed it's arguable that there
>> would be a greater social gain in focussing attention on the bottom 20%. The cream
>> will float to the top anyway.
>>
So kind of an 11+ but filter out the bottom 20% into a different educational environment, and let the other 80% crack on with out the disruption? That would certainly have made a massive difference at my comprehensive... Though, for the avoidance of doubt there we some great teachers, some of whom I'm still in contact with :)
|
I'm too young (I think...) to have been able to benefit from a grammar school eduction...born in 1971. What I can quite safely say is that I am where I am today despite my comprehensive eduction not because of it....
Being bright, but naturally lazy, I was able to coast my way through 'O' levels and GCSEs easily with pretty much straight 'A' grades. When it came to 'A' levels... oops...that approach didn't quite work but wasn't really challenged, except by my parents. But who listens to them at 17 :p
So lower than expected 'A' levels results meant a panic through UCAS clearing to find a course/city I'd be happy with. Worked out okayish and it was a slight wake up call, insofar as I did do *some* work at Uni. Not too much though but with a respectable 2.1.
Question is though, although I would have undoubtedly achieved better grades and a place at a better university if I'd been in a more challenging school environment, would I have actually enjoyed myself? And ultimately, would I have been more successful! Who's knows...
|
>> Being bright, but naturally lazy, I was able to coast my way.....
So was I and even in a Grammar School I wasn't pushed/threatened sufficiently to mend my ways. Even the wake up call of failing several O levels didn't modify my behaviour that much. Never any prospect of being 'sent down' to the Secondary Modern though. One lad was defenestrated after two terms. He was a victim of Thalidomide lacking a left arm and displaying some very challenging/disruptive behaviour. Went on to a Special School I think.
|
One lad was defenestrated after two terms.
Wot, chucked out of a window? Bit excessive on the discipline front surely; straightforwardly expelled would be enough. :o)
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Sun 18 Oct 15 at 20:32
|
>> Wot, chucked out of a window? Bit excessive on the discipline front surely; straightforwardly expelled
>> would be enough. :o)
:-P
We arrived back after Easter Hols to be told Michael was no longer with us. I saw him again when we were 16 and school swimming sessions co-incided but although we both 'clocked' each other neither attempted conversation.
|
Piece in Guardian suggests legal position on new 'annexe' may not be bombproof:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/18/grammar-schools-nicky-morgan-subverting-law-approving-labour
Wonder if anybody's actually prepared to seek judicial review?
|
Professor Robert Plomin talks to Jim Al-Khalili about what makes some people smarter than others and why he's fed up with the genetics of intelligence being ignored.
A 30 min programme.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06j1qts
edited to make link work. (See Bromp's message that follows)
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Oct 15 at 10:19
|
|
Thanks for sorting the link.
|
Grammar Schools - Robin O'Reliant
