Grammar Schools
Discussion
Listening to the Today program, there's a debate regarding the first new grammar school in 50 years in Kent. Selective education based on capability has to be a good thing doesn't it? As someone who was educated in the 80's in a woeful C of E set up anything that encourages excellence rather than mediocrity should be welcomed.
I think so 100%; some people are cleverer than others, some are stronger, some are taller etc etc
I have never understood why meddlers have object to it as "elitist" - it is because that's how the world works, or SHOULD work. Why they think that having classes of ADHD disruptive kids, thickos etc and having them in the same class as intelligent, well brought up kids is a good thing I will never know. Doesn't work.
I have never understood why meddlers have object to it as "elitist" - it is because that's how the world works, or SHOULD work. Why they think that having classes of ADHD disruptive kids, thickos etc and having them in the same class as intelligent, well brought up kids is a good thing I will never know. Doesn't work.
truck71 said:
Listening to the Today program, there's a debate regarding the first new grammar school in 50 years in Kent. Selective education based on capability has to be a good thing doesn't it? As someone who was educated in the 80's in a woeful C of E set up anything that encourages excellence rather than mediocrity should be welcomed.
I think the argument is that everyone deserves a decent education, regardless of ability or potential. Also, there's the question of how one judges ability. In my day it seemed to be based on English, maths and history. Everything else was ignored. My brother was designing radios at the age of 8 or 9 so was passed onto a secondary modern where he was in classes of nearly 40. I read a lot and so eased through the 11+ and got into a school where each individual child had more money spent on them and enjoyed class sizes of 20-25.
My daughter has a rich friend who brings a lot of money into this country. She is all but dyslexic yet her comprehensive recognised her abilities and developed them. She went on to a university and the rest is, as they say, history.
Grammar schools will take money from other parts of the education system.
I'm not saying comprehensives are best, just that there is an alternative argument. 'Equal opportunity to develop potential has to be a good thing doesn't it?'
I have no problem with the best being streamed to nurture and challenge them. Done well, this also means that those of lesser ability can be taught to their strengths.
The problem is that near to me, the kids are trained to pass the entry exam for the grammar school. So, the richer parents who can afford to pay for the tuition get their kids into the local grammar school.
Of course, parents without the means could give up Sky TV, iPhones etc. to pay for the additional tuition, but that isn't going to happen outside the realms of PH is it now
We took the decision that my son could get into grammar school with a lot of effort but he would then struggle to keep up with his peers so felt it best he went to the local high school where he is doing really well.
Steve
The problem is that near to me, the kids are trained to pass the entry exam for the grammar school. So, the richer parents who can afford to pay for the tuition get their kids into the local grammar school.
Of course, parents without the means could give up Sky TV, iPhones etc. to pay for the additional tuition, but that isn't going to happen outside the realms of PH is it now
We took the decision that my son could get into grammar school with a lot of effort but he would then struggle to keep up with his peers so felt it best he went to the local high school where he is doing really well.
Steve
Listening to the lady on R4 this morning her primary objections seemed to centre on the fact that :
1. 15% of pupils would be coming from (horror) private primary schools
2. The middle classes are more inclined to push their kids to pass the 11 plus than working class parents
3. Educated people tended to influence their children in a positive way
4. Improving social mobility is not important
All of which can be boiled down to a toxic mix of envy politics and a misguided belief that all kids should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator, regardless of their ability, aspirations or the desires of their parents.
FTR I am an ex Grammar school boy. Grew up in a single parent family on a council estate. I have never understood why rewarding ability regardless of background was something to be attacked so vociferously and savagely by the left.
1. 15% of pupils would be coming from (horror) private primary schools
2. The middle classes are more inclined to push their kids to pass the 11 plus than working class parents
3. Educated people tended to influence their children in a positive way
4. Improving social mobility is not important
All of which can be boiled down to a toxic mix of envy politics and a misguided belief that all kids should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator, regardless of their ability, aspirations or the desires of their parents.
FTR I am an ex Grammar school boy. Grew up in a single parent family on a council estate. I have never understood why rewarding ability regardless of background was something to be attacked so vociferously and savagely by the left.
Derek Smith said:
truck71 said:
Listening to the Today program, there's a debate regarding the first new grammar school in 50 years in Kent. Selective education based on capability has to be a good thing doesn't it? As someone who was educated in the 80's in a woeful C of E set up anything that encourages excellence rather than mediocrity should be welcomed.
I think the argument is that everyone deserves a decent education, regardless of ability or potential. Steve vRS said:
The problem is that near to me, the kids are trained to pass the entry exam for the grammar school. So, the richer parents who can afford to pay for the tuition get their kids into the local grammar school.
Slightly O/TMany of the children who went to Master Blib's primary school, including him, had up to two years of extra, private tuition in order to prepare them for the entry exams for private schools.
This had two knock on effects. Firstly, the primary school now has a reputation for turning out well educated eleven year olds. Even though it is not a particularly good school. Instead, it is riding on the coat tails of the extra curricular teaching. And secondly, houses in the very small catchment area of the school are in greater demand because of this reputation and so, there is a mini price bubblette within the London price bubble.
Which is nice.
Dog Star said:
I think so 100%; some people are cleverer than others, some are stronger, some are taller etc etc
I have never understood why meddlers have object to it as "elitist" - it is because that's how the world works, or SHOULD work. Why they think that having classes of ADHD disruptive kids, thickos etc and having them in the same class as intelligent, well brought up kids is a good thing I will never know. Doesn't work.
While I agree with what you say. The problem with the Grammar system was how to identify the levels at age 10. This is not a problem in Kent since its only has a very limited Grammar places so this only apples to the top 2/3% of pupils. An IQ test will likely be accurate in picking out a majority of results in this case. Only a majority since its likely poorer children will not be taught to the test or may not even be entered. I have never understood why meddlers have object to it as "elitist" - it is because that's how the world works, or SHOULD work. Why they think that having classes of ADHD disruptive kids, thickos etc and having them in the same class as intelligent, well brought up kids is a good thing I will never know. Doesn't work.
In the old Grammar system where 20% where going to Grammar school the IQ test was a very poor arbitrator of intelligence.
Yes, the competition to get into a grammar school is intense, but that's life isn't it? There can only be a set number of people in a football or rugby team and plenty of kids are willing to practice for those, and their parents are willing to trek all over the countryside on a weekend taking them to matches.
Get 'em darn t'pit. That'll learn them.
I despise the idea that children should be segregated and that education and learning is a matter of cramming facts and information and those unable or unwilling to conform to some kind of Eastern style Confucian regime should be resigned to watching from the second tier.
I despise the idea that children should be segregated and that education and learning is a matter of cramming facts and information and those unable or unwilling to conform to some kind of Eastern style Confucian regime should be resigned to watching from the second tier.
I would be classed as middle class. I have two daughter of secondary school age and live in Bucks so we have the grammar school system here and in my view it work very very well.
I have one daughter who went to the local non selective school, she would have struggles at the Grammar schools and she has done superbly in the recent GCSE results and the school have helped her develop into a hard working well rounded teenager.
My other younger daughter is at the Local Grammar school, she would have been bored at the school my elder daughter is at, the younger excels when challenged and the way they are pushed at the grammar school is excellent.
One of the very interesting trade offs you get certainly round here is that the non selective schools have improved and improved over the last 15 years to the point where for 6th form the grammar and non selective share a lot of resource with the different schools specialising in different subjects, all the schools do not offer all the subjects at A Level but they do collectively. Also due to competition both between the schools at a staff level and also at a pupil level the end results are not so dissimilar, they just get there in a different way.
Both schools have what would be called middle class and working class in their catchment area and I see no bias towards middle class at the grammar and working class at the non selective.
Yes there is pressure on the kids round here around the entrance exam time but it only lasts a couple of months and lets face it the kids will have periods of pressure so when do you start exposing them to pressure is the question, is at 10/11 too early, I personally don't think so.
I have one daughter who went to the local non selective school, she would have struggles at the Grammar schools and she has done superbly in the recent GCSE results and the school have helped her develop into a hard working well rounded teenager.
My other younger daughter is at the Local Grammar school, she would have been bored at the school my elder daughter is at, the younger excels when challenged and the way they are pushed at the grammar school is excellent.
One of the very interesting trade offs you get certainly round here is that the non selective schools have improved and improved over the last 15 years to the point where for 6th form the grammar and non selective share a lot of resource with the different schools specialising in different subjects, all the schools do not offer all the subjects at A Level but they do collectively. Also due to competition both between the schools at a staff level and also at a pupil level the end results are not so dissimilar, they just get there in a different way.
Both schools have what would be called middle class and working class in their catchment area and I see no bias towards middle class at the grammar and working class at the non selective.
Yes there is pressure on the kids round here around the entrance exam time but it only lasts a couple of months and lets face it the kids will have periods of pressure so when do you start exposing them to pressure is the question, is at 10/11 too early, I personally don't think so.
AJS- said:
Peter Hitchens is very good on this.
I was also comprehensively uneducated in the 80s and 90s and looking back it's quite clear that the vast range of abilities and levels of interest had a huge negative impact on the quality of what was taught.
It's inevitable that with the increasingly limited resources available (the secondary schools in one LA face deficit budgets simply for maintaining current courses) one teacher and their assistant(s) are going to find the challenge of teaching 30 pupils with an IQ range of 80-150 more of a challenge than when the range is 80-100 or 120-150. Differentiated curricula, learning resources and teaching styles at 30 widespread levels in order to get the best from from Joey Essex, Learco Chindamo and Stephen Hawking in the same class is wholly unrealistic, not to say absolutely bonkers. That's not to say that some teachers don't spend aeons doing a herculean job of preparation and teaching in order to get as close as they can, but the battle is a lost cause and need not even take place.I was also comprehensively uneducated in the 80s and 90s and looking back it's quite clear that the vast range of abilities and levels of interest had a huge negative impact on the quality of what was taught.
From my own Kent grammar school experience in the 60/70's. It seemed to me that they were only really interested in the brighter 50% or those that could win sports trophies. In my opinion FWIW it may be better to be top of a secondary school than bottom of a grammar.... however I do realise the world has changed considerably since then but to use the analogy - better to be top of the 1st division or bottom of the premiership?
All my kids had the grammar option but chose secondary schools that their primary school friends went to, all are doing well for themselves so it worked for them.
All my kids had the grammar option but chose secondary schools that their primary school friends went to, all are doing well for themselves so it worked for them.
Edited by alfie2244 on Thursday 15th October 09:19
FredClogs said:
Get 'em darn t'pit. That'll learn them.
I despise the idea that children should be segregated and that education and learning is a matter of cramming facts and information and those unable or unwilling to conform to some kind of Eastern style Confucian regime should be resigned to watching from the second tier.
I think that was the mistake though. Secondary Moderns were very much the "second tier" but in true lefty fashion the government of the day chose to abolish the part of the system that was working and give everyone in state schooling a second rate education, with the possible exception of those who can buy their way in via a mortgage in an area with either a good "comprehensive" or grammar schools.I despise the idea that children should be segregated and that education and learning is a matter of cramming facts and information and those unable or unwilling to conform to some kind of Eastern style Confucian regime should be resigned to watching from the second tier.
Comprehensives also stream by ability internally anyway.
It would be perfectly possible to have Secondary Moderns which teach useful skills and play to the strengths of their pupils without them being a scrap heap for kids who are written off as second raters at 11, which I think anyone would agree is wrong.
I believe Germany has selective education with schools that focus more on technical skills or arts after 11, as well as grammar schools that push academic achievement. Seems to make a lot more sense to me than our current system.
FredClogs said:
Get 'em darn t'pit. That'll learn them.
Yes, because that is of course the whole point of selective secondary education 
FredClogs said:
I despise the idea that children should be segregated and that education and learning is a matter of cramming facts and information
Judging by the quality of your posts on PH one might have guessed that this would be your position.................... Facts have never featured strongly in your thinkingFredClogs said:
and those unable or unwilling to conform to some kind of Eastern style Confucian regime should be resigned to watching from the second tier.
Would sir like some salt and vinegar on that? andymadmak said:
FredClogs said:
Get 'em darn t'pit. That'll learn them.
Yes, because that is of course the whole point of selective secondary education FredClogs said:
I despise the idea that children should be segregated and that education and learning is a matter of cramming facts and information
Judging by the quality of your posts on PH one might have guessed that this would be your position.................... Facts have never featured strongly in your thinkingFredClogs said:
and those unable or unwilling to conform to some kind of Eastern style Confucian regime should be resigned to watching from the second tier.
Would sir like some salt and vinegar on that? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff