Grammar Schools
Discussion
turbobloke said:
FredClogs said:
a matter of cramming facts and information
Nothing to do with selective or comprehensive types of education.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.
You don't mind that 15 year olds aren't taught with 5 years old I assume? Why is that segregation any different?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.
And BTW...my Dad working down the pits since he was 12 and I went to QEGS...
FredClogs said:
From what I understand of the methods of getting kids into these selective schools that's exactly what it's about, tutoring and tutoring hard from aged 9 to 11.
Some parents push their kids into playing football as soon as they can walk - others don't. Guess which ones become footballers?Do you think football clubs should not employ the best players because their parents gave them an unfair advantage?
FredClogs said:
From what I understand of the methods of getting kids into these selective schools that's exactly what it's about, tutoring and tutoring hard from aged 9 to 11.
The fact is that the entrance exams require a technique which is not covered by any of the primary school curriculum (and nor should it be). The tutoring is to make sure the kid understands the exam paper and structure, so when they turn their paper over on the big day they are not phased by what they find. 
Derek Smith said:
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?'
Everyone does deserve a decent education, how that's delivered is the question.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?'
Tailoring that education to ability ensures the best results in all directions not just the grammar schools. I think using a historic selection criteria as a reason why it wouldn't be successful now doesn't stand, just because it wasn't the right format then doesn't mean it can't be now.
As for grammar schools sucking cash from other parts of the education system I'd be interested in the foundation of this view (genuinely not provocatively).
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.
Grammar schools and selective education based on capability is no bad thing albeit i would suggest it's not so much the quality of the education being provided that is key (although this obviously plays a large part) but more the fact that you've got classes of 25-35 children who all have aspirations to do well (or indeed a father/mother behind them with a rocket up their arse should they not achieve half decent results).They are very competitive environments, which i appreciate may not be for everyone - but if you want your children to achieve the best, that's a great place to start. Yes, these days kids are taught from a young age and specifically for 11-plus exams, but theoretically these schools are open to everyone, if you make the sacrifices.
crashley said:
but if you want your children to achieve the best, that's a great place to start.
If you want your children to achieve the best place to start is being rich yourself. The biggest sign of how will children will do in education is parental wealth. http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-...
andymadmak said:
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
Err ... she didn't say social mobility wasn't important. She was saying that points 1,2 and 3 meant that Grammar Schools didn't contribute to social mobility because they were just reinforcing existing social divisions. 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
Does it make sense to teach in a way that reflects a kid's ability? Yes, surely? Is that more practically achieved in a classroom of roughly equal ability? Yes, surely?
But does it follow that the school's entire intake should be of similar ability or achievement to date? No. Is there any reason to suppose that Grammar Schools are a particular good model to follow? I don't know anyone in private or public sector education who is particularly enthusiastic about them.
They've always struck me as a rather unambitious solution to the problem of state education. "Average standards may be poor, but at least we can rescue a few from the quagmire." We ought to aspire to do better than that.
gregf40 said:
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.
You don't mind that 15 year olds aren't taught with 5 years old I assume? Why is that segregation any different?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.
And BTW...my Dad working down the pits since he was 12 and I went to QEGS...
Dog Star said:
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.
ADHD disruptive kids, thickos etc... delightful.My son was asked if he wanted to attend the local GS , flat nope was the response , he is currently on target for A* across most subjects ( double science etc ) , mixed with the ADHD disruptive kids, thickos etc... shock horror .
I have no issue with this, though I went to grammar school for GCSE/A level.
Looking back I would say I got better results than if I had stayed at a comprehensive, but the people who stayed at comprehensive didn't do any better/worse than they would of without a grammar school system.
We did however have someone who got no GCSE's so you could argue people mature at different rates so education path shouldn't be defined at aged 13.
Looking back I would say I got better results than if I had stayed at a comprehensive, but the people who stayed at comprehensive didn't do any better/worse than they would of without a grammar school system.
We did however have someone who got no GCSE's so you could argue people mature at different rates so education path shouldn't be defined at aged 13.
Fittster said:
crashley said:
but if you want your children to achieve the best, that's a great place to start.
If you want your children to achieve the best place to start is being rich yourself. The biggest sign of how will children will do in education is parental wealth. http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff