Grammar Schools
Discussion
SilverSixer said:
turbobloke said:
Good news about your son
Huh? Where? Why haven't I been told? What good news? I said he passed 11+, didn't get a grammar place due to overcrowding, was allocated the mediocre comp nearest our house as per standard 'computer says no' procedure.SilverSixer said:
The case for free schools just seems to show they're just more of the same as comps, with added random gimmicks like rugby clubs setting them up.
Not quite, free schools operate free from the dead hand of the LA.SilverSixer said:
We've had them for 6 years now, where's the compelling evidence that they're going to lift standards for all children across the country?
Mounting. SilverSixer said:
Isn't that what we should be aiming for rather than setting up a system based on ego trips for minor celebrity gobs and pushy busybody parents with some kind of agenda?
No, not as a priority, because (removing the hype from the above and getting back to grammars) very able pupils will have a significant effect on the economy and therefore on the whole population which is at school with them who simply will not be the wealth creators and job creators of the future to anywhere near the same degree. There will always be the odd Alan Sugar but then, that's odd.SilverSixer said:
OK, I accept I'm exaggerating and not all free schools conform to this description.
It looks close to one in terms of the rugby club, but possibly you have the wrong idea of what the implications are. The ruggers will sit on the Trust, there will be local Governors, and the school will appoint a Headteacher, teachers, support staff and so on, and will still have to abide by significant statutory requirements. However the dead hand of the LA will still be absent.SilverSixer said:
but we're never going to create an equal, high quality experience for all by implementing free market dogma in education.
Comprehensives were dogma-driven at the point of creation and still are. Read up on the witterings of Mrs Alastair Campbell if you get a moment where you're feeling euphoric and want to be more sombre. AKA Fiona Millar.Education is politicised, this is where we are.
Nice quoting, well beyond my 1980s comprehensive school skillz.
In summary as a reply:
I see what you're saying about my son. Thanks. He's a lazy little shi-ite though so it's all up for grabs in terms of educational attainment, hence our decision to impoverish ourselves in the private system rather than risk him backsliding at the local comp.
Not all LAs are 'Dead Hands' just because they're public bodies. Just as not all free schools will be great because free schools. Six of one, half a dozen of the other most likely. Same goes for the dogma argument – free market dogma is no better than socialist dogma when it comes to public education.
In summary as a reply:
I see what you're saying about my son. Thanks. He's a lazy little shi-ite though so it's all up for grabs in terms of educational attainment, hence our decision to impoverish ourselves in the private system rather than risk him backsliding at the local comp.
Not all LAs are 'Dead Hands' just because they're public bodies. Just as not all free schools will be great because free schools. Six of one, half a dozen of the other most likely. Same goes for the dogma argument – free market dogma is no better than socialist dogma when it comes to public education.
turbobloke said:
No, not as a priority, because (removing the hype from the above and getting back to grammars) very able pupils will have a significant effect on the economy and therefore on the whole population which is at school with them who simply will not be the wealth creators and job creators of the future to anywhere near the same degree. There will always be the odd Alan Sugar but then, that's odd.
But it isn't grammar schools that provide the wealth creators is it, it's private schools.grammars are underrepresented vs private.
My position on this, I should make clear, is not to get rid of grammar schools, but to improve them, the way children get into them and the flow from comp schools. I don't think they are taking in the brightest or best children. I think it's just a way for wealthy parents to get a subsidised education at the expense of the rest of the country.
If the brightest were getting into grammar schools, then they would be outperforming private schools.
Efbe said:
turbobloke said:
No, not as a priority, because (removing the hype from the above and getting back to grammars) very able pupils will have a significant effect on the economy and therefore on the whole population which is at school with them who simply will not be the wealth creators and job creators of the future to anywhere near the same degree. There will always be the odd Alan Sugar but then, that's odd.
But it isn't grammar schools that provide the wealth creators is it, it's private schools.grammars are underrepresented vs private.
My position on this, I should make clear, is not to get rid of grammar schools, but to improve them, the way children get into them and the flow from comp schools. I don't think they are taking in the brightest or best children. I think it's just a way for wealthy parents to get a subsidised education at the expense of the rest of the country.
If the brightest were getting into grammar schools, then they would be outperforming private schools.
This level of grammar school ARE taking the brightest and best, hence their platinum standard results. There are grammar schools and there are grammar schools. The piecemeal system we have is just amplifying inequalities IMHO.
Not making any specific point here or arguing any case, just an anecdote from local experience.
SilverSixer said:
Nice quoting, well beyond my 1980s comprehensive school skillz.
In summary as a reply:
I see what you're saying about my son. Thanks. He's a lazy little shi-ite though so it's all up for grabs in terms of educational attainment, hence our decision to impoverish ourselves in the private system rather than risk him backsliding at the local comp.
Not all LAs are 'Dead Hands' just because they're public bodies.
That wasn't my basis. Which one isn't? In summary as a reply:
I see what you're saying about my son. Thanks. He's a lazy little shi-ite though so it's all up for grabs in terms of educational attainment, hence our decision to impoverish ourselves in the private system rather than risk him backsliding at the local comp.
Not all LAs are 'Dead Hands' just because they're public bodies.
SilverSixer said:
Same goes for the dogma argument – free market dogma is no better than socialist dogma when it comes to public education
Where have I said it was?! Evidence-based policymaking is rare, if it existed it would favour grammar school expansion. Oh, bingo! Rare but not absent. See previous posts with evidence, which will likely be invisible to certain people.Efbe said:
turbobloke said:
No, not as a priority, because (removing the hype from the above and getting back to grammars) very able pupils will have a significant effect on the economy and therefore on the whole population which is at school with them who simply will not be the wealth creators and job creators of the future to anywhere near the same degree. There will always be the odd Alan Sugar but then, that's odd.
But it isn't grammar schools that provide the wealth creators is it, it's private schools.turbobloke said:
I disagree, the contribution of grammar schools is significant. Such an exaggerated role for the independent sector is anachronistic. We have already had many senior politicians including Prime Ministers (Wilson, Heath, Thatcher) who attended state schools including grammars, likewise many captains of industry, academics, surgeons, judges, generals and barristers. These positions are no longer so dominated by the products of the independent sector; the ambition slotted into grammar school oiks really does have an effect.
interesting read if you have not already: http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2016...shows certain sectors going both ways
SilverSixer said:
Reading School (grammar) and its sister Kendrick outperform most private schools significantly. But this is because they set a catchment area so vast that they might as well just take applicants from the entire country. So far more people apply for the test than is reasonable, far more pass the test than they can ever reasonably accommodate, so this effectively pushes up the pass mark and they end up becoming, in their own words, 'Super Selective', genuinely taking the most able pupils and thereby outperforming even most private schools, including the likes of Eton. Their performance is purely down to the level of selectiveness. Reduce demand for places by putting grammars everywhere, e.g. Newbury, Wokingham, Maidenhead and other surrounding towns, their performance will drop as less-able-but-still-11+-passing children get in.
This level of grammar school ARE taking the brightest and best, hence their platinum standard results. There are grammar schools and there are grammar schools. The piecemeal system we have is just amplifying inequalities IMHO.
Not making any specific point here or arguing any case, just an anecdote from local experience.
anecdotal yes, but also interesting.This level of grammar school ARE taking the brightest and best, hence their platinum standard results. There are grammar schools and there are grammar schools. The piecemeal system we have is just amplifying inequalities IMHO.
Not making any specific point here or arguing any case, just an anecdote from local experience.
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
SilverSixer said:
Not all LAs are 'Dead Hands' just because they're public bodies. Just as not all free schools will be great because free schools. Six of one, half a dozen of the other most likely. Same goes for the dogma argument – free market dogma is no better than socialist dogma when it comes to public education.
But where all schools are controlled by the same LA, schooling provision will be pretty much the same across the board; the dreary comp you didn't want your boy to go to. There'll be 'good' schools and 'bad' schools but they'll all be tied into teaching the same stuff in the same way.Free schools offer choice. They might focus on academic excellence or they might, like my daughter's school focus on broadening their pupils' experiences and skills and not focusing solely on academic subjects. It's up to the head and the governors how the school is run.
My daughter's school caters for those children who may not be destined to achieve amazing exam results, it's still better than average in the state sector(89% A*-C) but offers pupils a wide range of activities outside the classroom from dance to charity work to climbing in school hours.
For various reasons we'd planned to send her there as a paying pupil so when they announced they were to become a free school we put her name down and even though they were 4x oversubscribed, she got a place and will be at the same school until she's 18.
As an aside, I don't know why the teaching unions are so against Free Schools, on the surface they provide teachers with all they've been moaning about for years; more control over what they teach and how they teach it. I suppose because it came from Bogeyman Gove....
Efbe said:
anecdotal yes, but also interesting.
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
I recall reading that the proposals around grammar schools include new entry points at age 14 and 16, would that meet with your approval as clearly there needs to be something new happening at 14 and 16.
SilverSixer said:
...where's the compelling evidence that they're going to lift standards for all children across the country? Isn't that what we should be aiming for...
From a one-size fits all silver bullet system? Sounds a bit likeSilverSixer said:
dogma
to me. Even if we accept Grammars / Comps for all / Free schools / Religious schools as the one true system today which magically improves standards for every child in the country (surely impossible, although destructively dragging standards down to a base level for all is trivial) I can't imagine there isn't scope for that to require change.I've always found homogeneous environments to be a bad idea but people seem drawn to creating them.
turbobloke said:
Efbe said:
anecdotal yes, but also interesting.
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
I recall reading that the proposals around grammar schools include new entry points at age 14 and 16, would that meet with your approval as clearly there needs to be something new happening at 14 and 16.
There are a few people that I work with that have sent their children to a comp for the first few years, then transferred to a private either in year 3/4. The benefit has been immeasurable, equaling those that have spent their entire education in regular schools, and has also saved them a small fortune.
because of this I am a little dubious that "intelligence" is defined in a child's very early years. I have also seen a large proportion of children start in year 7 well or poorly and change from this throughout their education. I would be interested to see stats on the progression of children's development from 11+ to GCSE/A-level if any exists?
Efbe said:
turbobloke said:
Efbe said:
anecdotal yes, but also interesting.
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
Think how much better they could be if they had a decent selection test going into it!
I recall reading that the proposals around grammar schools include new entry points at age 14 and 16, would that meet with your approval as clearly there needs to be something new happening at 14 and 16.
There are a few people that I work with that have sent their children to a comp for the first few years, then transferred to a private either in year 3/4. The benefit has been immeasurable, equaling those that have spent their entire education in regular schools, and has also saved them a small fortune.
because of this I am a little dubious that "intelligence" is defined in a child's very early years.
The tests are almost always standardised reasoning tests. Verbal and numerical reasoning figure highly, some schools use visuo-spatial reasoning tests which have the logic-type questions (series of shapes etc).
Efbe said:
I have also seen a large proportion of children start in year 7 well or poorly and change from this throughout their education.
Entry at 11, 14 and 16 would go some way to address this point.Efbe said:
I would be interested to see stats on the progression of children's development from 11+ to GCSE/A-level if any exists?
IIRC one or maybe two of the links to research, which I posted earlier, looked at this as part of the study.If they current sit the GCSE O's at age 15, the change of school would need to be early enough to allow them ALL to learn the curriculum at the advanced level.
The problem I foresee in making it to late, is the fact that not all the 'contributing' secondary schools will be at the exact same level/place in the text book, and some children would initially be at a disadvantage.
The problem I foresee in making it to late, is the fact that not all the 'contributing' secondary schools will be at the exact same level/place in the text book, and some children would initially be at a disadvantage.
This is one of those that topics for which there will never be agreement. Same provision by the state for everyone regardless of talent/interests or specialist teaching for those who appear to be more academic at age 11. At its core it's the same problem that the Corbyn Labour party is fixated on: the prospects of the bottom 4% which seem to take priority over the prospects of the masses in the middle and the very bright at the top that no-one ever seems to think about. Seems to me that all pupils are currently required to put their best interests on hold whilst being used to drag up those who for the most part couldn't care less about school or even going to school. Their many and various problems should be for social services to sort out, not the teachers.
There is undoubtably a large demand for grammar schools amongst parents and provided that the less-advantaged can get into them if they can pass the exam and choose to do so then I have no objection.
As an aside my old school went independent as soon as it was able to and, as a private school, has become even more academically selective and the results are stellar (40+ a year to Oxbridge and always in the top 10 on any school ranking list since they were first started). These are mostly the same kids who would have attended when it was free so to me it is some evidence that people of similar academic ability do better amongst their peers rather than in mixed-ability classes.
There is undoubtably a large demand for grammar schools amongst parents and provided that the less-advantaged can get into them if they can pass the exam and choose to do so then I have no objection.
As an aside my old school went independent as soon as it was able to and, as a private school, has become even more academically selective and the results are stellar (40+ a year to Oxbridge and always in the top 10 on any school ranking list since they were first started). These are mostly the same kids who would have attended when it was free so to me it is some evidence that people of similar academic ability do better amongst their peers rather than in mixed-ability classes.
pim said:
Sounds all very snobbish and segregation to me.Grammar Schools.
What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
Yeah, what we need is a proper tripartite secondary education system.....How about something like Grammar Schools for the academically inclined, Technical Colleges for those seeking more practical skill sets, and Secondary Modern schools for those who do not fit either of the previous categories but who do nevertheless need a good standard of education (or who may be late developers/deciders who will go into one of the other establishments at a later date) ...... Sounds like a half decent plan...oh, hang on...What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
pim said:
Sounds all very snobbish and segregation to me.Grammar Schools.
What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
Well, I took my daughter to her 11+ a couple of weeks ago, also gave her friend a lift because her mum, an unemployed single parent can't afford to drive. The queue for the test was massive, and it certainly wasn't all 'toffs'. 18 kids from her school took the test, a school in not the most affluent part of town. What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
Then last weekend was the queue for Ashlawn selective, not a grammar, just a high performing school.
Competition for a decent school is fierce from parents from all walks of life. Had a politician opposed to the grammar system popped their head up in those queues, they'd have been lynched.
pim said:
Sounds all very snobbish and segregation to me.Grammar Schools.
What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
Are you serious with your first statement? What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
We need the tech schools/colleges as well as yes I agree!
Why do you feel that cash/wealth means you are going to get a better education? I had a great education all provided for by the government! Primary, Grammar, College (National diploma and HND) and then Uni.
joshcowin said:
pim said:
Sounds all very snobbish and segregation to me.Grammar Schools.
What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
Are you serious with your first statement? What we need is proper Technical colleges.To many youngsters are left by the wayside in a lousy system.
People with enough cash will always find a way to make sure Johnny or Sarah will speak he Queens English>;)
We need the tech schools/colleges as well as yes I agree!
Why do you feel that cash/wealth means you are going to get a better education? I had a great education all provided for by the government! Primary, Grammar, College (National diploma and HND) and then Uni.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff