Grammar Schools

[Murph7355]

Lucas CAV said:

Why should the "less bright- as labelled by an arbitrary test at 11" be kept in with the dicks?

Would you be more comfortable starting with "the dicks"?

So we filter them out somehow (say take the bottom 50% of the same exam plus any unruly kids) and pop them somewhere?

We have to start somewhere. Our educational standards are sliding internationally. And our kids are competng on an international stage.

[Moonhawk]

768 said:

You made it up then?

The graph - of course. It was merely a visual aid to illustrate the point I was making.

I don't think the concept of children developing at different rates and peaking at different levels is a particularly controversial concept though. It happens physically - why not mentally?

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 27th June 08:59

[Moonhawk]

Murph7355 said:

Would you be more comfortable starting with "the dicks"?

So we filter them out somehow (say take the bottom 50% of the same exam plus any unruly kids) and pop them somewhere?

We have to start somewhere. Our educational standards are sliding internationally. And our kids are competng on an international stage.

I agree and i'm not opposed to the Grammar school system.

However the system also needs to recognise that some children will develop academically a little later and will therefore be missed by the 11 plus.
The system needs to provision for these kids so that they don't get held back.

Similarly if a child does go to Grammar school and finds it tough as they actually aren't that bright, the system needs to be able to deal with these kids too.

I know some of my peers who were tutored to pass the 11 plus, but really struggled in grammar school and some went off the rails due to the pressure to perform. They may have actually been better off at the secondary school.

Unfortunately parents often see their kid passing as some sort of badge of honor for them - and will do anything to try and ensure their kid passes.

[RicksAlfas]

cb31 said:

My daughter is due to sit her 11+ in the next few months. The rich people are all spending £20-80 an hour getting their kids tutored to pass the test and the competition is fierce.

I used to approve of the grammar system until I have experienced it and now I don't believe in it at all. The notion of the 11+ allowing poor clever kids a better education is a myth unless they are gifted and can pass with no pre-learning. Some of the work on the tests is from year 6 and 7, how are year 5 kids expected to know it unless they are tutored on it? Until the schools devise a test that can't be tutored for it is just a system for rich kids to get a better school than poor kids.

Full disclosure, my daughter is now getting tutored so she has a level playing field with the majority of other kids taking the test.

I agree completely. My son passed the 11+ and I know how competitive it is. The bulk of the tutoring should be in exam technique. The pupils will not have seen anything like the papers they are presented with and the speed they have to complete them at is tough. If the tutoring is covering old primary school classroom work, you have been badly let down by the primary school sadly. My son's tutoring was going over old papers and practising them against the clock. Most grammar schools will let you have past papers to practise with.

I don't think this is unreasonable. There is no point primary schools practising these techniques as most kids won't use them. If kids want to try for the 11+ they need to practice at home, or go for paid training. It's the same as sport or music. Kids either practice at home, or they go for paid coaching. Plenty of parents who object to a few months of 11+ tutoring will happily pay for football coaching and put the effort into flogging to matches every weekend for 15 years!

It isn't perfect. Nothing is. But it works. If there were more grammar schools the competition would be less and it would take the pressure off the youngsters. Alternatively you make sure that the primary schools train everyone for the 11+ and everyone sits it and see what happens.

Good luck to your daughter. I hope she does well.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RicksAlfas said:

So in the meantime we keep all the bright kids in with the dicks.
How does that help anyone?

It doesn't so we don't. We stream kids within the school, top set, set 2 etc, down to bottom set.

The question suggests your happy for all the bright kids to get their own school, and for the majority of kids, who decent hardworking kids who aren't super bright, to be dumped in with the dicks and left to it!

What would you do with the bright dicks?

[wiggy001]

cb31 said:

The notion of the 11+ allowing poor clever kids a better education is a myth unless they are gifted and can pass with no pre-learning. Some of the work on the tests is from year 6 and 7, how are year 5 kids expected to know it unless they are tutored on it? Until the schools devise a test that can't be tutored for it is just a system for rich kids to get a better school than poor kids.

In the interests of full disclosure (although I've mentioned it before on this thread) I was brought up on a council estate with very little money and certainly no tutoring. My headmaster and last teacher at primary school saw my potential and advised my parents that I should try to get into a selective school (the alternatives were fairly average comprehensives). At the time we were going through massive personal tragedy (bereavement which took a heavy toll on my family) but my (fairly uneducated, working class) parents worked hard to help me in every way they could (getting second hand books to help with maths and "verbal reasoning" for example) and I passed the 11 plus.

The grammar school I went to (Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar, for anyone that knows it) was a very mixed bag of kids from very mixed backgrounds. Sure, some had professional parents, tutors, music teachers and were straight A students. But don't think this school was in some leafy Tory heartland. It's in South East London (as a slight aside, around the time of the Stephen Lawrence murder, Rohit Duggal was also murdered in similar circumstances by someone with links to Lawrence's killers. He went to my school).

I also don't get the "arbitrary test" argument. "Arbitrary tests" are used to silo and reward people at all stages in life. Do you (not cb31 but those that say this) think the university system is unfair for only accepting people with certain grades? What about jobs that require a certain education? You can only drive on the road if you pass an arbitrary test...

I genuinely think we would see an overall improvement in education standards if there was a grammar in every town. They are much more common in Northern Ireland and I believe NI has better education standards than the rest of the UK. But that is only part of the solution. I'd like to see schools that provide a more vocational education as well which would suit Tyler and Beyonce much better than trying to force them into an academic education they neither want nor will use to best advantage,

[RicksAlfas]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What would you do with the bright dicks?

Teach them not to be dicks?

[Hayek]

cb31 said:

RicksAlfas said:

You have to start somewhere don't you?

Trouble makers. Bright kids. Kids with special needs. They would all benefit from their own school.

11 is the obvious time because that's when the majority of kids move schools.

What's the problem with selecting the kids with the most potential and allowing them to achieve it?
We do the same with kids who are good at a sport or playing a musical instrument.

My daughter is due to sit her 11+ in the next few months. The rich people are all spending £20-80 an hour getting their kids tutored to pass the test and the competition is fierce.

I used to approve of the grammar system until I have experienced it and now I don't believe in it at all. The notion of the 11+ allowing poor clever kids a better education is a myth unless they are gifted and can pass with no pre-learning. Some of the work on the tests is from year 6 and 7, how are year 5 kids expected to know it unless they are tutored on it? Until the schools devise a test that can't be tutored for it is just a system for rich kids to get a better school than poor kids.

Full disclosure, my daughter is now getting tutored so she has a level playing field with the majority of other kids taking the test.

This is currently the case because there's so few Grammar schools. The answer is more Grammar schools.

[768]

Moonhawk said:

768 said:

You made it up then?

The graph - of course. It was merely a visual aid to illustrate the point I was making.

I don't think the concept of children developing at different rates and peaking at different levels is a particularly controversial concept though. It happens physically - why not mentally?

It's at most exceptional. The tall kids at 11 were the tall kids at 18.

There's still the 13+, sixth form and ad hoc entries.

[fido]

wiggy001 said:

In the interests of full disclosure (although I've mentioned it before on this thread) I was brought up on a council estate with very little money and certainly no tutoring.

Ditto - well I grew up opposite an estate - but not tuition though my parents did buy me test books to practise with. I think the tutoring aspect is exaggerated but in any case it's something that richer parents will always benefit from (whether it's sports or academia). Some of the best, or at least more interesting, students joined us at 13+, 15+ so agree more Grammar schools, and streaming in other schools would make it more inclusive.

[cb31]

Hayek said:

This is currently the case because there's so few Grammar schools. The answer is more Grammar schools.

I used to agree but not anymore. Out of my 3 kids 1 is super bright, one top end of primary so should pass the 11+ and one completely dopey so I like to think I have all ends of the spectrum. The grammar schools get better results as they take the brightest kids, not a new revelation or an endorsement of their benefits.

I was the last year to do O-levels and there weren't grammar schools in my area so everyone went to comprehensive or private. In my comprehensive we had a mixture of very bright and future criminals but the only place we ever mixed was PE and the playground. My education was not stymied due to tens of absolute wasters in the roster so I can't see how removing grammars is a problem. It is a divisive construct that unfairly disadvantages the poor, if everyone went to the same type of school then academic achievement would rise to the top naturally.

[turbobloke]

cb31 said:

.My education was not stymied due to tens of absolute wasters in the roster so I can't see how removing grammars is a problem.

Not all schools are like that by any means. That's a problem.

Comprehensive schools can be well-mixed with a wide range of abilities and attitudes in lessons, and some don't know who their very able pupils are. Teachers can have low ambitions for their very able pupils who aren't taught in a manner appropriate to their needs. These were among the key findings from an Ofsted study which found that too many non-selective secondary schools are failing their most academically able pupils badly.

[RicksAlfas]

cb31 said:

if everyone went to the same type of school then academic achievement would rise to the top naturally.

It doesn't happen though does it? It's a drive to the bottom, not the top.

Some secondary schools are so bad that any "nice" kid doesn't stand a chance. The horrible kids dominate the school, the playground, the bus stops. The teachers are overwhelmed and demoralised having to deal with these kids whose parent(s) don't give two hoots. Meanwhile, other parents move away to find better catchment areas, which is simply another form of selection - and a lot more expensive than some tuition!

[SilverSixer]

cb31 said:

Hayek said:

This is currently the case because there's so few Grammar schools. The answer is more Grammar schools.

I used to agree but not anymore. Out of my 3 kids 1 is super bright, one top end of primary so should pass the 11+ and one completely dopey so I like to think I have all ends of the spectrum. The grammar schools get better results as they take the brightest kids, not a new revelation or an endorsement of their benefits.

I was the last year to do O-levels and there weren't grammar schools in my area so everyone went to comprehensive or private. In my comprehensive we had a mixture of very bright and future criminals but the only place we ever mixed was PE and the playground. My education was not stymied due to tens of absolute wasters in the roster so I can't see how removing grammars is a problem. It is a divisive construct that unfairly disadvantages the poor, if everyone went to the same type of school then academic achievement would rise to the top naturally.

Very similar to me, cb31. My son passed 11+ last year but didn't get in the grammar due to insufficient places to accommodate all passers. Effectively, the pass mark was "moved up" and this makes the school what you might call super-selective. He was tutored privately, and has been in private prep school from Reception onwards. Still not enough to get him in this place. So, one could say that the answer is more grammars, but I'd equally say the answer could also be no grammars. My younger child is of a similar ability to the older one, so we're not even going to bother putting her through the stresses of the 11+, we're just going to cripple ourselves financially for 10 years and send them both private to age 18.

If there was a proper grammar system, they'd both get in. If there were no grammars, then there might be a better range and quality of state schools. But neither is the case. What we have now is an unsatisfactory mess. This issue needs a cross-party commission to set a long term plan for schooling in the country, and I'd favour a system similar to the one we gave to Germany after WWII, whilst we left ourselves with a system which the wealthy and the privileged are happy with, because it entrenches their wealth and privilege for generations.

As for myself, I went to a state comprehensive, got in to a what is now called a "Russell Group" University, and had several friends who went to Oxford and Cambridge, amongst many others who also gained University places all over the shop. Everyone who was capable of and wanted a University education at my comprehensive school got one. We did not need a grammar school. It's about attitude and effort. I can't imagine a single extra child would have gone to University form my town if we'd had a grammar school.

Sigh.

[ATG]

Murph7355 said:

Would you be more comfortable starting with "the dicks"?

So we filter them out somehow (say take the bottom 50% of the same exam plus any unruly kids) and pop them somewhere?

We have to start somewhere. Our educational standards are sliding internationally. And our kids are competng on an international stage.

International comparisons are useful not just to guage educational outcomes, but also to look at how they can be achieved. When we look at countries that are providing more effective secondary education than the UK, do we find any of them using something that looks like the grammar system?

[Hol]

Unless both parents work insanely long hours and come home when your children are already asleep, it costs zilch to sit down with your kids for 30mins 3-4 times a week and take an interest in their on-going reading, writing and mathematics skills.

AFAIK all primary schools provide regular report cards, so parents who genuinely care (to read them), will identify if their kids are struggling against the national average (the details of which are clearly hidden under a Google search).


Claiming that only those parents who pay ££ for an hours extra tutoring every week, (so some third party adult can undertake exactly the same thing), is the only way - is barking!


I have said this before - At least half the kids in both my sons Grammar Schools are definitely NOT from rich/affluent families and very few of those that are, bothered with extra tutoring.
Some obviously did, but not anywhere close to the degree that the people who don't even have kids in those schools are claiming.

^^ I base all these comment on true life experiences, not some st I have soaked up in a grotty publication.

[ATG]

Grammar schools are the educational equivalent of gated communities. They are a symptom of a bigger problem. They don't tackle that problem, they seek to side-step it, and in doing so they unintentionally make the underlying problem worse.

If I lived in a community that had grammars of course I'd be trying to get my kid into one of them and I suppose I might be hoping they'd expand if I thought my kid would otherwise struggle to get into one. But that's obviously a parochial view.

At a national level the government can't credibly claim grammar schools will improve education any more than they could claim gated communities improve law and order or social cohesion. And they damn well know this. Until May became PM, expansion of grammars was opposed across the board by anyone who took education policy seriously, including, for example, Michael Gove. It wasn't a Left versus Right argument.

Promoting grammars was either cynical, stupid or both. But more importantly it is a symptom of the government's total lack of ambition, ideas and confidence. We already have world class elite education. We already have a huge number of students going to university. Our weakness is not at the top; it's the students in the middle and below who are significantly under-performing their international peers. That's the elephant in the room. Discussing grammars is an unhelpful distraction.

[turbobloke]

Looking at two points:

ATG said:

At a national level the government can't credibly claim grammar schools will improve education any more than they could claim gated communities improve law and order or social cohesion.

Promoting grammars was either cynical, stupid or both.

The aim is to improve the education and outcomes for our most able students, on whom a lot depends including jobs for the less able.

Promoting grammars in terms of a grammar school or two per town is what a majority of parents will want, based on the only ballot of prospective parents and wider polling data.

The ballot was held in Ripom, where parents wanted to retain the opportunity to send their children to a grammar school in full knowledge that not all would gain admission.

YouGov data offers two-thirds majority support, curiously close to the Ripon vote which went 1,493 to 747 in favour of the grammar.

The only survey that shows opposition to new grammars is one frequently quoted by Fiona Millar aka Guardian columnist Ms Alastair Campbell. The key survey question conflated two issues and even that survey showed a majority of respondents in agreement that the most able children from both well-off and poorer families would do better in a selective school. This is their purpose after all.

[Moonhawk]

768 said:

It's at most exceptional. The tall kids at 11 were the tall kids at 18.

The problem is - you cant be tutored to be tall. You can however be tutored to pass the 11 plus.

[768]

Diet and smoking, passive or otherwise, amongst other factors can.

I guess basketball is a divisive, elitist sport.