Grammar Schools

[0000]

desolate said:

I disagree to - I'd be ploughing that time and money into a solution for the kids who aren't academic.

I wonder how the return on investment would compare, genuinely (not that this should be either or).

[RicksAlfas]

desolate said:

I disagree to - I'd be ploughing that time and money into a solution for the kids who aren't academic.

Fair enough.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Lucas Ayde said:

A grammar system gives any kid with the smarts and who has put in the effort to prepare, the chance of getting into the 'best' secondary school.

And yet, that isn't how it pans out.

[768]

They don't have the chance? That would be something.

[Countdown]

desolate said:

RicksAlfas said:

That’s why they need more of them.

I disagree to - I'd be ploughing that time and money into a solution for the kids who aren't academic.

I don’t think it’s an “Either/Or” situation. The funding for a child at Grammar School is the same as the funding for a child at a Comprehensive or at an Academy. Maybe bringing back Technical schools is the answer for those who aren’t academic.

[anonymous-user]

Countdown said:

I don’t think it’s an “Either/Or” situation. The funding for a child at Grammar School is the same as the funding for a child at a Comprehensive or at an Academy. Maybe bringing back Technical schools is the answer for those who aren’t academic.

Maybe if we looked at the solution for the kids who aren't academic then the current schools would improve for those who are.

I'd also do the split at 13 rather than 11.

[Talksteer]

Lucas Ayde said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But the system that selects on academic merit is also, indirectly, selecting on parents' wallet size. That's the point you have missed in your post..

Spending money on private tutoring may or may not enable their kids to reach the required standard (the kids still need to perform in the exam, which is structured more like an IQ test than a typical examination that tests learned knowledge) whereas previously they wouldn't .... but it's not remotely close to laying out massive amounts of cash for an overpriced house that's in the catchment area of a 'good' comprehensive school (and which has precisely zero to do with the child's innate academic ability).

wigtheWonderkid said:

I don't see the merit in a government legislating to increase the unfairness with grammar schools.

A grammar system gives any kid with the smarts and who has put in the effort to prepare, the chance of getting into the 'best' secondary school. At best, the comprehensive system is luck of the draw and often more about the ability of parents to buy an overly expensive house.

This misses the whole point that children of clever wealthy parents will tend to be clever without tutoring or similar.

The whole issue with selective education is that it sees education as a zero sum sorting hat where by future prospects are cemented.

The net effects of the selective systems are that children are segregated with bad schools having disproportionately disadvantaged children which further puts off good teachers.

In reality the research indicates that most of the differences in learning ability are set in the first few years where disadvantaged children brought up by parent who were also failed by the education enter nursery school with lower levels of development.

Thus an actual integrated education system would seek to make interventions when children are young. Have all children enter school with a less broad spread of abilities and then teach everybody in schools which aren't ghettoised and which are universally good.

That is what they do in the Nordics.