Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

redcogs · May 2007

spire n the rest of the money grubbers are only interested in keeping things as they are david2, ie, them on top, or thereabouts, and the oppressed down below.

Whenever that basic stratification is threatened by a move towards social justice and equality, they start mouth foaming and looking for closed and gated communities to move into.

please look up to the stars.. ***

CometGirl · May 2007

Redcogs, I'd agree with you but for the fact that removing grammars has not helped social justice and equality. At all.

And why the assumption throughout this thread that grammars would have to be run in the same way as they were in the 50s / 60s? Having 75% of parents unhappy isn't going to be a vote winner - but having 100% of them unhappy or going private certainly isn't!

I've said it before, but what would be wrong with having grammars BUT investing heavily in other schools, to attract the best teachers and pay for the best equipment? There's no reason that introducing grammars would by default result in other schools being rubbish. Academically focused grammars for the academically minded, with really, really, good alternatives. There's no "either / or" about it.

CometGirl · May 2007

Oh, and I'd just point out that I wandered back across the road here because I saw this subject on the BBC news, and thought "I wonder if Spire's started a thread on grammar schools on C+..." I'm so pleased not to have been disappointed. [:D]

laertes · May 2007

I have always found the grammar school issue rather bizarre. I am 40 years old, with graduate and post graduate degrees, have spent 90% of my life in this country, but still don't properly understand what a grammar school is, except that it seems to be some sort of nostalgic throwback to Victorian times.

Education in the UK is a major problem, and has been for a very long time. Far too many people are poorly educated, and there is no single silver bullet whether it be grammar schools or teachers pay or citizenship lectures or shiny new academies.

If the tories are able to wake up to this anachronistic sacred cow maybe they are capable of having a "clause 4" moment after all.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by laertes

I have always found the grammar school issue rather bizarre. I am 40 years old, with graduate and post graduate degrees, have spent 90% of my life in this country, but still don't properly understand what a grammar school is, except that it seems to be some sort of nostalgic throwback to Victorian times.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just think of Tom Brown's Schooldays, but state run rather than private. [;)]

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2
I'm sure if the parents of the kids at the grammar school had to send their kids to the other schools they would pay more attention to making sure the other schools were better.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh, so it's the responsibility of the consciencious parents at the good schools to sacrifice the education of their own kids and sort out the problems of the slob parents at the cr@p schools?

CometGirl · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2
I'm sure if the parents of the kids at the grammar school had to send their kids to the other schools they would pay more attention to making sure the other schools were better.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh, so it's the responsibility of the consciencious parents at the good schools to sacrifice the education of their own kids and sort out the problems of the slob parents at the cr@p schools?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you imagine a world where it was?

In hospital to have your tonsils out? Here's a mop, Mr. Smith, if you could just check the place is clean and there's no MSRI around, thanks.

Hop in a cab? Hope you know the local area well, because navigation is your responsibility.

Renting a flat? No problems, sir, here's the patch of land, bricks you'll find over there, and the cement's just being mixed....

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl
[brI've said it before, but what would be wrong with having grammars BUT investing heavily in other schools, to attract the best teachers and pay for the best equipment? There's no reason that introducing grammars would by default result in other schools being rubbish. Academically focused grammars for the academically minded, with really, really, good alternatives. There's no "either / or" about it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Quite happy for the new non-grammars to have MORE spent on them and for them to pay their teachers MORE.

The lefties will still bleat though - they hate any form of elitism even if bright working class kids are the beneficiaries!

david2 · May 2007

Trouble with grammars is that you make a decision on a childs ability at 11 years old. Once in a secondary modern your there 'til your educations finished. Your class destiny is defined at 11. In a comprehensive you have the potential to move through streams throughout your time at the school.

11 ia such an arbitrary age to define a persons potential, it doesn't make sense.

mr_hippo · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by laertes

I have always found the grammar school issue rather bizarre. I am 40 years old, with graduate and post graduate degrees, have spent 90% of my life in this country, but still don't properly understand what a grammar school is, except that it seems to be some sort of nostalgic throwback to Victorian times.

Education in the UK is a major problem, and has been for a very long time. Far too many people are poorly educated, and there is no single silver bullet whether it be grammar schools or teachers pay or citizenship lectures or shiny new academies.

If the tories are able to wake up to this anachronistic sacred cow maybe they are capable of having a "clause 4" moment after all.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you have probved your own point there, don't you? What is so difficult to understand?

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May

CometGirl · May 2007

In a way, 11 makes more sense than 14 because you can test them before working becomes too uncool.

But that's why it's important that the grammar is seen as an elite stream, not as the default "good" school. There can be a default good school that people want to get in to for its own merit, and if they get into the grammar then that's just an added bonus.

david2 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

But that's why it's important that the grammar is seen as an elite stream, not as the default "good" school. There can be a default good school that people want to get in to for its own merit, and if they get into the grammar then that's just an added bonus.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Eh ? Sorry, not sure I understand that, I only went to a comp

)

CometGirl · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

But that's why it's important that the grammar is seen as an elite stream, not as the default "good" school. There can be a default good school that people want to get in to for its own merit, and if they get into the grammar then that's just an added bonus.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Eh ? Sorry, not sure I understand that, I only went to a comp

)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You can have a good school, and an academically elite school.

It doesn't have to be a choice between a good school and a crappy one.

Just because a grammar school exists, there is no reason that the main local school must be awful. I would prefer to see a situation where there is a really good local school, with a grammar for academically gifted children who would otherwise be bored. Parents are not devastated when little Jonny fails to get into grammar school because the local school is good. There is no good reason that this can't be done.

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But that's why it's important that the grammar is seen as an elite stream, not as the default "good" school. There can be a default good school that people want to get in to for its own merit, and if they get into the grammar then that's just an added bonus.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why bother with the distinction at all, then? Why bother have a separate grammar school when you could just have a high-powered academic stream within a comprehensive, and alongside more vocational and mixed vocational/academic streams?

That would make accusations of elitism moot, as there wouldn't be a 'special, privileged, exclusive' grammar school to go to, you'd just be opting for a particular type of secondary education within the comprehensive. It would also make mobility between the streams easier and less stigmatising, as you wouldn't be removing students perceived as 'bright' to send them to the grammar school, and returning the 'not quite up to it' ones that couldn't meet the grammar's standards. And, because they'd all be within the same school system, there would be much less potential for the prejudicial allocation of resources that took place when the tripartite system was first introduced: you couldn't give the grammar disproportionately more resources because it would all be going to one multistream school, and the resources would be pooled/shared.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

mr_hippo · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2

Trouble with grammars is that you make a decision on a childs ability at 11 years old. Once in a secondary modern your there 'til your educations finished. Your class destiny is defined at 11. Just give me a minute to stop rolling about on the floor, laughing before I reply to that. I am one of 6 children, three of us went to grammar schools and three never. Am I in a better cless thasn three of my siblings who did not go to a Grammer school?In a comprehensive you have the potential to move through streams throughout your time at the school. Streaming was also possible in grammar/secondary schools and also transfer between the two.

11 ia such an arbitrary age to define a persons potential, it doesn't make sense. Primary education finishes and secondary begins at 11, can you suggest a different solution? 
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May

Canrider · May 2007

Actually, mr hippo, the choice of the age of 11 was purely arbitrary and based on the change from primary to secondary. It has no particular developmental basis to it, merely a convenience. So why make a major decision on education on the basis of administrative convenience?

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

david2 · May 2007

Mr Hippo. No you can't move between secondary moderns and grammar schools, not round here anyway. The comprehensive model was my suggested solution.

All you guys talking as if grammar schools are some historical thing, they're still going on here in Gloucester, we know how they work to keep the kids of rich kids in secure isolation with all the advantages of a special education while the majority are left to rot in sink schools.

Seperating academically gifted kids from the rest doesn't benefit anyone, the gifted kids will succeed wherever they are while those less gifted benefit from having the gifted ones to learn from.

The only people who benefit from grammar schools are the parents who can boast to their acquaintances about how gifted their kids are.

spire · May 2007

david2

If what you say is true it may be to do with defects in the local process, or your views may be colouring your judgement.

A proper grammar school system has NOTHING to do with class or wealth. It is everything to do with developing the full potential of the academically able.

redcogs · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Why bother with the distinction at all, then? Why bother have a separate grammar school when you could just have a high-powered academic stream within a comprehensive, and alongside more vocational and mixed vocational/academic streams?

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dont you think the islington comet's solution to the education debate is idealistic, and assumes there is an acceptance amongst the establishment that it is necessary to have a fair and decent education system in which each can properly fulfill their own potential Canrider?

The 'elite' would never, under any imaginable circumstances (within capitalism) allow the Comet reforms. Employers, in reality, want a subservient workforce which accepts existing hierarchies uncritically. Too much quality education might undermine and threaten existing norms and power structures - to say nothing about the economic benefits to the employers of leaving things broadly as they are.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Jon G · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by peterbr

So why do we have record levels of illiteracy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Probably not because of anything going on in secondary schools. Literacy is mainly developed before then, in primary school and at home.

I suspect being saturated by electronic media is a big factor. Children have been motivated to learn to read by their interest in the things they could access (e.g. being able to have stories of their choice without needing an adult to read for them). This remained after the spread of radio, TV, etc as long as most of the content was aimed at adults and the equipment was heavy and/or expensive (& so carefully regulated by adults). The recent combination of long hours of child-orientated content plus kids having their own receivers have taken away quite a lot of that motivation. Willingness to conform to adult's instructions, and offers of artificial rewards, are probably not as effective as the desire to be able to access media independently.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why are people ignorant of their literature and history.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Agreed it is worrying, but was it really ever any better? (The answer may depend on quite how 'literature' is defined).

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why can't kids multiply or divide in their heads? I remember a graduate engineer of my acquaintance reaching for a calculator to divide our hotel fees by 5! <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Kids copy adults!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why do employers tell the government that they have great trouble finding young people literate, numerate or disciplined enough to risk employing as representatives of a business in front of the general public? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because schools, etc, are under great pressure to get better results. So they do, partly by being so supportive that many exams now test only exactly what they are 'meant' to - knowledge of the bit of the subject specified by the syllabus. All the other things that we once needed, such as initiative and self-discipline, are no longer being measured.

E.g. in 1980, my school stopped formal teaching about 6 weeks before the O-levels - we then left and were meant to revise at home before coming back for the exams. Those with the motivation and maturity to do so, did. Some didn't. Most schools, and even many colleges, now keep pupils in to revise in school under the teacher's eye. It gets more passes, but the exams are now a less efficient indicator of maturity or motivation.

Jon

mr_hippo · May 2007

David2, I said that "Streaming was also possible in grammar/secondary schools and also transfer between the two." Did you see that I used the past tense? You say that "Seperating [sic}academically gifted kids from the rest doesn't benefit anyone" but you advocate the same thing in a previous post "Why bother have a separate grammar school when you could just have a high-powered academic stream within a comprehensive, and alongside more vocational and mixed vocational/academic streams?" It seems that you are suggesting an elitist system within comprehensive education.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May

simoncp · May 2007

How can a change of policy by a political party be interpreted as a betrayal? If you don't agree with a party's policies vote for another party or form a new party that will do what you want and persuade others to vote for it.

Political betrayal is a concept for socialists. They love being betrayed by those they vote into power. It means thay can whine when they win elections and whine when they lose them, giving them twice the opportunity to gripe about how awful things are until true socialism does arrive.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Dont you think the islington comet's solution to the education debate is idealistic, and assumes there is an acceptance amongst the establishment that it is necessary to have a fair and decent education system in which each can properly fulfill their own potential Canrider?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

To a large extent the grammar school era post WW2 offered a brief window for able children to get an excellent education and compete on equal terms with privately educated youngsters. This was reflected in the fact that from the 1960's we were getting grammar school educated Prime Ministers - Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Major. Since the abolition of nearly all the grammar schools, we are going back to the tradition of public school educated prime ministers - Tony Blair went to Fettes and David Cameron to Eton. There will be a brief interlude of the grammar school educated Gordon Brown, but then it will be business as usual.

The grammar school system was ruthlessly efficient at educating the able well, at the expense of the more numerous less able. As such it was unpopular amongst the majority who got a poor education. However, as a system for producing a meritocratic elite it cannot be bettered.

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Employers, in reality, want a subservient workforce which accepts existing hierarchies uncritically. Too much quality education might undermine and threaten existing norms and power structures - to say nothing about the economic benefits to the employers of leaving things broadly as they are.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

redcogs

This really is utter, utter nonsense - and I'm sure you know it! [:)]

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2
...

I'm sure if the parents of the kids at the grammar school had to send their kids to the other schools they would pay more attention to making sure the other schools were better.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So the parents of the grammar school kids must also take responsibility for the education of everyone else's children? You and redcogs seem almost to resent those parents that want to do their best for their children, yet have nothing at all to say about the idle, feckless, irresponsible parents whose lack of interest in education is the reason why the sink schools are sinks. Yet again we see the leveling-downwards tendency of the far left. [V]

CometGirl · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

The grammar school system was ruthlessly efficient at educating the able well, at the expense of the more numerous less able. As such it was unpopular amongst the majority who got a poor education. However, as a system for producing a meritocratic elite it cannot be bettered.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd rather see a meritocratic elite than an inherited wealth elite.

simoncp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

The grammar school system was ruthlessly efficient at educating the able well, at the expense of the more numerous less able. As such it was unpopular amongst the majority who got a poor education. However, as a system for producing a meritocratic elite it cannot be bettered.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd rather see a meritocratic elite than an inherited wealth elite.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The grammar school/11 plus system still exists where I live. To call grammar school children in my area an elite is stretching the meaning of the word too far. About one third of children attend them. That's a big elite.

willski · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

david2

If what you say is true it may be to do with defects in the local process, or your views may be colouring your judgement.

A proper grammar school system has NOTHING to do with class or wealth. It is everything to do with developing the full potential of the academically able.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How does a "proper" grammar school system stop wealthy middle class parents paying for 11+ crammer lessons?

Come to that, how does it develop the full potential of the academically able when the assessment of this ability is made in the space of a few hours at the arbitary age of 11?

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

spire · May 2007

When I was at primary school all the kids knew who were the brainy ones, and by and large the 11+ got it right.

And the 'crammer issue' wouldn't be relevant if we had MORE grammar schools, particularly in inner-cities. Do you really think the Smythe-Featherstones would want their kids to go to Brixton Grammar, even if it were near the top of the league table?

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CometGirl

Redcogs, I'd agree with you but for the fact that removing grammars has not helped social justice and equality. At all.

And why the assumption throughout this thread that grammars would have to be run in the same way as they were in the 50s / 60s? Having 75% of parents unhappy isn't going to be a vote winner - but having 100% of them unhappy or going private certainly isn't!

I've said it before, but what would be wrong with having grammars BUT investing heavily in other schools, to attract the best teachers and pay for the best equipment? There's no reason that introducing grammars would by default result in other schools being rubbish. Academically focused grammars for the academically minded, with really, really, good alternatives. There's no "either / or" about it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Which is the point which I made earlier. The only sane way in which one could maintain that the existence of grammar schools somehow disadvantaged childre who didn't attend them would be if resources (i.e. money) were taken from the other schools and given to grammars. If that were the case it would be a simple matter of administration to correct it.

As a society we have to get the most out of the best because in the long term that is of benefit to all and to do that we need the meritocracy provided by grammar schools. There is no logical or sensible ground to oppose them. All the opposition seems to be based on ideology (and that is motivated by antiquated notions of the so called class struggle whose currency is jealousy and spite) as opposed to concern for building a decent education system.

The thing is that the lefties can't fool the people who have really suffered because of the closure of grammars: the working class. I remember speaking to a kid who attended my old school after it had been converted to a sixth form college (the chemistry and physics block having been converted into a hairdressing school) and this lad, who was from a very rough background but who had got there by virtue of his brains and support from parents who had realised that education was a good thing, was moaning about how standards (something of which he had no concept until he attended that school) had nosedived. Said it all really.

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories