Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
..which is precisely what happened..

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

Unknown · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
..which is precisely what happened..

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

No, to be precise, the resources weren't taken - they just weren't allocated in the first place. [;)]

peterbr · May 2007

redcogs,

I'm sorry but I'm sick of hearing this utter balls from you all the time regarding class. Of course it's class but not for the reasons you keep claiming. The working class lose out to the "aspirant middle class", not as you assert due to money and priviledge that middle-classness conveys, it's because of the "aspirant" part. The grammars schools proved this beyond any doubt. If you were an "aspirant" working class person, you could suceed on equal terms because it removed the money factor - which was the whole purpose of these schools. You could not buy your way into these schools if you failed your 11+ whether you were a son of a Duke or a dustman.

All you've suceeded in doing is moved the middle-class into private schooling and kicked the ladder away from everybody else. Nice one comrade. Why do you think our political parties have returned to the public school and Oxford/Cambridge elite? It was grammar schools that removed this stranglehold on politics and industry in the 1960, 70s and 80s. Thanks to people like you we are now going backwards with the likes of Blair and Cameron - are you really too blind to see this??

The truth is the relative failure is due to poor parenting, pre-school kids learn from their parents, not academic tutors. And its far harder to boot people up the ass and do something about this than it is to make utterly bollock-brained ascertions about privilege and money. It also sits more comfortably with leftie politics naturally. It's difficult to tell disinterested parents they should read to and with kids, that they should eat together and discuss what happened during their day or even stories in the news. Kids should have basic reading skills and be able to write their name before entering school - but this takes some parental effort and not just DVDs full of cartoons to achieve. It also takes the education of parents, which is difficult. It's far, far too easy to cry "victim" and blame everything except yourself. We created a society, rather than being a whole, it sees each group as a special interest "community" whose relative success or failure is defined somehow by either relative advantage or discrimination. It started out in racial multicultural politics and spread like a cancer across class, faith and other social divisions. And yes, socialist policy is 100% to blame for this.

Nobody but nobody had extra tutoring at my grammer school because few parents could afford it. It may very well be true today but whose fault is that? Prior to the 1965 beginning of the run-down of grammar schools (Labour), nearly everyone, everywhere in the UK had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, if they were academically capable. The reason you now have pushy parents prepared to tutor, bully, buy houses or whatever it takes is because people who think like you shrank the system to such a point it takes this amount of effort to get into one. You created the elitism with your dogma, not the system itself which you blame. Such is the law of unintended consequences.

The problem is the issue has been looked at from the wrong end. It's perfectly acceptable that we should have an elitist system based on academic ability. Providing the remaining education, although differently focused was of equal quality. That my friend is what failed not the grammar schools. The logical solution would be to improve education in secondary modern schools. The cheap an ineffective solution was to turn every school into a comprehensivem which in effect was a relabelled secondary modern. It's so typical of governments of all colours in the UK. Take the cheap, easy option and level down instead of up. Until this mentality becomes history then there is no hope. Tony Blair's system of city academies and "faith" schools simply make me want to weep. A system of ineffective schools build on prejudice and division, dreamt up by a bunch of people rich enough never to have to live with the consequences. And we're wasting time and effort debabating whether grammar schools are good or bad? Focus on the real issues.

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

peterbr · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
..which is precisely what happened..

"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">

No it didn't. Academic, grammar school education is in fact cheaper than a more broadly based education, especially when a vocational element is included. My grammar school education consisted on a classroom, a book (usually shared), a black-board and a teacher, that's about it.

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

willski · May 2007

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

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

Setting aside your slightly less than scientific analysis for one moment, your answer addresses the accuracy of the results of the 11+ at age 11. It doesn't address whether testing at 9 or 13 would deliver a different result. This issue was the rock that the Grammar school system foundered on in the first place.

The Grammar/Secondary modern system was founded upon the principle that an accurate assessment of academic ability could be made at aged 11. Those who passed went to Grammar schools and sat academic exams, those who failed attended Secondary Moderns to learn vocatinal skills. In the late 1950s however, a headmaster of a Secondary modern school started entering his pupils for O levels, exams which they were not supposed to have the capacity to pass. The trouble was that they did. In other words the fundamental founding principle was shown to be flawed. The name of this headmaster was Rhodes Boyson (for lovers of irony).

With respect to creating more Grammar School places to negate the effects of parents paying for crammers; surely this negates the entire purpose. How do you create an academic elite if you open up admission to widely? Isn't this the same policy that has been applied to University entrance of which you have been so critical?

(Next time your in London I'll show you the bits of Brixton where the Featherstone-Smythes live. I'd bet they'd love to send their kids to a grammar given the mortgage payments on places like this; http://www.rightmove.co.uk/viewdetails- ... 1&tr_t=buy

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

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No it didn't. Academic, grammar school education is in fact cheaper than a more broadly based education, especially when a vocational element is included. My grammar school education consisted on a classroom, a book (usually shared), a black-board and a teacher, that's about it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah, the personal anecdote, by which all is proven..not.

When the tripartite system was set up, the government of the day realised it didn't have the funds to adequately provide all three of the branches of schooling it was committed to. The bulk of resources went to the grammar schools, leaving many of the secondary moderns underfunded. In one example, a secondary modern in London was found to be teaching 15-year-olds using desks meant to fit primary-school children.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">nearly everyone, everywhere in the UK had the opportunity to go to a grammar school, if they were academically capable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ha. Unless you were a girl (there were less grammar school places for girls than for boys, meaning girls needed to score higher on the 11+ to get in), or lived, for example, in Nottingham (10% provision) instead of the southeast (35% provision).
And I thought grammar schools were about equality of opportunity..apparently some parts of the UK are more equal than others.

At the end of the day, neither the tripartite system nor the comprehensive system were ever fully implemented, so arguing that one or the other was better is moot.

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

peterbr · May 2007

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that the imperfectly implemented system we had before is measurably superior to the system we have now which apparently meets its targets and give kids a record number of exam qualifications.

Who knows what it could have achieved if the original plan was followed instead of giving up and levelling down to what is effect making everything a secondary modern school.

Incidentally the most successful school system in the UK is in fact Northern Ireland in terms of exam results and entrance to university. Guess which is the only part of the UK to keep the old system?

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

Canrider · May 2007

We're going to have to agree to disagree: I don't see anything within the original plan for comprehensive education that requires things like league tables, postcode lotteries, targets, or indeed 'leveling down'. That they happened is due to subsequent screwups by successive versions of Whitehall.

See, I come from a country with comprehensive education, and it works. And it works in Scandinavia, where the UK got the idea for comps in the first place.

What we need is a government with a recognised mandate to fix the system, and by that I don't mean a return to cast-iron streaming from an early age and grammar schools separating out a fraction of students from their peers. Hence my arguing that there's no reason you couldn't stream students (and indeed ensure mobility between streams) within a comprehensive system. It would remove some of the perception of grammars as 'elite' or 'exclusive', and remove some of the stigma of being 'demoted' from a grammar for underperforming, because all you'd be doing is switching streams within the same school. It would also allow students to opt for a broader educational experience, because there would be more opportunity to customise a student's programme of study across the entire spectrum of academic, technical and vocational training, rather than forcing them into picking only one of the three and ignoring the other two entirely.

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

ransos · May 2007

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

What we need is a government with a recognised mandate to fix the system, and by that I don't mean a return to cast-iron streaming from an early age and grammar schools separating out a fraction of students from their peers. Hence my arguing that there's no reason you couldn't stream students (and indeed ensure mobility between streams) within a comprehensive system. It would remove some of the perception of grammars as 'elite' or 'exclusive', and remove some of the stigma of being 'demoted' from a grammar for underperforming, because all you'd be doing is switching streams within the same school. It would also allow students to opt for a broader educational experience, because there would be more opportunity to customise a student's programme of study across the entire spectrum of academic, technical and vocational training, rather than forcing them into picking only one of the three and ignoring the other two entirely.

"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">

Out of interest, does anyone have an idea of what percentage of comprehensives have streaming? My school, and the others in my area certainly did. Never understood the need for a grammar or 11+ if you can be taught on the basis of ability within a comp.

peterbr · May 2007

What are you disagreeing with? That the only part of the UK which retains the old system does better?

It's easy enough to look up.

To assume a system imported from Scandinavia would do well in the UK would also assume that UK society was like Scandinavia. The same argument would also enforce the fact that many ex-colonial countries have very successful education systems based on that left to them by us.

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

spire · May 2007

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

How do you create an academic elite if you open up admission to widely? Isn't this the same policy that has been applied to University entrance of which you have been so critical?

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

Pay attention, willski.

I have said we need more grammar schools, not that they should be made easier to get into.

spire · May 2007

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

Never understood the need for a grammar or 11+ if you can be taught on the basis of ability within a comp.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A grammar school has an academic ethos and it's cool to be bright. At comps clever kids are regarded as swots.

Canrider · May 2007

I was referring to your first paragraph. I thought you said you went to a grammar school? [;)]
As to your final paragraph, your second sentence doesn't sit logically with the first. If a Scandinavian system won't work in the UK, surely the UK system can't be expected to work in India. If it does (presumably this is what you're arguing), the implication is that the system doesn't need to be specific to a given country..

Did you have any comments on the bulk of my post, or did you want to go back to the sniping?

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

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have said we need more grammar schools, not that they should be made easier to get into<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Mm, but you're dealing with a finite number of students. Unless you're going to have your extra grammar schools sitting empty, you're going to have to get the kids to go into them from somewhere. That somewhere will be kids currently going to comprehensives/sec moderns.

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

ransos · 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 ransos

Never understood the need for a grammar or 11+ if you can be taught on the basis of ability within a comp.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A grammar school has an academic ethos and it's cool to be bright. At comps clever kids are regarded as swots.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't agree with this at all. If all kids went to comps with streaming, then there would be too many clever kids to be marginalised in this way. In any case, it didn't seem to stop the brighter kids doing well at my old school, and there's plenty of good comps out there that would be regarded as having an academic ethos - the advantage again of streaming is that the teaching can be tailored on ability, but unlike the 11+ kids can move up or down each year.

spire · May 2007

There was a wide range of ability at the grammar school I went to, so the range must be huge at comps. I don't believe most are large enough to have sufficient sets to properly stream.

And what a daft comment about empty grammar schools! You simply create enough so that all children have one in close enough proximity to attend if they are bright enough.

Unknown · 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 willski

How do you create an academic elite if you open up admission to widely? Isn't this the same policy that has been applied to University entrance of which you have been so critical?

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

Pay attention, willski.

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

Otherwise Spire will throw the chalk at you. [:)]

gillan1969 · May 2007

yup peterb it may be

its also riven with sectarian grief and is....eh...one of the poorest regions of the UK receiving one of the biggest transfer of govt resources (œs)

which bits of the NI story should we keep...just the education?????

www.squadraporcini.com

ransos · May 2007

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

There was a wide range of ability at the grammar school I went to, so the range must be huge at comps. I don't believe most are large enough to have sufficient sets to properly stream.

And what a daft comment about empty grammar schools! You simply create enough so that all children have one in close enough proximity to attend if they are bright enough.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Eh? My comp had 8 sets for the main subjects, for a year total of approx 200, which is no more than a moderate size.

peterbr · May 2007

My point precisely Gillian. The academic selection works, the sectarian schooling doesn't.

So why are Blair, Cameron et al, ignoring BOTH clear lessons of Northern Ireland? Not only ignoring what clearly works (academic selection) but are actively following what demonstrably doesn't i.e. faith schools (selection by bigotry). The extra funding is largely a result of the sectarian divide. Maybe when they achieve the same level of mutual aninimosity across cities in the UK they might "benefit" the same way.

If you, redcogs and those of similar political persuation cannot see this then we really are doomed to ever more failure.

As I've said before grammar schooling did more to break the barriers in our society than the creation of the (real) Labour Party or the unions, the suffragettes or anybody. It's a shame the useful idiot class warriors seem to want ot return us to those days. Too busy fighting the battle to win the war perhaps?

willski · 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 willski

How do you create an academic elite if you open up admission to widely? Isn't this the same policy that has been applied to University entrance of which you have been so critical?

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

Pay attention, willski.

I have said we need more grammar schools, not that they should be made easier to get into.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The grammar school you attended clearly wasn't sufficiently elite when it comes to mathematics.

If you have a greater number of grammar school places, and a constant number of children, then the standard that needs to be achieved to attain a place will be lower.

Even a comprehensive school boy like me can undertand that[:D]

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

Canrider · May 2007

So that'll be a vote for the sniping from peterbr, then. [V]

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

Unkraut · May 2007

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

If you have a greater number of grammar school places, and a constant number of children, then the standard that needs to be achieved to attain a place will be lower.

Even a comprehensive school boy like me can undertand that[:D]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, you will recruit the brighter end of the comprehensive school market for new Grammar Schools, without lowering the standards. The main problem with this is not the risk of elitism, as re-creating the old secondary moderns where the 'failures' were sent for a third class education. That was the main problem with the old system, and even though I don't like comps, I wouldn't want to see a return to that.

This whole argument is less academic if you have your own children and their essentially one chance of an education is at stake. I really don't blame parents for opting for private schools or moving into 'better' catchment areas if they want to avoid the trendy comp failures. In fact I think that much of the argument is less to do with having everybody in the same building than the change in educational ethos that accompanied the introduction of the comprehensive system. The 1970's dinosaurs are not yet out of the system, unfortunately.

willski · May 2007

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

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

If you have a greater number of grammar school places, and a constant number of children, then the standard that needs to be achieved to attain a place will be lower.

Even a comprehensive school boy like me can undertand that[:D]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, you will recruit the brighter end of the comprehensive school market for new Grammar Schools, without lowering the standards. The main problem with this is not the risk of elitism, as re-creating the old secondary moderns where the 'failures' were sent for a third class education. That was the main problem with the old system, and even though I don't like comps, I wouldn't want to see a return to that.

This whole argument is less academic if you have your own children and their essentially one chance of an education is at stake. I really don't blame parents for opting for private schools or moving into 'better' catchment areas if they want to avoid the trendy comp failures. In fact I think that much of the argument is less to do with having everybody in the same building than the change in educational ethos that accompanied the introduction of the comprehensive system. The 1970's dinosaurs are not yet out of the system, unfortunately.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh dear! more remedial maths! Lets take this more slowly.

Say 10,000 children take the 11+ and their grades range from 98% to 12% with some kind of distribution.

If there are 1,000 grammar school places then the 11+ pass mark might be 80%.

Along comes spire. He has been tasked within ensuring that the 1000 places don't go to middle class children whose parents have paid from crammer lessons. He applies his solution of increasing places.

There are now 2,000 grammar school places. The 11+ results are however the same, so to fill the larger of places, the pass mark must be lower, say 69%.

Therefore the entry standard has been lowered.

If you are going to present a counter argument then remember to show your working[:D]

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

spire · May 2007

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

If you have a greater number of grammar school places, and a constant number of children, then the standard that needs to be achieved to attain a place will be lower.

Even a comprehensive school boy like me can undertand that[:D]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You are a smug middle-class twit who deep down wishes the working class knew their place - and your grasp of basic SUMS is feeble.

We currently have 164 grammar schools. There are enough bright kids to fill 2000 or more grammar schools.

Can you understand that?

mr_hippo · May 2007

As Willski said, there were a finite number of places in grammar schools so the 11+ pass mark varied from year to year, the same thing happened with GCE 'O' levels and university places. Before anyone says "But that's unfair!", life is unfair. If you failed your 11+, you were considered a failure - by whom? Would you consider John Prescott MP a failure? He did not pass the 11+ and there are a number of public figures without the benefit of a grammar school education.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

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

willski · 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 willski

If you have a greater number of grammar school places, and a constant number of children, then the standard that needs to be achieved to attain a place will be lower.

Even a comprehensive school boy like me can undertand that[:D]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You are a smug middle-class twit who deep down wishes the working class knew their place - and your grasp of basic SUMS is feeble.

We currently have 164 grammar schools. There are enough bright kids to fill 2000 or more grammar schools.

Can you understand that?

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

You can hurl as many insults as you like spire, it won't make your argument less flawed.

However many grammar school places you create, there will be a cut off pass mark, and there will be children whose results fall around that mark. Of these children, the ones whose parents pay for crammer lessons will be able to skew the result. Therefore increasing places does not address the problem of middle class parents paying for crammer lessons, unless you were to create such a massive number of grammar school places that more or less everyone gets one. But creating the massive number of place defeats the object of attempting to seperate high achievers.

A quick OT suplimentary question around your disdain for the middle classes. Given your education and relative wealth, if you have (or were to have) children, what class would they be?

____________________________________________________________________

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

spire · May 2007

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

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

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

You sig line SUMS it up![:D]

Unknown · May 2007

Willski and spire - aren't you talking about different things. Willski's logic is spot on in so far as it goes, but spire is suggesting that there be more grammar schools and that these be in places where there are none at present. It is perfectly possible to not drop entry standards in this situation. There would be more schools but more children taking the 11+.

If the Tories were clever (which they're not because they didn't go to grammar schools) they'd offer every child guaranteed place at grammar school. It's just that some of the grammar schools would be better than others.

simoncp · May 2007

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

If the Tories were clever (which they're not because they didn't go to grammar schools) they'd offer every child guaranteed place at grammar school. It's just that some of the grammar schools would be better than others.

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

That's not a bad idea. Every school could be called a grammar school. This scam worked with higher education where every institution suddenly became a university.

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories