Grammar schools

EKE_38BPM

Should they be brought back? I'm talking 11 plus exams, more elite schools and all that.

I'm watching BBC4 and there was a programme about grammar schools and they generally seem like a good idea. The 11 plus exams prove your smart (or at least that you've had good schooling thus far) and all of the smart kids (who are generally the ones who want to learn) go to school together and are taught to a higher level.
The ones who fail (yes I said fail, not some PC "didn't pass" rubbish) are taught to a lesser, but maybe, more practical level.

I can see that it could limit your life choices later, but (using a mechanic as an example) if you fail the 11 plus and become a mechanic, it would still be possible to go the evening class/Open University route to become an engineer.

I know that when I was at school certain kids were disruptive and didn't want to learn (Terry Fearn, I'm talking about you), if they are not in the school (never mind the classroom) then the kids who do want to learn have an easier time of it. The Terry Fearns of this world should still be taught enough to make a good contribution to society (this is where the Terry Fearn analogy fails as I believe he is inside for half killing his wife) but why try to bring them up to a higher level that they don't want to reach and actively try to stop others reaching that level.

veronese68

I'm in two mins on this one. There is a very good Grammar school near us, also the closest secondary school for us. People have their kids tutored to get them through the entrance exam. I know of one kid that was gonig to a tutor twice a week for a year and once a week for a while before that. The family didn't have a summer holiday to cram in extra tutoring that year. If a kid needs that much tutoring surely they will struggle once they get in.
My son is now 13. We applied for that school but couldn't pay for tutoring. My parents paid for him to have a few lessons with a tutor as it is as much about exam technique as anything else.
He sat an entrance exam for another grammar school further away as a practice run before he did the local one. When it came to it he was reallly nervous as he knew how important it was. The end result is he failed. Of course he cruised the exam he did as a practice run and we got a letter from the school asking us to reconsider when we turned them down.
In the end he got into a very good comprehensive that is a couple of bus rides away. But, he is doing very well and achieving to a very high level. Would he have achieved a higher level at the grammar school? Maybe, but I'm happy with where he is. He is getting to know a broader cross section of kids which is a good thing.
The other problem I have with the local grammar school is that it is selective purely on exam results when most other schools use distance as a criteria. As a result kids from outside the borough are benefitting from one of the best non fee paying schools in the country. My mother knows a woman that works in the office and they had an enquiry from a parent that wanted to send their child to the school. When told they should come to the parents evening the parent replied "oh no, it's much too far" and yet they want to send their child that far. Madness.
Rant over for now, I'm not bitter.

Stone Glider

So at the age of 10years you are labelled a failure. That's it then, game over?

rjsterry

Stone Glider wrote:

So at the age of 10years you are labelled a failure. That's it then, game over?

Quite. And this is exactly what used to happen. It's late, so I'll save the rant about exams and league tables for another day.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Stone Glider wrote:

So at the age of 10years you are labelled a failure. That's it then, game over?

It is pretty shit, I'll grant you. Otoh, you could say that a measure of success is how late in life you first encounter true personal failure. Not everyone can be a success, despite what politicians would have us believe. Once you embrace that idea, it's a matter of when, not if. And for some, the when will come depressingly early in life.

veronese68

When it comes to trying to get the best for my kids my principles have to take a back seat. He doesn't feel he's a failure, he's doing very well and knows that on another day he could have passed.
Besides, he was 11 when we branded him a failure.
My daughter is of a different mindset to my son. Much brighter in some ways but wouldn't cope well with that sort of pressure. So we're not even going to consider it.
I do believe the girls school here has extremely high rates of bulemia and anorexia as a result of the pressure the girls are under.

EKE_38BPM

No fatties though!

daviesee

Stone Glider wrote:

So at the age of 10years you are labelled a failure. That's it then, game over?

Why is it that being a plumber or mechanic etc is seen as a failure?

I would rather be either than an unemployed philosopher.
Some people are academic, some are practical. Embrace your strengths.

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

Stone Glider wrote:

So at the age of 10years you are labelled a failure. That's it then, game over?

Why is it that being a plumber or mechanic etc is seen as a failure?

I would rather be either than an unemployed philosopher.
Some people are academic, some are practical. Embrace your strengths.

It shouldn't be seen as that, but the nature of a single exam which one either passes or fails and the subsequent splitting of children into one type of school or the other leads to that perception. Adjusting teaching to match a particular student's aptitudes towards academic or more practical skills is obviously a good thing, but using a single written exam to divide students between entirely different schools is far too crude a way of doing this, and doesn't allow for any adjustment if a student is put in the 'wrong' school. Streaming within a school is a much more flexible system and allows teaching to be more closely matched to a student's abilities - e.g. brilliant at maths, but struggles with languages. Also, if a student is practically gifted, but struggles with, say, maths, surely the answer is to focus on the maths, rather just saying, "he can't do it, so let's not bother teaching it to him."

desweller

daviesee wrote:

Why is it that being a plumber or mechanic etc is seen as a failure?

The career paths in such professions are not as clearly defined (in the sense of a graduate development scheme or similar) and the skills are not easily transferred to other professions in the same way as good mathematical skills or good language skills are. That's not to say that an individual cannot make a success of themselves in these sorts of areas, but it takes significantly more initiative. You're also far more at the mercy of social and economic trends; at the risk of triggering another Thatcher debate, one only has to look at the fates of the miners and the skilled labour force in the Midlands in the 80s.

DonDaddyD

Thing is I have a cousin who was born with the gene. By which I mean sat half his GCSE's at 14-15 years old and got nothing less than As in all of them. Plays Articulate with the adults, is head boy at his grammar school and barely gets out of second gear when it comes to anything academic. The other term is gifted. The conversations I've had with him about progressive tax have been as fun as any. He wants to study biomechanical engineering.

He has thrived at a grammar school but his natural intelligence was always there, which is how he got into the school in the first place. I wouldn't like to see him robbed of that opportunity.

Fact is there will always be better schools than others, a better calibre of student/pupil simply by where the schools are located and the affluency of the area. A socio-econmically deprived area is less likely to have a high achieving school. The trouble is 'Grammar schools' identify themselves as better and maintain this by having entrance exams and so are open to criticism.

I'm of the thought that there is nothing wrong with that as long as not going to these schools or not being academically gifted is seen as a failure. It isn't. I guarantee I'd earn more money and have more financial independance had I learned a trade as opposed to chasing a degree.

clarkey cat

I passed my 11+ but we couldnt afford the busfare to the grammar school so I went to the local comp.

And I'm bitter about it - OKAY?

veronese68

The exams they use are really bizarre. Verbal and non-verbal reasoning. They don't test traditional subjects like maths. Some of the questions made no sense at all, which is why kids are tutored to the test, not to normal subjects.
Regarding EKE's no fatties comment I read something today that some French guy has suggested overweight kids with a BMI over a certain level should be penalised in their bacaulaureate. So maybe there is something in it.
It is a terribly flawed system, but idiots like me will continue to try because they want to do the best for their kids.
Other schools in our area perform a lot better than first appearances suggest because the top percentages are creamed off by the grammar school.

sketchley

I went to one for 6th form having missed out at 13 when most of my friends left the school we were at and went there. What was odd was the obvious difference between me and the other guys who join in the 6th form and those that went at 13. Not just so much in academic ability (there wasn't much difference at all) but in aspirations and expectation for the future. They had a very different criteria for what success in future life could be measured compare to those of us that came vie the state school. It was a little more complicated than this but put simply one group seems more concerned with quality of life and general happiness while the other seemed more concerned about position and status. A big generalisation but noticeable to me while I was there and subsequently among the friends I have.

notsoblue

I think the Dutch system is pretty good as I remember it. They have something similar to an 11+ and kids get put into one of about 5 (I think) streams. Each school will tend to provide education for 2 or 3 of the streams. The result being that those at the extreme ends of the spectrum tend not to go to the same schools. Or at least thats how I remember it, perhaps Libraio will correct me

In the end though, when I moved to the UK at 16 I did quite well in the British school system because I went straight into A-Levels and then a good University. I think if I had stayed in NL I would have had to have redone a year in the top stream or have gone to a college to have achieved the same.

edhornby

didn't see the telly programme so dunno if it was covered but... the original design of the structure was to have a grammar school, a secondary modern (for arts and other stuff) and a technical school (design, trades, manufacturing) all available to cover the needs of each community - the reason the grammar schools were doomed is that it wasn't properly excecuted and the lack of technical schools made it look like have and have not.

veronese68

I think DDD is right. For the genuinely gifted kids it is a good thing. I object to the kids that need a very high level of tutoring getting in. I know people that can quite easily pay to send their kid to a fee paying school but view paying for a year of tutoring to get into a grammar school as a cheaper option. If the kid fails, he's going fee paying.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

I think the Dutch system is pretty good as I remember it. They have something similar to an 11+ and kids get put into one of about 5 (I think) streams. Each school will tend to provide education for 2 or 3 of the streams. The result being that those at the extreme ends of the spectrum tend not to go to the same schools. Or at least thats how I remember it, perhaps Libraio will correct me

In the end though, when I moved to the UK at 16 I did quite well in the British school system because I went straight into A-Levels and then a good University. I think if I had stayed in NL I would have had to have redone a year in the top stream or have gone to a college to have achieved the same.

It's 3 main schools MAVO (which I think is now VMBO), HAVO, VVO.

VVO is top > streamed straight into UNI,

HAVO's in the middle, where you can take an extra year if you want uni and MAVO bottom > more practical schooling, apprenticeships etc,.

It wouldn't work in the UK. The UK's class system is too extreme, and, specifically, class can be/is tied to education, which just isn't the same on the continent.

Opportunities are much less equal in the UK, so streaming in that environment would be counter-productive.

Edit: Also, we need to remember that the UK uni system is unlike many on the continent, so comparisons between the UK and the continent re education are difficult. (The UK Uni system is fiercely hierarchical and competitive in a way they just aren't elsewhere. Uni is Uni and what you study is more important than where you went. Not the case here..)

mtb-idle

I passed my 11+ and went to a Grammar School.

My two sons took the entrance exam for the same school 25+ years later and didnt pass so they went to the local compreshensive.

all three of us are happy, well adjusted people.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I think the Dutch system is pretty good as I remember it. They have something similar to an 11+ and kids get put into one of about 5 (I think) streams. Each school will tend to provide education for 2 or 3 of the streams. The result being that those at the extreme ends of the spectrum tend not to go to the same schools. Or at least thats how I remember it, perhaps Libraio will correct me

In the end though, when I moved to the UK at 16 I did quite well in the British school system because I went straight into A-Levels and then a good University. I think if I had stayed in NL I would have had to have redone a year in the top stream or have gone to a college to have achieved the same.

It's 3 main schools MAVO (which I think is now VMBO), HAVO, VVO.

VVO is top > streamed straight into UNI,

HAVO's in the middle, where you can take an extra year if you want uni and MAVO bottom > more practical schooling, apprenticeships etc,.

It wouldn't work in the UK. The UK's class system is too extreme, and, specifically, class can be/is tied to education, which just isn't the same on the continent.

Opportunities are much less equal in the UK, so streaming in that environment would be counter-productive.

Edit: Also, we need to remember that the UK uni system is unlike many on the continent, so comparisons between the UK and the continent re education are difficult. (The UK Uni system is fiercely hierarchical and competitive in a way they just aren't elsewhere. Uni is Uni and what you study is more important than where you went. Not the case here..)

When I was there I remember there being 5; IVBO, VBO, MAVO, HAVO, VWO/Atheneum. I started secondary school in HAVO/VWO but ended up in MAVO when I was 16 for various reasons. Interestingly, MAVO exams do appear to have been of a higher standard than GCSE's, e.g. I had already handled organic chemistry to roughly the same level it was taught in the first year of A-Levels.

Interesting point about streaming and the British class system. But I'd say that the elements holding back kids from working class families are the same as those for the poorer kids in NL.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

When I was there I remember there being 5; IVBO, VBO, MAVO, HAVO, VWO/Atheneum. I started secondary school in HAVO/VWO but ended up in MAVO when I was 16 for various reasons. Interestingly, MAVO exams do appear to have been of a higher standard than GCSE's, e.g. I had already handled organic chemistry to roughly the same level it was taught in the first year of A-Levels.

Interesting point about streaming and the British class system. But I'd say that the elements holding back kids from working class families are the same as those for the poorer kids in NL.

Probably. As much as I see the Netherlands as some kind of utopia I doubt works like it does in my head.

I wouldn't under-estimate the class in education thing though.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Interesting point about streaming and the British class system. But I'd say that the elements holding back kids from working class families are the same as those for the poorer kids in NL.

Probably. As much as I see the Netherlands as some kind of utopia I doubt works like it does in my head.

I wouldn't under-estimate the class in education thing though.

Well the UK is still pretty class obsessed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't stratification in NL. Also, I'd suggest that the role of class in education changed a lot during New Labour where University changed to being a place for *everyone* (you just had to pay for it with lots of debt, and be disappointed with the level of competition for graduate jobs).

I tend to put NL on a bit of pedestal too, but I think some of it is justified. Their government seems to be more pragmatic and humanist than the UK.

SteppenHerring

The argument against grammar schools has always been that the "other" kids end up in crappy secondary moderns with no resources, substandard teachers* and no help. The idea of comprehensive education is that all the kids get the same standard of education, access to the same resources etc. The problem, as observed, is that there are kids who don't want to learn, whose parents haven't brought them up to value education or respect teachers and they disrupt the learning of others.

Both approaches have their problems. I haven't seen enough evidence to take a strong position (even though I'm on the internet). I reckon I would've done a lot better in life had I gone to a grammar but there wasn't one available where I lived. My son got into a grammar school through an exam and is really enjoying it. A bit of a shock for him going from top of the top set in primary school to "somewhere in the middle" at his new place. Can't hurt though.

*Do you reckon schools get more applications for positions teaching the smart, interested ones or the glue-sniffing hoodies?

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Interesting point about streaming and the British class system. But I'd say that the elements holding back kids from working class families are the same as those for the poorer kids in NL.

Probably. As much as I see the Netherlands as some kind of utopia I doubt works like it does in my head.

I wouldn't under-estimate the class in education thing though.

Well the UK is still pretty class obsessed, but that doesn't mean that there isn't stratification in NL. Also, I'd suggest that the role of class in education changed a lot during New Labour where University changed to being a place for *everyone* (you just had to pay for it with lots of debt, and be disappointed with the level of competition for graduate jobs).

I tend to put NL on a bit of pedestal too, but I think some of it is justified. Their government seems to be more pragmatic and humanist than the UK.

True. I was having a chat about this over christmas with mother.

In NL for example, the proper rich turbo elites don't have their own schools, the Etons etc where they send kids.

Over here, it's almost a right of passage, for certain children.

If you do well and jump above your 'class' financially, it's not uncommon see families coughing up to send their kids to private schools.

The class thing is explicit in Cambridge, where state school performance is comparable, (and in the case of Hills road 6th form, better), than the local private schools. There, the choice is purely a class one, not an academic one. (I'm sure LiT will come out with some pearls of wisdom re that... :roll: )



The hunt for a 'good school' even means long commutes for kids, with 'rents spending hours a day ferrying them to and from. NL's pretty strict (afaik) on going as 'local' as possible > which again, less of an issue since the poorer areas and the richer areas are less extreme, so it's all a bit more homogeneous.

rick_chasey

As an aside, I think that, if you're able, where you go to school wise will have a smaller impact on your overall happiness and well being in the rest of your life than is made out...

EKE_38BPM

Picking up on SteppenHerring's point about substandard teachers, I can definitely see that some teachers will want to teach the 'elite', but some enjoy the challenge of teaching under-acheiving kids in deprived areas.
Mrs EKE is a teacher in an inner city primary school and loves her job. She has gone as far as she can go and still be in the classroom (as oppossed to being a head teacher and not in the classroom).
If she wanted to move up, she could, but she doesn't want to. She also thinks that teaching in a more challenging school is more personally rewarding. She has been at the school for over ten years and is now at the point where her former pupils are getting into university and getting letters/seeing them in the steet and being thanked for pushing them to learn/achieve is very rewarding for her.

She also says that teaching in a school full of kids who want to learn would bore her.

SteppenHerring

EKE: Mrs. Herring is a teacher at a primary school with some "challenging" pupils. She moans but doesn't apply anywhere that would be "nicer" (which there would be a good choice around here). I think she likes it really.

But yeah, in the grammer/secondary split, which school's "old boys" are going to be donating more to school funds?

I wonder if it would be possible to split on aptitude rather than "academic ability". But then how does anyone get to be a French speaking civil engineer?

The Rookie

Right now we have a 'one size fits all' education system, and it doesn't work, those at teh top (acedemically) are slowed by those who are less able, those at the bottom get pushed to the back as they can't keep up, anything suitably streamed would have to better the number of kids right now being failed by the system.

Classic example, my daughter is projected a sold B in a particular GCSE, they give extra help to the 'D and borderline C' group to make sure they get a C and extra help to the 'top B and borderline A's to try and improve them to an A to help the school up the league tables, the lower D/E get no extra help, nor the solid B or solid A/A*...is that fair?

Grammar/Secondary system wasn't perfect but it was better than the 'comprehensively' wrong we have now..... Having the right education level for each child is what counts.

Simon

rjsterry

SteppenHerring wrote:

EKE: Mrs. Herring is a teacher at a primary school with some "challenging" pupils. She moans but doesn't apply anywhere that would be "nicer" (which there would be a good choice around here). I think she likes it really.

But yeah, in the grammer/secondary split, which school's "old boys" are going to be donating more to school funds?

I wonder if it would be possible to split on aptitude rather than "academic ability". But then how does anyone get to be a French speaking civil engineer?

Well quite. I can remember at least one kid when I was at school, who excelled at languages, but really struggled with other academic subjects. He was an absolute liability in CDT, so which side of the divide should he go? The comprehensive system isn't perfect, but at least it gave the opportunity for him to be in the top set for languages and a less challenging class for other subjects.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you do well and jump above your 'class' financially, it's not uncommon see families coughing up to send their kids to private schools.

The class thing is explicit in Cambridge, where state school performance is comparable, (and in the case of Hills road 6th form, better), than the local private schools. There, the choice is purely a class one, not an academic one. (I'm sure LiT will come out with some pearls of wisdom re that... :roll: )

Done with your tanty, poppet? You'll grow out of it in a few years, don't worry.

I agree, having been to the Leys, Hills Rd does better at exam results. The Perse does better too, some years better than Hills, some not afaik. I wouldn't swap my school experience for either - believe it or not, exam results are not the real measure of a school. See Finland for evidence of that. As an "expert" on colonialism and therefore, presumably, "development", you'll know that exam results are a fine example of bureaucracy at work attempting to classify subjective ideas in a measurable fashion.

EKE_38BPM

Sorry mate, it looks like LiT wins.