Grammar schools

rjsterry

And another thing: my Mum has been involved with some of the interviewing of prospective students for one of the Veterinary colleges. Veterinary Medicine as a degree course is ridiculously oversubscribed, and hence the entry requirements are straight As or A*s (A-level grades), so all the applicants are academically high achievers. However, to be a good vet requires a lot of other non-academic skills - for example interpersonal skills to deal with often very emotional clients, and a fairly high degree of manual dexterity to be able to carry out surgery. Many applicants were academically faultless, but had obviously focused on academic achievement to the exclusion of all else. We seem to have got ourselves into the situation where passing exams have become an end in itself (as well as a marketing tool for the school concerned), rather than a check to confirm that someone has fully learnt what they were taught.

Vitessetortoise

I don’t see there is a need to separate people out completely at 11 years old. If you have a ‘set’ system in a school whereby the brightest kids are taught together and, crucially, you can be moved up and down that system on merit then I don’t see why the brightest are necessarily held back or the less able are left behind.

The trouble is if you separate kids at 11 years old you’re automatically condemning some kids to the lower sets for good, i.e they won’t have the opportunity to get into the top sets that, in effect, Grammar School is.

As an aside, if you go to Grammar school you can still be labelled a failure if you’re not a high achiever within that school even though you may be above average intelligence and would have been in the top half at a comprehensive.

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

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.

Do you agree it's a class choice in Cambridge, over academic whether to go private or not?

anonymousblackfg

I am the product of two parents who went to grammar schools, my father being the only one from his village to get in the year he went, they both hold it as key to their futures. I went to a grammar by name only, it is now a comp, the test to get in was guess the shape, and I think that was only for deciding you current status.

However this was in a city with the highest proportion of privately educated children in the UK. Clearly the return of grammar schools would only divert those who are privately educated into the schools through tutoring and as the offspring of generally higher achieving parents. Doing so would put greater burden on taxes paid for education as at the moment private paying parent contribute to the education industry and pay for places they choose not to use. So, even though I believe Grammar Schools are a good thing for the pupils, i'm not a supporter as it would just be a sop to the higher middle classes.

However, taking the misbehaving sh*ts out and letting the kids who want to learn, learn, fully get's my vote. My school brought in GNVQ's for the sh*ts so they could get more funding, even though we'd waited 5 years to finally get rid of them. Oh, who then vandalised the common room and never put any effort into the said GNVQ's, yes those we should have canned from day one.

rick_chasey

I was listening to the freakanomics podcast the other day. They were looking at schools and teaching.

They had a case example whereby a school uses an algorithm to decide how best a child should be taught - and so each child in the school gets a tailored timetable. So, for example, some kid works better with getting down and dirty with lots of maths problems, where as another might learn geometry in a more aural rather than visual way - so they get split up by various ways each class > with online learners over here, x learners over there etc. The algo measures their performance and adjusts their teaching.

Their view was that one size doesn't fit all, and so they should provide more choice re-learning abilities. Naturally they claimed good results.

It wasn't so much streaming, as making the teaching more bespoke (and with more choice).

NGale

All accept one person in my HNC engineer class was told at one time or another by their teachers they were 'faliures' and wouldn't get anywhere in life. Every single one of them is in employment at the dockyard, working as engineers (after passing apprenticeships etc) and all working towards HNCs and further on towards degrees in a highly technical subject. They were all deemed failures and yet they are all phenomenal when it comes to the subject, especially the mathematics side of things. It's also no coincidence my college (and the University as validating authority) has one of the highest pass rates in the country in the engineering field, all because they take on people with a passion for the subject and want to succeed and not on the basis of some test years ago.

I have no problem with Grammar schools or public schools, what I have a problem with is someone on high deeming someone a failure at the age of 11 before a persons life has even begun!

walkingbootweather

Speaking as someone who passed the 11+ and attended a grammar school I do appreciate the opportunities it provided. Like clarkeycat says, coming from a fairly poor background and attending a school that was 3 miles and 2 bus rides away can be a challenge, but fostered an early interest in bikes. Discipline and teaching standards were excellent at my school, resulting in high academic (and athletic) attainment by most pupils.

The biggest problem with having grammar schools selecting the brightest kids (or at least those able to perform well for a couple of hours on a given day), is that it leaves the rest disadvantaged. Wealthy families then extract their children to fee-paying schools. Anyone left that has ambition is hampered by a higher proportion of miscreants and teachers that are able to cope with what is often a more demanding teaching environment.

If you live in an area that has selection and you get selected, count yourself fortunate, otherwise you are better off if there is no selection IMHO.

Gazzaputt

Living in the Borough of Bexley that has plenty of grammar schools. Within a mile and half of my home we have 3.

There is such a clamber for them it's unreal. You have to pass the 11+ and after this the qualifying criteria is catchment area. Lot of buy to lets going on in the area and house prices kept high by this.

A lot of people just want little Johnny to be there as it's a status thing for them. Come from a working class background and they see this as bettering themselves regardless of what the kids want.

They are though very good schools and if my kids want to I'd have them attend one. If they don't local comps are still good.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

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...

How naive.

Being a parent is about giving your child the best opportunity in life that you can reasonably give. Now if I could afford to pay for my child to go to a fee-paying school but he wasn't the brightest in the class (and my money got him into the school not his academic prowess) I would still pay for him to go to that school. Why? Because I want to give him the best opportunity.

It's all high and rich people preaching about the best schools only for those who deserve it and not for those who can afford it. I'm not living this life not to benefit my kids. I did not strive in life to pursue a career and earn a decent salary simply not to benefit my progeny. The same goes for inheritence.

Rick, You said that if you're able then your school won't have much of an impact. What bullshit. What school did you go to? Naturally I really don't care, I don't even need to know. Why? Because I went to a school that was 3rd from bottom in one of the Offstead league tables I know what a bad state school is. I know what a bad school can do and I know what a bad state school is in a properly socio-economically deprived area where the people around you have the aspirations of a pig swimming in sh*t. I also know what an OK college is considering that in my GNVQ business studies class I sat next to the guy who molested my secondary school English teacher and was expelled because of it.

So don't start with the sanctimonious preaching to someone like me who has actually lived through bad schooling and will stop at nothing to make sure his son doesn't have to experience what he had to. Again, life is about aspiration and part of that aspiration is to elevate the quality of my progeny's life above the quality of life I lived.

So to conclude, I know what bad schooling is.

A few very close friends of mine, very intelligent, went to the three well known public schools in Dulwich. Of one of my friends his parents couldn't afford it but he past his entrance exams and was awarded an assissted place. Having less amongst kids who went on holiday 3 times a year where, in contrast, his one holiday was after 4 years of going to this school did affect aspects of his social development. But the alternative was that he got great schooling and was installed with decent aspirations. No sh*t swimming pig for him. A necessary sacrifice in my opinion because school isn't just about academia and qualifications. Those years 12 - 16 and if blessed with a six form 12 - 18 can help shape your development from child to young adult.

I don't see any of the people who went to my friends private school going to prison for firing a gun as they attempted to rob a post office (unlike mine). So again horse. get down.

So to conclude, I agree with assissted places (though they don't exist) and I know what good schooling looks like.

The conter balance for this is grammar schools, schools that are designed for the best brains but aren't mostly privately funded (though you probably could get your child in with a 'donation'). I have no real issue with this. People aren't born equal there will always be those that are more intelligent and those that are less. And those with more to give can naturally provide more. A place for the brightest, sure may seem unfair on paper but in reality why should an intelligent person be held back.

So to conclude, I agree with grammar schools.

Interestingly my brother benefitted from the full wealth of my parents private school from birth, tutors the whole thing. They we teenagers when I was born and 30 when he was born. I still prefer my life. Now I'm sure my brother is a mathematical genius because from an early age he could save and create money like an Investment banker. Did the private school work for him, no. He hated it. He got better grades and was more adjusted at the state school my parents eventually sent him to.

So to conclude, a large part of schooling comes down to the child.

The real problem is society. I can't help but think those that criticise grammar schools are filled with the greened eyed monster. Sure some children may not be good enough to go there but so what? Maybe they aren't destined to be a doctor. Perhaps those parents should engage in a field that their children may actually be interested in. Not being academic at school doesn't mean they're a failure in life.

Furthermore if state schools are shite in your area perhaps people should considered moving or making more sacrifices to send their children to a better school in a better area. If they do go to a bad school as not everyone can more or make those sacrifices then perhaps the parents should try to make sure their children partake in positive life enriching extra-curricular activities.

None of these things are a problem with the system but a problem with peoples frustration and refusal to accept that life isn't fair, some children are better than others and some parents are willing and able to do more for their kids than others.

I know, lets move to Russia were everything is grey, we are all born equal and are paid exactly the same. No natural human aspiration to have more than, better than or greater than there. Sheesh.

rick_chasey

DDD - only meant in terms of happiness, not in terms of aspirationalism.

Would you be happier than you are now had you gone to a very good school?

DonDaddyD

And to play devils advocate to my own rant. I do think we test children too much and put too much emphasis on failure. It is not failure that you are a good car mechanic but don't have the skills to do math.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

DDD - only meant in terms of happiness, not in terms of aspirationalism.

Would you be happier than you are now had you gone to a very good school?

I know two people who went to the same fee paying school. One is very successful, the other's life has turned out quite badly. Schools aren't a strong determinant of happiness.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DDD - only meant in terms of happiness, not in terms of aspirationalism.

Would you be happier than you are now had you gone to a very good school?

I think you are showing your naivety if you think ability is a greater influence on happiness than the quality of the school.

You choose based on the principle that you have the same natural ability:

Go to a school where the computers are 10 years old, the majority of pupils are disruptive, not interested in learning and have the aspirations of a goat because you know... "exams don't matter I'm gonna work in my Dad's garage when I'm 16".

Or

Go to a school where the pupils have been raised to actually enjoy school, enjoy learning and the facilities are so good that they'd rather stay at an after school club.

And that's just comparing my state school to that of my brother's. So you choose?

ETA You cannot say whether you would be happier now had you gone to a different school, that's not taking responsibility and blaming something else. I would have made different life choices had I gone to a different school, which means different DDD, different life. All I can do is comment about the happiness at the time.

EKE_38BPM

DDD, I know its Friday, but a little brevity goes a long way.

DonDaddyD

Sorry, I get 'into it' when people start talking schools. In person I tend to avoid the subject and say nothing.

I actually don't know how much I wrote the world went blank and I just started typing.

ETA: WOW!

notsoblue

What does ETA mean in this context?

veronese68

I actually agree with the gist of DDD's rant. He will do whatever is necessary to get his kid the best chance in life he can.
I wound up falling back on the catholic thing. It's a bit hypocritical, but other people play that game so I did too. The funniest thing about it is some of the parents that go to church every week and act really sanctimonious are some of the most unchristian people I've ever come across. The hatred and intolerance that gets spouted is incredible.
Incidentally, there is a kid at my son's school that was taken out of one of the top schools in London and moved because he wasn't happy and is now faring much better. A child has to be happy in his surroundings to learn well.

rjsterry

DDD, I think perhaps your experience was not typical of all comprehensives: they don't have to be no-hope s***holes. I went to a very good comprehensive which, while not perfect in all areas, taught the subjects I was interested in very well. I got a decent set of A-levels and allowed me to get on to the university course I wanted. I also know several contemporaries who went to fee-paying schools - few of which did noticeably better out of it than they would have had they gone to the comprehensive.

BTW, I'd say one's parents' background and aspirations have a big part to play (bigger than the choice of school assuming you ignore extreme examples) in one's educational success.

DonDaddyD

I agree, I think I cited my brother who hated fee-paying but excelled at a decent state school. There are good and there are bad.

Still I don't think we should knock grammar schools rewarding aptitude or parents who go the extra mile to get their kids into those schools despite their children not being the best of the best...

London_Falcon

Just to stoke the fires of debate a little more.....

IMHO a major problem is the attitude that all school leavers should be aiming at University. In the old days some kids would pass the 11+ go to grammar school and then University. The others would go into comprehensive and then perhaps an apprenticeship or straight into work or a polytechnic to do a vocational course. One route suited the more "academic" the other perhaps suited the more "vocational". Both were valid and many top comany CEOs worked there way up from entry level roles.

Now we have a situation with school leavers defaulting to the University route and coming out with devalued degrees that don't lead to better job prospects....

EKE_38BPM

London_Falcon wrote:

Now we have a situation with school leavers defaulting to the University route and coming out with devalued degrees that don't lead to better job prospects....

+1

rick_chasey

So people think the quality of schools do matter re-happiness post school?

Fair enough.

Will disagree on that one.

Within reason, I don't think it matters.

veronese68

EKE_38BPM wrote:

London_Falcon wrote:

Now we have a situation with school leavers defaulting to the University route and coming out with devalued degrees that don't lead to better job prospects....

+1

Will the fees cut back on this? I'm still on my gap year.

rick_chasey

London_Falcon wrote:

Just to stoke the fires of debate a little more.....

IMHO a major problem is the attitude that all school leavers should be aiming at University. In the old days some kids would pass the 11+ go to grammar school and then University. The others would go into comprehensive and then perhaps an apprenticeship or straight into work or a polytechnic to do a vocational course. One route suited the more "academic" the other perhaps suited the more "vocational". Both were valid and many top comany CEOs worked there way up from entry level roles.

Now we have a situation with school leavers defaulting to the University route and coming out with devalued degrees that don't lead to better job prospects....

It's a two-fold issue.

On the one hand - a more educated workforce is better, right? Within reason. The right education etc.

On the other - devaluation of high end qualifications make differentiation difficult.

For me, the solution isn't to say 'don't go to uni anymore' to certain people.

Rather to give them more appropriate education beyond 18.

I'd also argue for more differentiation between degree scores. No exaggeration, 80% of my cohort got 2:1s.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

So people think the quality of schools do matter re-happiness post school?

Fair enough.

Will disagree on that one.

Within reason, I don't think it matters.

You don't really know though do you? Unless I'm missing something, you're just commenting on your own experience. I went to a state comp. It was sh1t. I was deleriously happy when I finally got away from it!

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

So people think the quality of schools do matter re-happiness post school?

Fair enough.

Will disagree on that one.

Within reason, I don't think it matters.

In the middle of the bell curve of school quality (if you can imagine such a thing), it probably doesn't make too much difference, but at the extremes, I think it would make a significant difference

daviesee

London_Falcon wrote:

Just to stoke the fires of debate a little more.....

IMHO a major problem is the attitude that all school leavers should be aiming at University. In the old days some kids would pass the 11+ go to grammar school and then University. The others would go into comprehensive and then perhaps an apprenticeship or straight into work or a polytechnic to do a vocational course. One route suited the more "academic" the other perhaps suited the more "vocational". Both were valid and many top comany CEOs worked there way up from entry level roles.

Now we have a situation with school leavers defaulting to the University route and coming out with devalued degrees that don't lead to better job prospects....

This - as the comprehensive part applies to me.

And this

rjsterry wrote:

BTW, I'd say one's parents' background and aspirations have a big part to play (bigger than the choice of school assuming you ignore extreme examples) in one's educational success.

Although you can't ignore the extremes as they do exist.

Also - Grammar/private schools may or may not lead to better education but they likely lead to very good contacts/networking.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

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.

Do you agree it's a class choice in Cambridge, over academic whether to go private or not?

In a word, no.

In my opinion, private schools are an aspirational choice far more than a class choice: many of my friends at the Leys were wealthy, certainly, it isn't cheap, but many others (myself included) were there on scholarships and bursaries from very different backgrounds. Furthermore, your geographical constraints are far too narrow: I'm not from cambridge, and I can count on two hands people in my year (of over 100) who were. Pupils at the Leys come from all over the world, indeed, at the time I was there it was principally funded by non-EU students and their obscene fee levels.

Most of the parents sending their kids there were looking for them to get a 'rounded education' rather than good exam results: the school was renowned for a balanced approach that supported more than just academic prowess. There was also a notion of buying into opportunities, and circles of friends, and there were plenty of those to be had. It's a financial choice, certainly, but there is more to it than purely class.

Of course it depends how you define class, given your apparent leanings our positions may vary on that.

I can't comment on the Perse, apart from to say they were crap at hockey.

lost_in_thought

EKE_38BPM wrote:

London_Falcon wrote:

Now we have a situation with school leavers defaulting to the University route and coming out with devalued degrees that don't lead to better job prospects....

+1

+ another 1.

I've done talks at the school I went to and other similar institutions to the 'oxbridge material' students about how oxbridge isn't the only way, and you shouldn't become obsessed with it, and university in general, like I did around the ages of 16-18. I heartily wish someone had made me take a few years out and not blindly go from school to university, although I'd have thought the advice stupid at the time.

rjsterry

@Rick Chasey: WRT class, in the UK at least it's not about money as such. There is a loose correlation, but it's not the driving factor. There were and are poor aristos, there are also very wealthy people who would swear on their mother's life that they are working class. Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.