Grammar schools - yay or nay?
pinno
Posts: 52,501
I say yay.
Grammar for the academics, comprehensive for the trades, semi-skilled and manual work orientated.
Grammar for the academics, comprehensive for the trades, semi-skilled and manual work orientated.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!
0
Comments
-
I went to grammar school when Kent used the 13+ system. To be honest, I think that in many cases the standards of teaching were worse in the grammar school than in the comprehensive I attended prior to that. There were some truly awful teachers in there, but they got away with it because we could basically teach ourselves at home. I don't know what the school's like now, but I checked out the website recently and many of those lazy gits were still there.
I think that 11 years old is too early to start separating children into "bright" and "average/below average". Children develop at different speeds and I'd prefer a system in which pupils are kept together until about 15 or 16 and then go to either grammar school or technical school.
Also, because grammar schools have much wider catchment areas, you spend a lot more time going to school and home from school afterwards if you live further away as many of us did. My 15 minute journey to the comprehensive was replaced by a 60 minute journey to the grammar school, so that's about 90 minutes a day that I was travelling when I could have been doing homework or getting up to the local playing field for some exercise.
In Kent, we have grammar schools in just about every town - and about a quarter of all the grammar schools in England and Wales are in Kent - and despite this being a wealthy part of the country, the results at GCSE and A-level are distinctly mediocre every year, so I'm not sold on the idea of selective education.0 -
Yay - my kid goes to a grammar school in Kent and it is very good for her and her mates as far as I can see. Can't see the point making kids who are not academically inclined go through that system, better have them learn things that they are good at and will be useful to them."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
"...was replaced by a 60 minute journey to the grammar school, so that's about 90 minutes a day."
I make that about 120 minutes and I didn't even go to grammar school.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
"...was replaced by a 60 minute journey to the grammar school, so that's about 90 minutes a day."
I make that about 120 minutes and I didn't even go to grammar school.
I did go to a grammar and I'm pretty sure he meant the extra journey time; he was already travelling 15 minutes, therefore an extra 45 minutes each way...Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
"...was replaced by a 60 minute journey to the grammar school, so that's about 90 minutes a day."
I make that about 120 minutes and I didn't even go to grammar school.
I did go to a grammar and I'm pretty sure he meant the extra journey time; he was already travelling 15 minutes, therefore an extra 45 minutes each way...
Yep, that's what I meant.0 -
yes.
They are flawed and no system is perfect. My reasoning is that it allows those who by what ever hap a good chance of getting better grades. Provides a better chance of someone moving up rather than being dragged down by their peers.
Downsides can be poor teaching, kids given their ability can achieve good grades without the same level of new age teaching, however that is not to say that every child needs smart board interaction to learn.
Depending on the area it has been seen that some state comps can also up their game as the parents become more demanding as their children aren't at the grammar but believe they should be.
I would (with no experience of a non selective area) much rather to be in an 11+ area than free school / massive academies. Kind of responds to the point above about differentiation, teaching to children of similar abilities will produce better results than watching a teacher try and hit 2 ends of a spectrum and manage behavior. Most children attending a grammar (not a RGS) live locally enough not to have a crazy commute, it may be further than the nearest school, but then do we shop or drink at the nearest place or that which serves us best?
I'll leave it there but it is an interesting chat to be had, but rather not be typing it.
Yes I am a product of a private and grammar school education, and I damn well hated my grammar school but with hindsight, no matter how I screwed up, it provided good opportunities for the affluent kids and those who came in from the poorer estates/area.0 -
Many kids who get into GS now are extensively coached for the 11+, which means unless you ve wealthy parents, it wont happen for you, are these really the most gifted? or just the most pushed.
Also, the pushy middle class parents that will up the standards of your local comp, become governors etc (who often choose GS), are not there to do so, a loss to that community
IF schools/children were divided off into academic and practical learning thats a different thing altogether but that is not the choice between GS and Comps at all.0 -
Is it just about the teaching, though? If you went to school in a town where secondary (or tertiary, I went through the palaver of "middle" school) schools were in the plural, they were ranked. Schools were thus perceived as good or bad and by association young people were associated as good or bad just because of the name of the school. When you left and applied for a job and told the employer what school you went to it could count against you.
So the grammar school was best, then the RC school, then the others. In reality, they all churned out kids who were bright, mediocre, or useless.
I went to the crap school, but if I had kids I would push to send them to the grammar. Just like I would be thrilled if they went to an Oxbridge university. It just looks better on the CV.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Nay because 10 or 11 is way too young to determine a kids future and because as pointed out a lot has to do with how much help kids get at home and the effect of private tuition. I'm not against selection and even different schools but that is too young, maybe from the age of 14 I could be convinced.
Just as a side note on that, my daughter just took her GCSEs. She was never happy with her English class teacher (a couple og girls parents got their daughters out of the class early on which did alert me to the reputation of this teacher) and she was predicted a B. I paid for 7 1 hour sessions of private tuition from about February. She was reluctant to go along but she came out of lesson 1 saying why isn't our teacher telling us this and got an A* in English lang. I don't believe those 7 hours has seen a dramatic increase in her language skills but it shows what some decent exam coaching can do.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
I too went to a grammar school, having passed my 11+
For the first 3 years everyone received the same education.
At the start of the 4th year we chose our options to study for exams, our choice based on interest and ability.
Maths, English lang, English lit and French were mandatory. The other 5 'option' included as a must at least 1 of the 3 sciences, and at least one of either geography / political history / economic history. You were then able to opt for other subjects, bringing the total to 9.
The mandatory subjects were then streamed so that we had kids doing 'O' Levels (GSE) and the less academically inclined doing CSE. If I remember correctly, O levels were graded A -E, C being a pass and CSE graded 1-5, Grade 1 being the equivalent of C at O level. You had the system where just because a kid had a poor grasp of say maths, he could still study his other subjects at O level but study his weaker subject at the lower CSE level.
I have to say, I thought and still think that the system worked.
PS I know some on here think I must have studied Latin under Mr Chips.
0 -
I think the question is flawed. There will always be bright kids, mediocre kids and dumb kids. Likewise there will be good teachers mediocre teachers and poor teachers. There will also be parents who push their kids whatever their ability, parents who don't and to be fair parents who make it incredibly difficult for their kids to succeed. The notion that everyone should have the same chances and opportunities whilst desirable in some minds is impossible in practice. Surely a better way would be for pupils to be taught according to their abilities rather than telling them that they are all university material. Bring back Grammar schools, technical schools etc, that way there would be appropriate schooling available whatever the pupils ability. This farcical notion that half the population should go on to further education is bonkers. Some people are destined to be brain surgeons, some to flip burgers, live with it.Rose Xeon CDX 3100, Ultegra Di2 disc (nice weather)
Ribble Gran Fondo, Campagnolo Centaur (winter bike)
Van Raam 'O' Pair
Land Rover (really nasty weather )0 -
I think the question is flawed. There will always be bright kids, mediocre kids and dumb kids. Likewise there will be good teachers mediocre teachers and poor teachers. There will also be parents who push their kids whatever their ability, parents who don't and to be fair parents who make it incredibly difficult for their kids to succeed. The notion that everyone should have the same chances and opportunities whilst desirable in some minds is impossible in practice. Surely a better way would be for pupils to be taught according to their abilities rather than telling them that they are all university material. Bring back Grammar schools, technical schools etc, that way there would be appropriate schooling available whatever the pupils ability. This farcical notion that half the population should go on to further education is bonkers. Some people are destined to be brain surgeons, some to flip burgers, live with it.
Yes there are naturally gifted kids and kids who could have the best education available and still flunk their A levels - I mean look at our Royal Family. However I think far more of the differences are down to opportunity and background than natural intellect. If a kid has a disaster of a year 6 teacher or has recently arrived in the uk and has poor language skills or their parents are going through a divorce and they are affected by it etc are we really saying that should determine their future at age 10 or 11? There is a place for selection and for some to play to their strengths if they are practical rather than academic but not in such a decisive way at such an early age.
Sending 50% of the population to the university of Milton Keynes to study for a BSc in British Soap Operas is a different question entirely.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Of course it's bollox to say to kids that 50% are uni material.
You wouldn't stand in front of a PE class and tell them that 50% were capable to go on to represent the school, never mind the county, a club or even the country at their chosen sport would you? So why do we do it with education?
As bbrap points out, different kids have different abilities.0 -
I think the question is flawed. There will always be bright kids, mediocre kids and dumb kids. Likewise there will be good teachers mediocre teachers and poor teachers. There will also be parents who push their kids whatever their ability, parents who don't and to be fair parents who make it incredibly difficult for their kids to succeed. The notion that everyone should have the same chances and opportunities whilst desirable in some minds is impossible in practice. Surely a better way would be for pupils to be taught according to their abilities rather than telling them that they are all university material. Bring back Grammar schools, technical schools etc, that way there would be appropriate schooling available whatever the pupils ability. This farcical notion that half the population should go on to further education is bonkers.
Some people are destined to be brain surgeons, some to flip burgers, live with it.
i dont agree with that at all, people mature at different rates, what has happened now is that if a kid messes up their education, they dont get a 2nd chance anymore in their 20s or 30s (which is what i did, in my early 20s, mature student, free further education and a grant) so higher rate tax payer instead of unskilled and min wage claiming working benefits at best.
Grammar schools havent gone away at all and since when have we had technical colleges for u16's ? they were for school leavers and a form of further education, which you say is farcical!!! but you also want to bring back!
Again these colleges have not gone away, they have just been re named, and or private providers bought in.
it was employers who used to pay for training bricklayers plumbers etc, via long term day release schemes, they dont do that on the scale needed anymore, easier to take on a skilled up worker from Poland.0 -
If a kid has a disaster of a year 6 teacher or has recently arrived in the uk and has poor language skills or their parents are going through a divorce and they are affected by it etc are we really saying that should determine their future at age 10 or 11?
I'm not saying we should determine their future at 10 or 11, what I am saying is that these things will affect their future at 10 or 11 whether we like it or not. Instances like these are more likely to be resolved by specific individual actions rather than lumping them all together to the detriment of the majority. The trouble is that as soon as you pull someone out for extra teaching/counselling or whatever, someone will complain that they are being treated unfairly/victimised or conversely given special favourable treatment. Unfortunately you can't win whatever you do. So when systems get to breaking point you have to look after the many, possibly to the detriment of the (no so ) few.Rose Xeon CDX 3100, Ultegra Di2 disc (nice weather)
Ribble Gran Fondo, Campagnolo Centaur (winter bike)
Van Raam 'O' Pair
Land Rover (really nasty weather )0 -
I think the question is flawed. There will always be bright kids, mediocre kids and dumb kids. Likewise there will be good teachers mediocre teachers and poor teachers. There will also be parents who push their kids whatever their ability, parents who don't and to be fair parents who make it incredibly difficult for their kids to succeed. The notion that everyone should have the same chances and opportunities whilst desirable in some minds is impossible in practice. Surely a better way would be for pupils to be taught according to their abilities rather than telling them that they are all university material. Bring back Grammar schools, technical schools etc, that way there would be appropriate schooling available whatever the pupils ability. This farcical notion that half the population should go on to further education is bonkers.
Some people are destined to be brain surgeons, some to flip burgers, live with it.
i dont agree with that at all, people mature at different rates, what has happened now is that if a kid messes up their education, they dont get a 2nd chance anymore in their 20s or 30s (which is what i did, in my early 20s, mature student, free further education and a grant) so higher rate tax payer instead of unskilled and min wage claiming working benefits at best.
Grammar schools havent gone away at all and since when have we had technical colleges for u16's ? they were for school leavers and a form of further education, which you say is farcical!!! but you also want to bring back!
Again these colleges have not gone away, they have just been re named, and or private providers bought in.
it was employers who used to pay for training bricklayers plumbers etc, via long term day release schemes, they dont do that on the scale needed anymore, easier to take on a skilled up worker from Poland.
In the real world, there are people of limited ability and opportunities are reduced accordingly.
In a separate issue, you seem to be advocating that we give people in their 30s free university education in order to give them new direction. Fine if money is no object, but in the real world...0 -
Main concern re grammar schools is about the kids who don't get in, rather than those who do.
Education is the single biggest impact on future health and earnings, which means it has the biggest impact on poverty too. Focus should be on those at the poor end first. That tends to be those who don't end up in grammar schools.
I think focusing on grammar schools fails to address the above. It should be considered after the low achieving end is sorted out. It hasn't been.0 -
Given a system where kids are perhaps tested at 14 to see whether they would qualify for grammar school, would that be fairer? That leaves 2 years for GCSE's.
I think the 2 tier system was scrapped because the burgeoning middle classes expected little Johnny or Sally to be able to get into a grammar school but weren't bright enough.
My mother who came from an affluent background got into an all girls grammar school and my father who came from a very poor background also got in. Both succeeded.
We have too long pandered and tinkered with the education system to suit the electorate. Too long has it been used as a political football. Time to run it by committee for the greater good instead of lowering the bar to constantly to appease the middle classes, thereby fostering mediocrity.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
i dont agree with that at all, people mature at different rates, what has happened now is that if a kid messes up their education, they dont get a 2nd chance anymore in their 20s or 30s (which is what i did, in my early 20s, mature student, free further education and a grant) so higher rate tax payer instead of unskilled and min wage claiming working benefits at best.
Grammar schools havent gone away at all and since when have we had technical colleges for u16's ? they were for school leavers and a form of further education, which you say is farcical!!! but you also want to bring back!
Again these colleges have not gone away, they have just been re named, and or private providers bought in.
it was employers who used to pay for training bricklayers plumbers etc, via long term day release schemes, they dont do that on the scale needed anymore, easier to take on a skilled up worker from Poland.
In the real world, there are people of limited ability and opportunities are reduced accordingly.
In a separate issue, you seem to be advocating that we give people in their 30s free university education in order to give them new direction. Fine if money is no object, but in the real world...
i thought under the Tories things were going brilliantly? wages up, deficit down, employment up? thats what Stevo is always telling me
so money no issue lol!
But seriously i am not saying that at all, i am saying that a child should have another chance at education IF they mess up their first chance, (not free uni education) otherwise that person is condemed to a lifetime of unskilled poorly paid work.
i am talking about a kid who maybe leaves school with poor numeracy etc, give them another chance to re-sit their GCSE's, go onto technical college, the alternative is to support them on benefits for a life time, is that a better way?
underlying this thread is that children should be supported in technical trades, should that be best for them and what they want, Governments and esp employers need to get on aboard with this or we will be forever importing skills.0 -
If a kid has a disaster of a year 6 teacher or has recently arrived in the uk and has poor language skills or their parents are going through a divorce and they are affected by it etc are we really saying that should determine their future at age 10 or 11?
I'm not saying we should determine their future at 10 or 11, what I am saying is that these things will affect their future at 10 or 11 whether we like it or not. Instances like these are more likely to be resolved by specific individual actions rather than lumping them all together to the detriment of the majority. The trouble is that as soon as you pull someone out for extra teaching/counselling or whatever, someone will complain that they are being treated unfairly/victimised or conversely given special favourable treatment. Unfortunately you can't win whatever you do. So when systems get to breaking point you have to look after the many, possibly to the detriment of the (no so ) few.
It's not a case of these things affecting their futures whether we like it or not - there is no need to select in such a final way at age 10 or 11 and some kids do come to the fore academically at a later age whereas others who were top of the class in primary school slide down. You have to have belief in yourself to achieve anything and I just can't square sending kids to a secondary modern at that young age with fostering self belief.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Selection is possible within a comprehensive system - it's called streaming and it might be better for everyone because not all pupils are at the same level in all subjects. So someone who is good at maths, but not at English, could be in a high maths set and an average English set in a comprehensive school, whereas with selection, they might just miss out on grammar school and be deprived of the chance to work with other pupils of the same ability in their best subjects. Similarly, someone who gets into grammar school might find themselves struggling a bit later in some subjects and benefit from the chance to drop back a couple of sets in those ones while staying with other higher ability pupils in their stronger subjects.0
-
And most fit somewhere in between and have the potential to be really quite good network engineers, or drummers, or bike designers. Life isn't brain surgery of burgers; education is supposed to realise the potential that most kids have and to give them the opportunity to achieve something close to what lies within them as pre-adolescents, and for that reason I'm a nay. 11 is too early to write someone off on the basis of not doing well enough in a test. I know if I'd gone through selective education I wouldn't be sitting here doing this.Some people are destined to be brain surgeons, some to flip burgers, live with it.0 -
I agree many children are coached be it by tutors, parents or the schools it still pushes children. Now I am not stupid enough to believe that pushing children in such a manner is worth the reward against the damage, however given how schools will coach and target SATS, GCSEs etc it still plays within the system.
It often isn't going to always include the most gifted no school can measure this in a way that would be perfect. Not every gifted applies themselves or has someone who coaches the gift out of them
I'd counter the point about pushy parents at state comps on the Board of Governors. In the experience I have (inclusive of being on Governors Board) you find the parents of able children who didn't make the GS to be the pushiest and most demanding, and certainly in a higher number than those parents of GS children.
GS parents expect, state comp parents demand, in a very brief internet summary.
This response is around 10 hours late, ergo does not address a lot of the later argument0 -
Yep, for he most part they do get coached for the entrance exam, its what you would expect if a school is popular. Not sure the £30 a week on tutoring we spent for 6 months to get our kid through the exams makes us wealthy. Her classmates come from a wide range of backgrounds. The common thread is they are hard working and bright. We just wanted to get the best we could for our kid, who wouldn't?Many kids who get into GS now are extensively coached for the 11+, which means unless you ve wealthy parents, it wont happen for you, are these really the most gifted? or just the most pushed.
Also, the pushy middle class parents that will up the standards of your local comp, become governors etc (who often choose GS), are not there to do so, a loss to that community
IF schools/children were divided off into academic and practical learning thats a different thing altogether but that is not the choice between GS and Comps at all.
Also good to see they are starting to build new grammars at last.
Like I said, works well in real life as far as I can see. That has to be good as I know you attach a lot of importance to anecdotal evidence
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Does it matter????
I passed the 11+ no tutoring just luck. Had a good education but exam wise not so good, well crap actually, I did spend a lot of time out training rather than revising or doing prep.
My son went to local comprehensive and was for ever being ejected from his class for being disruptive. Scraped into 6th. Form College, scraped into university!
Ph.D by the age of 25.
Just think there is something not quite in tune somewhere.............0 -
Yep, for he most part they do get coached for the entrance exam, its what you would expect if a school is popular. Not sure the £30 a week on tutoring we spent for 6 months to get our kid through the exams makes us wealthy. Her classmates come from a wide range of backgrounds. The common thread is they are hard working and bright. We just wanted to get the best we could for our kid, who wouldn't?Many kids who get into GS now are extensively coached for the 11+, which means unless you ve wealthy parents, it wont happen for you, are these really the most gifted? or just the most pushed.
Also, the pushy middle class parents that will up the standards of your local comp, become governors etc (who often choose GS), are not there to do so, a loss to that community
IF schools/children were divided off into academic and practical learning thats a different thing altogether but that is not the choice between GS and Comps at all.
Also good to see they are starting to build new grammars at last.
Like I said, works well in real life as far as I can see. That has to be good as I know you attach a lot of importance to anecdotal evidence
If you wanted the very best for them, why didnt you choose the independant sector?
so you think £30 per week on tutoring is affordable, to say a bright kid whose parent is on min wage?
if your correct and GS is the best place for that child (and yours) why should money be the deciding factor for that childs life chances?
Everyone should have the opportunity to improve their lot should nt they?
Glad to see you are embracing anecdotal evidence at last, you ll be voting Corbyn next 0 -
I looked at the independent sector and the results from the school where she is now were at least as good, so no need.
I reckon she would have passed the exam without the tutoring so the money was not really relevant. That said there are some good non-selective state schools - her second third and fourth choices on the school application form were just that. Also unless you propose banning private education, then you implicitly accept that money can influence the outcome.
Besides, I pay way more tax than the average so I should get a good service from the state.
And as you know we always try to do the best for your kids - you will never stop people doing that. Witness certain Labour MP's who send their kids private "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Besides, I pay way more tax than the average so I should get a good service from the state.
Funny on so many levels my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
I looked at the independent sector and the results from the school where she is now were at least as good, so no need.
I reckon she would have passed the exam without the tutoring so the money was not really relevant. That said there are some good non-selective state schools - her second third and fourth choices on the school application form were just that. Also unless you propose banning private education, then you implicitly accept that money can influence the outcome.
Besides, I pay way more tax than the average so I should get a good service from the state.
And as you know we always try to do the best for your kids - you will never stop people doing that. Witness certain Labour MP's who send their kids private
i m not going to answer that , i think your trolling there.
Too true, nowt wrong with private schools, my bro sends his 2 to one.
these labour MP's are being stupid, Money will always buy up a grade or two, be it housing, a bicycle or a car, so why not a school? though i do think charitable status of these schools is beyond a joke, in what possible way are they a charity? giving a 25% bursary on 20k per year fee's isnt education for all.
As i said, getting a better state funded education shouldnt be about money, it should be about ability and from what i ve seen (anecdotally!) in many cases, (not yours Stevo) it is parents from middle class backgrounds who push their kids into GS education and many are getting in because they can afford the coaching, i wonder if it is for the kids benefit or the status of the parents
0 -
It is the taxes paid by these middle class parents that pays for the education of less well off kids. You may not like them but effectively they bankroll state education for the rest. Doesnt seem unfair to me that there is a quid pro quo.
Aside from that, many areas dont even have grammar schools, courtesy of previous attempts to bring everyone down to the same level. What a shame."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
