What's the harm with Grammar Schools.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Flâneur wrote:

I think the point to take is there are not enough of them.

Them could be anything but until there is the same system across an entire country there will be an argument regarding equality

We aren't created equal and have different needs. Why pretend otherwise when it comes to education: one size does not fit all.

I would argue that from a pure economic point of view, the state needs as many skills across as many sectors as possible.
As stated previously, Degrees have reduced value if we're stuffing people through them any old how - I met I guy who was studying Geology-Sports Science joint!! I asked him and at least he had the humility to tell me that he thought it was 'running uphill to look at rocks', which I thought was funny.

On a completely different level and way beyond our current capabilities/thinking/educational ideology, we need to aspire to a more far eastern philosophy of education. It's all about giving a wide skills base and the ability and flexibility to change. For example, my friends doing programming concentrated on one particular programming language for their dissertation. Japanese counterparts studied more the mechanics of programming and programming language so that they could virtually programme in any language.
The 'creating a skills base for current national needs' is a rather reactionary and often finite idea. Creating skills for the future, requires a different ideology and creates opportunity in itself. Too many 'brains' go abroad from the UK because there is lack of creative industry (and venture capital).

Stevo_666

Agree with the first bit. We need to develop the achievers so they can pay the tax to fund all the kids who can't be arsed to learn at school. Good business sense.

Don't agree on the Far East point apart from getting kids to work harder. I've worked with people in the Far East for a while and getting them to be creative, think outside the box and question/challenge things was tough.

Also we are world leaders in creative industries - I spent 10 years in the sector. We're also right up there in venture capital and private equity etc - London is the world's financial hub. Most Brits who leave go because the weather here is shyte.

Daz555

tim wand wrote:

I don't really see what harm Grammar Schools will present if any. As long as entry is based on Academic Achievement rather than Financial means, how is it not a good thing?

If we lived in a society where one of those things was not so closely linked to other then I might agree. However we don't, so any further forms of educational selection/segregation (I'll include free and religious schools here also) are bad for social mobility and even worse for social cohesion.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Flâneur wrote:

I think the point to take is there are not enough of them.

Them could be anything but until there is the same system across an entire country there will be an argument regarding equality

We aren't created equal and have different needs. Why pretend otherwise when it comes to education: one size does not fit all.

Too many people on here confuse equality and fairness. Hence a lot of the bleating on the Labour party thread.

A recurrent theme from lefties. A perceived inequality in anything should be met by a lowering across the board.
Education? Hold back the most talented.
Wealth? Make everyone poor.

sungod

Ballysmate wrote:

A recurrent theme from lefties. A perceived inequality in anything should be met by a lowering across the board.
Education? Hold back the most talented.
Wealth? Make everyone poor.

don't think this can be laid at the door of the 'lefties', there hasn't been a left wing government of the uk since the 1970's (blair/brown governments were certainly not left wing)

education will continue to be messed around and living standards for the majority will continue to be eroded

it's not about right/left wing, it's about decades of gutless and/or corrupt government

Stevo_666

sungod wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

A recurrent theme from lefties. A perceived inequality in anything should be met by a lowering across the board.
Education? Hold back the most talented.
Wealth? Make everyone poor.

don't think this can be laid at the door of the 'lefties', there hasn't been a left wing government of the uk since the 1970's (blair/brown governments were certainly not left wing)

The proper lefties are not in power and haven't been since '79 as you say (with very good reason - look at he mess they left).

But it doesn't stop them wanting to lower standards in the name of equality - just look at the current Labour policies and read between the lines. The important thing is to keep them away from power so they can't do what they want.

sungod

agreed

but equally we need to wipe out the corrupt log rolling scum that has infested government/public sector at all levels, let alone deal with the obcenity that is pfi

there're plenty of good people there too, but we seem to lack mechanisms to call out and eliminate the bad ones, they've become too entrenched, basically we're screwed

but i'm drifting off topic

i went to a grammar school, at the time i didn't know it meant anything different educationally, it was just the school i went to, i can recall there were some that these days might be called difficult/disruptive pupils, whatever selection went on didn't prevent that, the catchment area must've been pretty wide given where some of us lived

once a year we lined up to be given 'beer money', the trustees being the worshipful company of brewers

we should put the brewers in charge of education

pinno

TLW for Education minister. Yay!

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

TLW for Education minister. Yay!

The people who make it, not the person who drinks it!

antsmithmk

Stevo 666 wrote:

Flâneur wrote:

Regarding point 2. In areas such as SE London (which Stevo is attempting to convince me has good schools ;0 ) is similar in a fashion to a location such as Trafford. the catchment is massive and reaches a wide scope of children, it is the provision of those children prior to the selection which is an issue. Furthermore some GS allow (most do and have a quota) for students from out of area, however this often requires a real dedicated input from parents and teachers to take the exam as it is not the norm. Often the pass requirement is higher than the bottom line of that years intake - the latter is the real unfair point of it

The two grammars in Bromley borough came 14th and 22nd out of all state schools in GCSE's this year. Given my kid is in one them, I can't complain about grammars.

The biggest problem is that there aren't enough of them. If there were more, this issue about availability and getting in would reduce. Which is exactly what TM is doing. With the additional proviso of 25% of places reserved for low income families and the possibility to get in at points other than year 7.

I also agree with Pinno and V68 on faith schools even though we did like Veronese and put our kid into a good catholic primary on account of Strifey being a left footer. That said it was only a few hundred yards from our house and we moved there without taking that into consideration before kids were on the cards. ('Father Jack' was none too pleased when we put Stropteen into a GS rather than the nearby Catholic comp, but stuff him, I'm still waiting for the lightning bolt).

Based on this summer's results are they 14th and 22nd? On what measure? That's a massive can of worms to open.

Stevo_666

antsmithmk wrote:

Based on this summer's results are they 14th and 22nd? On what measure? That's a massive can of worms to open.

GSCSE scores, based on the normal statistical measures for grades: % A-C and % A*/A:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/08/26/gcse-results-2016-state-school-results/

Hope you like worms.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

antsmithmk wrote:

Based on this summer's results are they 14th and 22nd? On what measure? That's a massive can of worms to open.

GSCSE scores, based on the normal statistical measures for grades: % A-C and % A*/A:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/08/26/gcse-results-2016-state-school-results/

Hope you like worms.

Maybe he's fishing.

tangled_metal

My school was an independent grammar school. I nearly didn't get into it. I was the kid who traveled the furthest to go there and my school had never sent anyone to that GS before and I'd wager since. I did very well in the entrance exams with one of the highest mathematical reasoning scores, right up there with the best of the rich prep school kids. My head had to write a report on me as well as the entrance exam. She screwed up and didn't give the needed info so I got shelved. But I got lucky and got in.

Apart from the fees my parents had to spend an absolute fortune on.uniforms and transport to get me to and from school. I only.got home at 6pm every day.

No problem but I found out that all the rich kids had gone to one of two prep schools. Those schools taught to the entrance exam. Indeed one school used to get hold of the mathematical reasoning entrance exam paper before that exam day. I only found that out after GCSE results came out and a few friends failed to get enough GCSEs to stay in for A levels. They had only got in because they'd been taught to the 11+ and even had gone through the actual questions on one part of the exam. The mathematical reasoning part was the one they really paid attention to. That was what the head master of the GS told my parents in our interview to get me in. Mine was very high and that week I'd decided to be a vet when I grew up. They like that because you have to get straight A's to get into vet school.

My point being that I came from a mediocre primary school and competed against very well coached kids to get in. I only had.my natural intelligence and one book of 11+ exam question examples that my parents made me work through. Jeez that was boring. I got it done quickly so I could get back to playing. Only to find another 2 turned up the next weekend.

My point is grammar schools still stack heavily in.favour of money and educational level of parents. Even the primary school you go to affects greatly your chances.

However if you're the 5% or so to get in they might benefit you. My alternative was a failed comprehensive so no trainer to go to the fee paying grammar school. I know I needed competition from other bright kids to get anything at all out of me. I doubt I'd have any GCSEs from that comprehensive school.

So I do not agree with GS system despite or perhaps because of going through such a system. Yes if you're bright you'll do well there. There's no social mobility in that and good results to get into there and good results going out just means they've maintained the status quo. Good comprehensives take all abilities going in and improves on them. That IMHO can be called progress and should be developed in all state schools. Find the system to do that. Grammar schools sure as he'll won't.

Left or right of politics doesn't matter or even have any relevance. All parents want the best for their kids (unless neglectful of course). Giving them grammar school places will please those parents irrespective of political leanings. But that's not a good basis for making decisions like this. TM strikes me as someone who likes evidence to make decisions. However she has made this GS decision not on evidence but gut feeling (she was a GS success story afterall like many from both politics colour). If I'm wrong then she needs to publish the evidence that she used to define this policy decision.

Stevo_666

Let's cut to the chase.

If your kids(s) were offered a place at a local grammar school, would you accept it? Say why or why not.

pinno

Yes.

veronese68

No, I rejected one for the lad and even had a letter asking to reconsider. There's more to schooling than academic success. Very glad with the choice we made, he's doing really well academically but is also involved in a lot of other aspects of school life.
A better measure of a schools worth May be how much pupils improve during their time there. That still doesn't measure mental wellbeing or happiness. It's easy to get good results if you only take the the high achievers.

awavey

Veronese68 wrote:

A better measure of a schools worth May be how much pupils improve during their time there. That still doesn't measure mental wellbeing or happiness. It's easy to get good results if you only take the the high achievers.

some of my friends who are teachers say they do measure that because its more meaningful for them, but thats generally because the results they get from the pool of pupils they have puts them in the bottom quartile of results for schools in the area. they see it as a win if they can get their kids to pass English and Maths, and its not because those kids are necessarily less intelligent, its just they live in poorer area, theres more distractions, home life is very disrupted, that disruption inevitably is brought into classrooms it becomes very difficult for all kids to learn, those that can afford to play the postcode game and move do so, more often than not to the former grammar school, because it still gets the best results.

so the fact the current system isnt working and producing the best outcomes for kids and is really creating selection for wealthier parents anyway, should be fairly obvious, but I think change or an acceptance that education systems arent working, that the bog standard comprehensive model doesnt work, becomes a very ideological driven political idea, rather than an assessment of the benefits or disadvantages

and grammar schools appear to be linked with "nasty toryism", even though lots of prominent Labour MPs all went to grammar schools,but thats the idealogy again, youll get some Labour MPsvote down anything that creates chances for children to be better educated outside of the state system, yet will have sent their own children to private schools because they didnt like the state system options they had..

there were a group of teachers in the pub on Friday, moaning about having had to work a full week, but they were very clearly against the concept of grammar schools out of principle, it was a Tory idea and therefore bad was their reasoning, which sadly I think will be the level of debate we get on it

Stevo_666

Veronese68 wrote:

No, I rejected one for the lad and even had a letter asking to reconsider. There's more to schooling than academic success. Very glad with the choice we made, he's doing really well academically but is also involved in a lot of other aspects of school life.
A better measure of a schools worth May be how much pupils improve during their time there. That still doesn't measure mental wellbeing or happiness. It's easy to get good results if you only take the the high achievers.

Subjectively my kid is performing noticeably better at grammar than at the non selective primary she attended. Not exact like for like but more evidence that grammars improve kids in my opinion.

Also the idea that grammars only focus on the academics is not the case that I can see as a parent. They are getting a good broad based education which is also academically excellent. It is in addition creating confidence, independence and ambition in her. All good.

Frank the tank

tim wand wrote:

Time for me and Frank to fall out.

I don't really see what harm Grammar Schools will present if any. As long as entry is based on Academic Achievement rather than Financial means, how is it not a good thing?

I have both received and delivered a decent level of Secondary education. My period in Schooling was Late 70's to the Mid 80's and although not a Grammar School , there was a degree of " Streaming " , i.e kids deemed to be of a higher ability in certain subjects put in higher sets than others.

More recently I ve taught at cover level in Secondary Schools, and other than which Level Paper the Kids sit in Maths and English GCSE. theres no such " streaming " . All education is inclusive.

The problem with this is you spend 75% of your time and effort trying to engage with or at least include the 2-5 % of Kid in your lesson who are either struggling or just plain not interested . to the detriment of the others who wish to progress.

And I ll be honest that 2 -5% which are struggling would be better served in a different class, but you cant do that.

So if Grammar schools do return, What real disadvantages are there!

I suppose one argument is if they are not accessible to all on an equal economic footing ( I.e prohibitive travel costs ) compared to dispatching Johnny or Jayne to the local comp. Then indirectly there is going to be some form of discrimination.

But fundamentally what is wrong with pushing the brightest to excel, rather than levelling the playing field to the Lowest Common Denomonator?

I've been in the alps Tim so I missed this one.

No problem with grammar schools as long as the entire private sector schooling system was dismantled. Then selection would be based on the youngsters ability rather than its parents affluence.

pinno

FTF - the affluent can afford prepping. It's not a level playing field before the 11+ for other reasons too.
I like the idea, as long as kids get a fair crack at the whip before Grammar School.

ballysmate

Surprised at a 'union man' like yourself, Frank, wanting to restrict the job opportunities for people by insisting that they only work for the state and as a consequence remove their right to sell their skills.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Surprised at a 'union man' like yourself, Frank, wanting to restrict the job opportunities for people by insisting that they only work for the state and as a consequence remove their right to sell their skills.

On the contrary, I want to increase the job opportunities of the masses by removing the financial boundaries that currently limit them. To get back to Tims OP, I have no problem with grammar schools as long as ALL THE PUPILS that get to go to them have all started the 11 year dash from the same start line, so to speak.

ballysmate

But you are saying to all the teachers that the specialist skills they have can not be marketed.
The system we have at the moment is dependant on wealth to some extent. People who can, pay a premium to live in an area where the good schools are. GS, because they cater for a minority of pupils, have a huge catchment area so a parents postcode is not a factor.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

But you are saying to all the teachers that the specialist skills they have can not be marketed.
The system we have at the moment is dependant on wealth to some extent. People who can, pay a premium to live in an area where the good schools are. GS, because they cater for a minority of pupils, have a huge catchment area so a parents postcode is not a factor.

Exactly. The current system is lottery by postcode and open to the obvious tactic of movimg into the catchment area.

The nearest comp to us has a catchment area with a 0.9 mile radius. My kids GS has a catchment area with 9 mile radius. 100x larger. And takes in a large mixture of areas in SE London and Kent. I know which one is fairer.

Frank the tank

You insinuate the best teachers are only employed in the private sector, I disagree, they merely have access to the best facilities and children from a privileged background.
My son works at a private prep school where fees range from £2k-£9k per term dependent on age and the facilities are far better than a local council could provide for its towns people. So teachers working there are going to have an easier task than those having to "make do" with second rate equipment/facilities.I could argue teachers working in state schools have to be more capable. This debate however, is not about opportunities for teachers but opportunities for children.
I believe both education and health provision should be the best for all regardless of income and that IMHO means the state should be in control of purse strings.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

You insinuate the best teachers are only employed in the private sector, I disagree, they merely have access to the best facilities and children from a privileged background.
My son works at a private prep school where fees range from £2k-£9k per term dependent on age and the facilities are far better than a local council could provide for its towns people. So teachers working there are going to have an easier task than those having to "make do" with second rate equipment/facilities.I could argue teachers working in state schools have to be more capable. This debate however, is not about opportunities for teachers but opportunities for children.
I believe both education and health provision should be the best for all regardless of income and that IMHO means the state should be in control of purse strings.

I made no mention of capabilities at all. I said that in your world, you would be restricting the opportunities for teachers to market their skills. They would only be employed by the state and get paid a salary fixed by the state.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

You insinuate the best teachers are only employed in the private sector, I disagree, they merely have access to the best facilities and children from a privileged background.
My son works at a private prep school where fees range from £2k-£9k per term dependent on age and the facilities are far better than a local council could provide for its towns people. So teachers working there are going to have an easier task than those having to "make do" with second rate equipment/facilities.I could argue teachers working in state schools have to be more capable. This debate however, is not about opportunities for teachers but opportunities for children.
I believe both education and health provision should be the best for all regardless of income and that IMHO means the state should be in control of purse strings.

I made no mention of capabilities at all. I said that in your world, you would be restricting the opportunities for teachers to market their skills. They would only be employed by the state and get paid a salary fixed by the state.

You used the term "Specialist skills" that to me says they're better than others, otherwise the term specialist would not be applied to the individual.
e.g. on my last redundancy matrix I was classed as local expert with "specialist" ability, that gained me more matrix points.

Stevo_666

Bigger point here is that it is a free country and you can spend your money on anything you lie as long as its legal. Unfortunately to restrict that fundamental freedom of choice you would need a totalitarian state.

Aside from that, those who go private are taking the strain off the state education sector and still contributing towards the upkeep of the state sector. Cant see the problem with that.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

You insinuate the best teachers are only employed in the private sector, I disagree, they merely have access to the best facilities and children from a privileged background.
My son works at a private prep school where fees range from £2k-£9k per term dependent on age and the facilities are far better than a local council could provide for its towns people. So teachers working there are going to have an easier task than those having to "make do" with second rate equipment/facilities.I could argue teachers working in state schools have to be more capable. This debate however, is not about opportunities for teachers but opportunities for children.
I believe both education and health provision should be the best for all regardless of income and that IMHO means the state should be in control of purse strings.

I made no mention of capabilities at all. I said that in your world, you would be restricting the opportunities for teachers to market their skills. They would only be employed by the state and get paid a salary fixed by the state.

You used the term "Specialist skills" that to me says they're better than others, otherwise the term specialist would not be applied to the individual.
e.g. on my last redundancy matrix I was classed as local expert with "specialist" ability, that gained me more matrix points.

The term specialist skills was used to describe all teachers. I regard teaching as a skill.
I was talking about all teachers, as your proposal would naturally affect all teachers. The same restrictions would be placed on all of them.
Sorry for any confusion caused.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

You insinuate the best teachers are only employed in the private sector, I disagree, they merely have access to the best facilities and children from a privileged background.
My son works at a private prep school where fees range from £2k-£9k per term dependent on age and the facilities are far better than a local council could provide for its towns people. So teachers working there are going to have an easier task than those having to "make do" with second rate equipment/facilities.I could argue teachers working in state schools have to be more capable. This debate however, is not about opportunities for teachers but opportunities for children.
I believe both education and health provision should be the best for all regardless of income and that IMHO means the state should be in control of purse strings.

I made no mention of capabilities at all. I said that in your world, you would be restricting the opportunities for teachers to market their skills. They would only be employed by the state and get paid a salary fixed by the state.

You used the term "Specialist skills" that to me says they're better than others, otherwise the term specialist would not be applied to the individual.
e.g. on my last redundancy matrix I was classed as local expert with "specialist" ability, that gained me more matrix points.

The term specialist skills was used to describe all teachers. I regard teaching as a skill.
I was talking about all teachers, as your proposal would naturally affect all teachers. The same restrictions would be placed on all of them.
Sorry for any confusion caused.

No apology needed mate.
I have no problem with all teachers working for the state if it leads to a better more equal opportunity society.