What's the harm with Grammar Schools.

ballysmate

Frank, you work for a well known aero engine manufacture don't you? If another engineering plant opened up and offered you a better position, you would have the opportunity to consider it wouldn't you? Why would you not allow teachers the same privilege? I thought the opposition to GS and private schools was all about equal opportunity?

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank, you work for a well known aero engine manufacture don't you? If another engineering plant opened up and offered you a better position, you would have the opportunity to consider it wouldn't you? Why would you not allow teachers the same privilege? I thought the opposition to GS and private schools was all about equal opportunity?

I totally get what you're saying mate.
I could advocate not just teachers and doctors work for the state but all trades do, but I would not.
I consider health and education are two fundamental rights and those in those professions should work for the state as a "service" and be remunerated well for it. In the world of FTT there would be no private sector in these to areas. teaching and caring are not about mercenary workers they are vocations.

ballysmate

A true Corbynite then Frank.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank, you work for a well known aero engine manufacture don't you? If another engineering plant opened up and offered you a better position, you would have the opportunity to consider it wouldn't you? Why would you not allow teachers the same privilege? I thought the opposition to GS and private schools was all about equal opportunity?

I totally get what you're saying mate.
I could advocate not just teachers and doctors work for the state but all trades do, but I would not.
I consider health and education are two fundamental rights and those in those professions should work for the state as a "service" and be remunerated well for it. In the world of FTT there would be no private sector in these to areas. teaching and caring are not about mercenary workers they are vocations.

What about the teachers and doctors who don't want to work for the state. Would you force them to? What penalties would you impose for breaking the rules - say for someone who was caught tutoring kids privately?

Stevo_666

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank, you work for a well known aero engine manufacture don't you? If another engineering plant opened up and offered you a better position, you would have the opportunity to consider it wouldn't you? Why would you not allow teachers the same privilege? I thought the opposition to GS and private schools was all about equal opportunity?

I totally get what you're saying mate.
I could advocate not just teachers and doctors work for the state but all trades do, but I would not.
I consider health and education are two fundamental rights and those in those professions should work for the state as a "service" and be remunerated well for it. In the world of FTT there would be no private sector in these to areas. teaching and caring are not about mercenary workers they are vocations.

What about the teachers and doctors who don't want to work for the state. Would you force them to? What penalties would you impose for breaking the rules - say for someone who was caught tutoring kids privately?

Frank, I'll take your first guess on this. No need to phone Kim Jong Un for advice

hamish_mctavish

Haven't read the full thread but in answer to the OP's question, the harm is that whilst Grammar Schools can provide an excellent education, the effect on the rest of the education system in the area is often v poor. For example Kent - Grammar schools throughout - last year had more under-performing schools than anywhere else in the country. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/s ... les-59562/
Second worst? Another bastion of Grammar Schools: Birmingham.

veronese68

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Haven't read the full thread but in answer to the OP's question, the harm is that whilst Grammar Schools can provide an excellent education, the effect on the rest of the education system in the area is often v poor. For example Kent - Grammar schools throughout - last year had more under-performing schools than anywhere else in the country. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/s ... les-59562/
Second worst? Another bastion of Grammar Schools: Birmingham.

Because the grammar schools are taking all the bright kids making the other schools struggle?
If there were no reasonable alternative to a grammar school we would have gone that route, we were lucky to have reasonable alternatives locally. Our choice wasn't based on any moral sense of disagreeing with grammar schools, we went with what we thought were the best options for our kids. So instead of hypocrisy over grammar schools I went for religious hypocrisy. I'd burn in hell if it was real.

fat daddy

yeah its a bit like having a whole box of bike bits and 2 frames

you can either put all the top spec parts on the best frame and end up with one high performance bike and one low spec bike ..... or you can mix and match and have 2 average specced bikes of which neither excel.

pinno

fat daddy wrote:

yeah its a bit like having a whole box of bike bits and 2 frames

you can either put all the top spec parts on the best frame and end up with one high performance bike and one low spec bike ..... or you can mix and match and have 2 average specced bikes of which neither excel.

Profound. I need a sleep now.

drlodge

fat daddy wrote:

yeah its a bit like having a whole box of bike bits and 2 frames

you can either put all the top spec parts on the best frame and end up with one high performance bike and one low spec bike ..... or you can mix and match and have 2 average specced bikes of which neither excel.

That's one answer to a question I posted a while back....is it a zero sum contest? What are the implications of grammar school:
- the most able achieve better, while the less able do the same - average achievement increases so grammar schools are a good thing
- the most able achieve better, while the less able do less well - average achievement stays the same, parents will favour grammar schools but if you look at the bigger picture, you have to question whether they've a good thing for society.
- the most able achieve better, while the less able do very less well - average achievement actually goes down, while parents will still want their child to go to a grammar school (even more so now), overall for society it would seem to be a bad thing.

I just don't know which of the above best reflects the situation.

Stevo_666

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Haven't read the full thread but in answer to the OP's question, the harm is that whilst Grammar Schools can provide an excellent education, the effect on the rest of the education system in the area is often v poor. For example Kent - Grammar schools throughout - last year had more under-performing schools than anywhere else in the country. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/s ... les-59562/
Second worst? Another bastion of Grammar Schools: Birmingham.

Circumstantial evidence at best. The article makes no mention of any correlation. There are a large numbers of areas with grammars so statistically there will be some areas with grammars that also have issues in other schools.

Nobody is criticising the performance of the grammars in those areas you mention, so the solution is pretty obvious...

hamish_mctavish

Stevo 666 wrote:

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Haven't read the full thread but in answer to the OP's question, the harm is that whilst Grammar Schools can provide an excellent education, the effect on the rest of the education system in the area is often v poor. For example Kent - Grammar schools throughout - last year had more under-performing schools than anywhere else in the country. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/s ... les-59562/
Second worst? Another bastion of Grammar Schools: Birmingham.

Circumstantial evidence at best. The article makes no mention of any correlation. There are a large numbers of areas with grammars so statistically there will be some areas with grammars that also have issues in other schools.

Nobody is criticising the performance of the grammars in those areas you mention, so the solution is pretty obvious...

On all measures Kent performs below the average for the South East (which does not include London) at GCSE: 64% 5+ A -C vs 67.4% for the region; 308.6 vs 316.6 for average capped GCSE points for example.

Kent is particularly interesting as of the 164 Grammar schools in England almost a quarter are in the county so it is one of the few places where the effect of an entirely Grammar led system can be seen and it seems that whatever it is doing it is not producing the best achievement regionally and is even slightly below average on most measures on a national level; if the Grammar schools are supposedly raising pupils achievement, then the children going elsewhere are being severely failed in Kent for the overall results to be below average. Is this a result of the Grammar schools taking all the best students and their generally more engaged, wealthier parents and corralling them away from their peers? Hard to prove but certainly the current system does not seem to be working well for all Kent's children.

As to your last point, it is indeed obvious - all pupils should have an education that works for them as well a the best Grammar schools work for their pupils. At the moment, this is being done in the best of the Comprehensive schools and I would much rather that the government put money and effort into raising the standard in all schools rather than getting distracted by this retrograde move towards Grammar Schools.

pinno

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Haven't...stuff...Birmingham.

Circumstantial...stuff someone wrote...obvious...

On...more stuff...children.

...At the moment, this is being done in the best of the Comprehensive schools and I would much rather that the government put money and effort into raising the standard in all schools rather than getting distracted by this retrograde move towards Grammar Schools.

Would you concede then, that given an even distribution of resources to both Comps and GS's, it is not such a bad idea?

The arguments against GS so far are about the pre supposed idea that attention to Comprehensives are less likely to receive given a 2 tier system. Not, that a two tier can provide answers to national technical and manual skills shortfalls and the promotion of academic excellence.

veronese68

Pinno wrote:

Would you concede then, that given an even distribution of resources to both Comps and GS's, it is not such a bad idea?

No, although you weren't asking me. I believe it's better to have 2 good comprehensives than a high achieving grammar and underachieving comprehensive. Even if the average results were the same across the two theoretical scenarios.
A good comprehensive with streaming can move children between streams quite easily. It's a lot harder to move from one school to another. I still do not believe a child's future should be decided by an exam sat when they were 11 years old.
When it was being discussed on the news I asked the boy what he thought about them. He wasn't keen at all. His friends that are in grammar schools are not doing any better than he is academically, but they are unhappy at school because of the pressure that is put onto them.
As I think I said earlier, different things work for different kids.
There are plenty of grammar school success stories, our new PM for example, but we don't know how many people there are that narrowly missed going to a grammar school that could have gone on to great things if they'd had the opportunity. But, because they had a bad day aged 11 they never had the chance. How can that be a good thing?

pinno

I understand your argument.

However, I went to a school where bullying was rife and the disruptive ruled. I would swap that environment to one of academic pressure any day of the week.
Catchment areas in London and surrounding Burroughs are really not indicative of national trends. Comprehensives existing in an affluent catchment area could be performing very well but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have/don't need a GS in that area.

Stevo_666

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Hamish McTavish wrote:

Haven't read the full thread but in answer to the OP's question, the harm is that whilst Grammar Schools can provide an excellent education, the effect on the rest of the education system in the area is often v poor. For example Kent - Grammar schools throughout - last year had more under-performing schools than anywhere else in the country. http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/s ... les-59562/
Second worst? Another bastion of Grammar Schools: Birmingham.

Circumstantial evidence at best. The article makes no mention of any correlation. There are a large numbers of areas with grammars so statistically there will be some areas with grammars that also have issues in other schools.

Nobody is criticising the performance of the grammars in those areas you mention, so the solution is pretty obvious...

On all measures Kent performs below the average for the South East (which does not include London) at GCSE: 64% 5+ A -C vs 67.4% for the region; 308.6 vs 316.6 for average capped GCSE points for example.

Kent is particularly interesting as of the 164 Grammar schools in England almost a quarter are in the county so it is one of the few places where the effect of an entirely Grammar led system can be seen and it seems that whatever it is doing it is not producing the best achievement regionally and is even slightly below average on most measures on a national level; if the Grammar schools are supposedly raising pupils achievement, then the children going elsewhere are being severely failed in Kent for the overall results to be below average. Is this a result of the Grammar schools taking all the best students and their generally more engaged, wealthier parents and corralling them away from their peers? Hard to prove but certainly the current system does not seem to be working well for all Kent's children.

As to your last point, it is indeed obvious - all pupils should have an education that works for them as well a the best Grammar schools work for their pupils. At the moment, this is being done in the best of the Comprehensive schools and I would much rather that the government put money and effort into raising the standard in all schools rather than getting distracted by this retrograde move towards Grammar Schools.

Still circumstantial as the results do not isolate other factors in Kent - whatever they may be. I can tell you what I see in my corner of NW Kent and that is not the picture you paint above, but recognise that is not conclusive either. I can also tell you for sure that the GS system is working extremely well for my own kid.

As for your point about grammars getting the lions share of funding, that is an assumption. My kids grammar operates and gets excellent results on a pretty tight budget (my OH is involved in funding activities with the school so we know pretty well the position and constraints). Also the additional £50m to get the new scheme up and running is chicken feed compared to the annual education spend of approx. £85 billion - and secondary education is ring fenced so I see no evidence of funds or effort being diverted from comps. I cannot see any material evidence to back up claims that everyone not in a GS will be somehow abandoned or 'left behind'.

veronese68

Pinno wrote:

However, I went to a school where bullying was rife and the disruptive ruled.

That's a bad school, not the fault of the type of school. There's nothing to say you can't have bullying in a grammar school. You may get picked on for being a thicky, comparatively speaking of course.

ballysmate

Veronese68 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

However, I went to a school where bullying was rife and the disruptive ruled.

That's a bad school, not the fault of the type of school. There's nothing to say you can't have bullying in a grammar school. You may get picked on for being a thicky, comparatively speaking of course.

As I have said in Cake Stop, I went to a GS which was changed to a comp as I went through. The difference was shocking. Bullying and disruption? You bet. Worse than that was that the atmosphere conducive to learning was damaged.
My lad went to a comp and as it transpired, he received a shield for attaining the best GCSE results in his year. My lad is bright enough but when I think back to my peers at GS, best in year? Not a chance.
I also learned recently, from his sister that he had been bullied at school. Why was he singled out? He was bright.

veronese68

Again, if bullying is rife it's a bad school. Don't blame the system. If it's allowed to go unpunished it will spread. If it is not tolerated and the punishments are severe it will be dramatically less.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

I also learned recently, from his sister that he had been bullied at school. Why was he singled out? He was bright.

I had the same thing at school - until I smacked them in the gob. Luckily I was (just about) strong and mentally tough enough to do it. Many were not and they suffered.

term1te

I lived in Kent, and failed my eleven plus back in the day, so went to a comprehensive in South London. One of the better schools in the area at the time and to be honest I'm not sure I'd have done any better if I had gone to the local grammar.

I now live in Switzerland, where there is pretty much a three tier system. At about the time you'd go to a secondary school it is decided whether you are academic or not. If you are, you go to the Gymnasium and are expected to go to university. If not you'll go to the "secondary" school, where you'll be trained up to go and do an apprenticeship (these sometimes lead to further qualifications and university). The third tier school is designed to make you into a good citizen and hopefully find a job at the end of it. A slightly jaundiced view of it, but it is quite excepted here. If your child is not considered "academic" at age 11, some parents will pay for their child to go to a private school where they may study for an International Bachelorette, which will get you into university. But that's not cheap...

hamish_mctavish

Stevo 666 wrote:

Still circumstantial as the results do not isolate other factors in Kent - whatever they may be. I can tell you what I see in my corner of NW Kent and that is not the picture you paint above, but recognise that is not conclusive either.

True, but it nonetheless is at the very least noteworthy that despite having more grammar schools than anywhere else in the country Kent returns below average results. From this year a measure of progress will be included in the GCSE results which should help to isolate some of the other factors.

Stevo 666 wrote:

I can also tell you for sure that the GS system is working extremely well for my own kid.

And that's great and I'm sure that many children benefit from the GS system, my concern is that the children left out of the GS system may do disproportionately poorly and the results from Kent suggest that this may well be the case (and yes, I accept your initial point that this is correlation and not necessarily causation.)

Stevo 666 wrote:

As for your point about grammars getting the lions share of funding, that is an assumption. My kids grammar operates and gets excellent results on a pretty tight budget (my OH is involved in funding activities with the school so we know pretty well the position and constraints). Also the additional £50m to get the new scheme up and running is chicken feed compared to the annual education spend of approx. £85 billion - and secondary education is ring fenced so I see no evidence of funds or effort being diverted from comps.

I have not said that Grammars get more funding - I suspect that in general they don't get more government funding but may be able to access more parental, corporate and alumni funding than most schools but I have no evidence for this - merely that any money, time, energy and expertise diverted to setting up more Grammars is a diversion from the business of making sure that all children get an excellent education.

Stevo 666 wrote:

I cannot see any material evidence to back up claims that everyone not in a GS will be somehow abandoned or 'left behind'.

If children not at a GS don't get an inferior education to those at a GS, what is the point of the GS? Children's abilities are on a continuum and so if you have a cut off point then it is inevitable that - even if you accept that the children most academically gifted at 10 or 11 years should be segregated - some, maybe many, of those below the cut-off will not be getting the education which best suits them. At its best a Comprehensive system allows all children to reach their potential through streaming and differentiation of teaching; by its very nature a system which includes Grammars does not do this.

veronese68

Just saw this completely skewed reportabout house prices near grammar schools. I can only talk about the one in Kingston, but house prices are not affected by being in the catchment area as there is no catchment area. Unless it changed in the last 2 years entry is purely by scores in the entrance exam. My mother knows someone that works in the school office, when a prospective parent was told if they had so many questions they should go to the open evening the parent responded it was much too far for her to get there. She was then asked if she really thought it appropriate to send her child there, to which you can guess the answer. Was it Flan that said something about parental support being most important?
There are however several good primary schools in that area that do push house prices up. Being in KT2 is not enough as the catchment areas are so small.

pinno

Veronese68 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

However, I went to a school where bullying was rife and the disruptive ruled.

That's a bad school, not the fault of the type of school. There's nothing to say you can't have bullying in a grammar school. You may get picked on for being a thicky, comparatively speaking of course.

As I said in a previous post, I would have probably sailed the 11+ and got into a GS but there wasn't one.
The time spent on unruly behaviour, the vandalism, the coercive and the hostile nature of the place made it hell. As I said, I would have swapped academic pressure for that any day of the week.
Parents who could afford it (and they still do) send their children 44 miles away to Kircudbright High. That's maintaining the inequality gap. The bright one's who's parents cannot afford to send their Children to Newton Stewart (2nd best option, 25 miles away) or to Kircudbright (pronounced Kirkoobree!) are resigned to sending their kids to a sh1t hole.

veronese68

Schools need improving, that's not in any doubt. I just don't believe this is the right way to go about it. Changing the marking system in exams from A-E to 1-10 won't improve standards, it will just confuse the issue. Going from a more course based marking system back to an entirely exam based system also won't improve standards. We seem to be going backwards with our education system to the way it was in the 'good old days' is that really an improvement?

pinno

No, it probably isn't. However, this is mixing up delivering the system with inherent faults in the system.

florerider

lets get to the crux here, which is not grammar vs comprehensive, but who wants to see their kids go to a secondary modern?

Daz555

What's the harm with Grammar Schools?

Well, the Tories want them. I can stop there.

Daz555

Education as always suffers as a political football - add NHS and defence to that list. A 3 sectors suffer enormously by narrow short term political goals based around the election cycle. All three a shambles as a result.

It breaks my heart when I hear my wife talk of quitting the teaching profession. It is her life's blood and if someone like her is talking of leaving things must be really really bad. If I had 10% of the cr@p she has had to deal with in her career I'd have walked into another one years ago. Then again for me work is work, for my wife it is a more of a vocation.

pinno

Daz555 wrote:

Education as always suffers as a political football - add NHS and defence to that list. A 3 sectors suffer enormously by narrow short term political goals based around the election cycle. All three a shambles as a result.

Oi, I said that.