Poll: Grammar Schools back on the table.

[titaniumx3]

If they reintroduce Grammar Schools, they should also introduce specialist schools for children who can't behave properly. The biggest obstacle to effective teaching in the classroom is undisciplined retards, who absolutely ruin education for everyone else in the room. It takes only three of these delinquents in a class of 30 kids to do it, yet many schools are woefully inadequate when it comes to dealing with them. You as a teacher have little you can do other than dance around like a monkey in front of the class, just so that you can hold their attention long enough. Teaching something that should only take 5 min of talking and writing on the board, now takes 30 mins and a whole ****** broadway show.

All these people complaining about why they can't just bring the standards of normal comprehensives to the level of theses grammar schools, well this is why. The entrance tests of these grammar schools are not just a filter for academic ability, but also a filter for levels of behavioural retardation. Oh and before anyone starts crying about how it's not the younglings fault, they are just a product of their parents. Well **** them too. Tax the *****.

 

[Stretch]

This was part of May's speech from just 2 months ago.

May said she will use her position as leader to fight ‘burning injustice’.

‘That means fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.

‘If you’re black you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white. If you’re a white working class boy you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.

‘If you’re at a state school you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately. If you’re a woman you will earn less than a man.

‘If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand. If you’re young you will find it harder than ever before to own your own home.’

‘But the mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone means more than fighting these injustices.

‘If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise.

Grammar schools arguably work in the interests of a very few bright people who haven't already got access to a good school. However, it will do nothing for the people who are born poor, but still die "working class". I'm also very doubtful it will do much to close the gap between state and privately educated career prospects. There are already a lot of state educated pupils with outstanding grades who miss out.

May also talked of the anger and frustration felt by those disenfranchised groups who felt the need to vote leave. Trying to remedy the "burning injustice" by introducing a system that enshrines winners and losers from such a young age seems like a pretty backward step in addressing the kind of inequality which has landed us where we are.

If the referendum showed us anything, it's that people have had enough of the myth of meritocracy.

 

[Meridian]

You object to selection by stream, but selection by school certainly happens in both universities and by employers, so unless you can solve the problem of huge variability in school quality and results, you have changed nothing apart from the method of school entry.

So you are suggesting that the answer to companies selecting on the basis of which school you went to is to give them an up-to-date list? I'm not sure what the answer is either, except a) it will mean more money, and b) make it as hard as possible is a more laudable aim.

 

[Dolph]

So you are suggesting that the answer to companies selecting on the basis of which school you went to is to give them an up-to-date list? I'm not sure what the answer is either, except a) it will mean more money, and b) make it as hard as possible is a more laudable aim.

I'm suggesting living in the real world and understanding that certain situations will confer an advantage. The question is how do you want to allocate the advantage.

I want a school system that allows the brightest to flourish and protects the weaker members of society. The comprehensive system fails to do this, the solution is some form of selection. I'm more than happy to discuss the suitability of the 11+ approach, but the solution is not to throw everyone in one big pot and expect the school to sort it out.

The result of equality of outcome is mediocrity, we need a system of equality of opportunity and assessment on merit.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Yes Stretch, I remember her words well. The rank hypocrisy of them was nauseating.

She has since commissioned an audit countrywide to gauge inequality and how the poor, ethnics and others are treated by the police, courts and public services.

She hasn't included how the Tories treat the poor and vulnerable in it. Probably because it is appalling.

 

[Stretch]

I'm suggesting living in the real world and understanding that certain situations will confer an advantage. The question is how do you want to allocate the advantage.

I want a school system that allows the brightest to flourish and protects the weaker members of society. The comprehensive system fails to do this, the solution is some form of selection. I'm more than happy to discuss the suitability of the 11+ approach, but the solution is not to throw everyone in one big pot and expect the school to sort it out.

The result of equality of outcome is mediocrity, we need a system of equality of opportunity and assessment on merit.

If i you believe in reducing inequality and improving social mobility, then any system that judges people on merit but does nothing to seriously address the root causes of inequality is a bad system. It just compounds the problem.

The current system should at least ensure that if the government wants to raise standards, it is forced to tackle the issue as a whole, across the board for all.

The fact that the currently system works favourably for those that can afford a house in prosperous area just goes to prove the point. Children from well off families are at an advantage because of their wealth. Grammar schools will just allow these families to further their advantage.

It has very little to do with merit, unless you believe poor children are inherently stupid.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I want a school system that allows the brightest to flourish and protects the weaker members of society. The comprehensive system fails to do this, the solution is some form of selection. I'm more than happy to discuss the suitability of the 11+ approach, but the solution is not to throw everyone in one big pot and expect the school to sort it out.

The result of equality of outcome is mediocrity, we need a system of equality of opportunity and assessment on merit.

What is it about the setting / streaming system within a comprehensive that doesn't do what you're advocating?

It provides equality of opportunity based on assessment and merit.

In fact, it does a better job than a 'whole school' selection process like Grammar Schools, because a child who is good at English but not Maths is set accordingly.

Continual assessment also means children can move between sets if they find things too easy / difficult as they progress through their academic career.

 

[Dolph]

What is it about the setting / streaming system within a comprehensive that doesn't do what you're advocating?

It provides equality of opportunity based on assessment and merit.

In fact, it does a better job than a 'whole school' selection process like Grammar Schools, because a child who is good at English but not Maths is set accordingly.

Continual assessment also means children can move between sets if they find things too easy / difficult as they progress through their academic career.

Among other things, it isn't rigorous or formal enough (I watched setting get abused over and over at school by ideologically driven teachers), and there is often to broad a spread for setting to be most effective.

Grammar schools set as well, but the top set in a selective school can often be way ahead of the top set in a comprehensive due to a different profile.

Furthermore, your suggestion assumes all comprehensives are equal, instead of selected by house prices in the catchment. The top set in a high performing comprehensive will look very different to that in a sink school.

 

[Dolph]

If i you believe in reducing inequality and improving social mobility, then any system that judges people on merit but does nothing to seriously address the root causes of inequality is a bad system. It just compounds the problem.

The current system should at least ensure that if the government wants to raise standards, it is forced to tackle the issue as a whole, across the board for all.

The fact that the currently system works favourably for those that can afford a house in prosperous area just goes to prove the point. Children from well off families are at an advantage because of their wealth. Grammar schools will just allow these families to further their advantage.

It has very little to do with merit, unless you believe poor children are inherently stupid.

Do you believe poor parents don't care about helping their kids? I certainly don't believe poor children are inherently stupid or anything of the sort. I have met both very smart and very dumb people from both ends of the spectrum of wealth.

One of the big problems with the current 11+ system is that it is optional, many parents don't take the option, for whatever reason, and as such their kids never get a chance to prove themselves, and many schools make no effort to prepare their pupils, so it end up picking up a subset of students. This does need to be addressed.

I will add that I don't accept inequality is bad per se, I don't want to arbitrarily reduce it as this is invariably achieved by dragging the top down. Social mobility is more important, and that is why I support merit based selection. It is certainly better than selection by house price or deliberately driving towards mediocrity by pushing all schools closer to the average.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Among other things, it isn't rigorous or formal enough (I watched setting get abused over and over at school by ideologically driven teachers), and there is often too broad a spread for setting to be most effective.

Your personal experiences at a single school, ~20 years ago, should not form the basis for national school policy. If setting is being abused (I'd like to hear your definition of this and see some evidence) then the systems in place for setting should be reformed. I think ongoing review and continuous assessment is actually more rigorous and formal than a single exam.

Grammar schools set as well, but the top set in a selective school can often be way ahead of the top set in a comprehensive due to a different profile.

Which is why so much emphasis is now placed on teachers to differentiate their lessons. They have to cater for a range of abilities within each set.

Furthermore, your suggestion assumes all comprehensives are equal, instead of selected by house prices in the catchment. The top set in a high performing comprehensive will look very different to that in a sink school.

The top set in a Grammar school will look very different to that in a sink school…

None of the points you've just made against Comprehensives are actually solved by Grammar schools. You've just offset the problem, and potentially exacerbated it, by widened the gap between 'good' and 'bad' schools.

You're correct that not all schools are equal, but it would be better to raise standards in underperforming schools than to syphon off the best students and teachers to Grammars.

*Edit because you've just added another reply while I was writing the above*

I will add that I don't accept inequality is bad per se, I don't want to arbitrarily reduce it as this is invariably achieved by dragging the top down. Social mobility is more important, and that is why I support merit based selection. It is certainly better than selection by house price or deliberately driving towards mediocrity by pushing all schools closer to the average.

Why does raising standards of the worst performing schools implicitly mean that the standards of the best schools will fall?

We're not talking about bringing all schools to a median average, we're talking about raising the average so that even the 'worst' schools are not failing the children that attend them.

 

[Freakbro]

So what's different about the 11+ or selection process now to how it was previously (in the late 70's / 80's) ?

I heard some stupid mother on the news this morning going on about how getting their child through into the grammar school was such an intensive process, they couldn't even have a holiday this year!

A tutor was an absolute must blah blah...

Really? My parents were working class, step-dad a mechanic and mum stayed at home to raise the children. No-one pushed my education, I just took the 11+ one day, passed and went to grammar school because funnily enough, I had the ability, not the money, status or class.

No focussing for a year or two, no tutors and we still never used to go on holiday

So yes, being a product of the grammar school system, I don't see the issue in segregating children on academic ability, what does need to change though is that societies view on success/failure seems to be determined on your academic ability, which is ridiculous.

We need a skilled trained practically minded population as much as we need academics and we should fund and view each equally.

 

[nutcase]

In fact, it does a better job than a 'whole school' selection process like Grammar Schools, because a child who is good at English but not Maths is set accordingly.

Which is why the 11+ tests multiple subjects and you need to show that you are proficient in multiple, not just one.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Which is why the 11+ tests multiple subjects and you need to show that you are proficient in multiple, not just one.

You miss the point.

A child might be excellent at English and be put in a top set. They might not be so good at Maths, so they are put in a middle set (and so on across the other subjects). This caters for their individual needs and allows them to develop at their own pace.

That same child could potentially fail their 11+ because they aren't good at Maths, but would otherwise be a perfectly 'good' student. Equally, they could be excellent at English and Maths but be bad at taking exams, fail their 11+ due to the exam (not their ability) and the result is they don't go to the 'good' school.

 

[No1newts]

So yes, being a product of the grammar school system, I don't see the issue in segregating children on academic ability, what does need to change though is that societies view on success/failure seems to be determined on your academic ability, which is ridiculous..

I've tried saying that time and again in this thread but I am continually ignored by the class argument going on. The idea that academic success is the only type of success is just straight up moronic and a product of the (primarily) labour left sided self loathing push of their own voters away from their traditional working class background. You can be much more successful person in a trade than in an office environment but people still view a trade as shameful for reason, I can't wrap my head around why.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I've tried saying that time and again in this thread but I am continually ignored by the class argument going on. The idea that academic success is the only type of success is just straight up moronic and a product of the (primarily) labour left sided self loathing push of their own voters away from their traditional working class background. You can be much more successful person in a trade than in an office environment but people still view a trade as shameful for reason, I can't wrap my head around why.

Apologies if you feel your point is being ignored. I actually agree with you - we need better programmes in place to cater for non-academic students. There's nothing shameful about being trade-orientated rather than academic.

Over the last 10 years, there has been more of a drive towards apprenticeships, and it is succeeding, albeit slowly.

Unfortunately, it's woefully underfunded, undersubscribed and undersupported. It's also aimed more towards FE students rather than secondary pupils.

UTCs are trying to address this by introducing pupils to businesses at an earlier age, but they are few and far between, and still in their infancy.

 

[Bonjour]

I have friends that went into trades (sparkies and plumbers) when I went to university. They've made an absolute fortune over the years.

 

[No1newts]

FE students? Apologies if I miss the obvious.

My point is framed in line with the fact that having a grammar/secondary break is not necessarily a bad thing if it supports those who could be skilled in a trade environment toward that path. This pre-supposes equally funded grammar/secondary environments which is not guaranteed but I don't see the harm in accepting that some are more skill based in one environment over the other and as such guiding them down this path. This is especially true when being trade skilled is largely comparable in regards to reward levels against blue collar, by this I mean your least skilled blue collar isn't hugely worse off, if at all, than your less skilled white collar.

 

[Irish_Tom]

FE students? Apologies if I miss the obvious.

My point is framed in line with the fact that having a grammar/secondary break is not necessarily a bad thing if it supports those who could be skilled in a trade environment toward that path. This pre-supposes equally funded grammar/secondary environments which is not guaranteed but I don't see the harm in accepting that some are more skill based in one environment over the other and as such guiding them down this path. This is especially true when being trade skilled is largely comparable in regards to reward levels against blue collar, by this I mean your least skilled blue collar isn't hugely worse off, if at all, than your less skilled white collar.

Ah, sorry - Further Education; so colleges and 6th Forms doing A-Levels. Apprenticeships have been on the rise through colleges, but not through secondary schools.

Some schools do 'extended work experience' where students spend an afternoon a week for a whole term (or longer) with an employer. But because they are under 16 there are strict H&S rules, background checks, and limitations on the type of work they can do.

There's no reason why the circiculum couldn't be adjusted to allow for more of this sort of thing for less academic children. But they will still need a base in English, Maths and Science. What was GCSE level C and is about to become level 5 (I think, happy to be corrected).

The issue I have with the Grammar / Secondary split is that you're deciding which path any given child gets at 11, before they've even started secondary school. If they get to 14/15 and decide they want to have a trade then give them the support to do so, but very few people know what they want to do at 10/11 so why take opportunities away from them so early?

 

[nutcase]

You miss the point.

A child might be excellent at English and be put in a top set. They might not be so good at Maths, so they are put in a middle set (and so on across the other subjects). This caters for their individual needs and allows them to develop at their own pace.

That same child could potentially fail their 11+ because they aren't good at Maths, but would otherwise be a perfectly 'good' student. Equally, they could be excellent at English and Maths but be bad at taking exams, fail their 11+ due to the exam (not their ability) and the result is they don't go to the 'good' school.

The the quality of the teaching in the secondary school would need looking at. A comprehensive shouldn't be a bad school, equally a grammar shouldn't be a good school. The method of teaching is different. Grammars rely on the students picking it up quicker across the board meaning they can get more taught during the same time span.