Poll: Grammar Schools back on the table.

[nutcase]

I'm not fundamentally opposed to Grammar schools, but the way they are implemented is the key. The 11+ system is unfair, and a system of continuous assessment throughout Primary school would be better.

That's exactly what happened to me nearly 30 years ago. My teachers monitored everyone and those they thought would stand a chance of passing it were put forward. I was put forward, but failed it.

1) Because the pro-grammar school people tend to go either very quiet, or into full-on meaningless platitude mode when you ask: what happens to the children who don't get into one? There are ten mentions of grammar before anyone says: secondary modern. That's the elephant. because as soon as you split the system, you split children into successes and failures. You can add caveats about re-streaming, transfer, and any stuff you like about how other types of school ore fine, but employers simply don't believe you. All the good jobs will go to those who came from grammars. We know this because it happened last time - some of us are old enough to remember.

I'm doing ok for a comprehensive student, thank you very much. Even got a University degree on my own merit. Grammar, Comprehensive, whatever - you work hard you stand a better chance of succeeding. You slack off, you end up working at [insert menial job here].

 

[Dolph]

That's exactly what happened to me nearly 30 years ago. My teachers monitored everyone and those they thought would stand a chance of passing it were put forward. I was put forward, but failed it.



I'm doing ok for a comprehensive student, thank you very much. Even got a University degree on my own merit. Grammar, Comprehensive, whatever - you work hard you stand a better chance of succeeding. You slack off, you end up working at [insert menial job here].

Indeed, where I grew up, there were no grammars, and being ten years old and an idiot, I declined the scholarship and went to the local comprehensive (Which was and is one of the best state schools in ipswich, although I didn't appreciate that at the time either link.)

Of course, to go there you have to buy a house in the catchment, expect a 20% increase vs the average like for like as a result.

Down here in Plymouth, we have 3 grammar schools, instead of selecting based on ability to buy a house in the catchment, it's selected on ability. The biggest problem is lack of places, as the number of pupils who pass the 11+ is greater than the number of places available, so simply passing isn't enough, especially for boys (there is one boys grammar and two girls grammars).

I simply cannot see why selection is considered a bad idea.

 

[Bonjour]

I think a lot of people (generally, not necessarily on this forum) that are pro-grammar make the assumption that their little darlings would make the grade and be in the grammar system. Should their child/ren not make the grade and end up in the alternative, then their opinion would no doubt soon change.

 

[Dolph]

I think a lot of people (generally, not necessarily on this forum) that are pro-grammar make the assumption that their little darlings would make the grade and be in the grammar system. Should their child/ren not make the grade and end up in the alternative, then their opinion would no doubt soon change.

There is an element of that, but is it not better than selection by house price?

 

[Bonjour]

There is an element of that, but is it not better than selection by house price?

I agree that it is. The current applications process is ludicrous, with families renting homes close to a good school for a few months just to get their first child in (siblings then usually get in regardless of address). Selection on merit should, in theory, mean that those in more deprived areas get a chance to go to a good school.

In practise though, I think more would lose out than benefit. It is entirely divisive, splitting society down the middle, and leaves many with a lifelong feeling that the don't make the grade.

I know someone with two children in Kent; one of whom passed the 11+ and the other that did not. The child that passed has just finished his A-Levels with outstanding grades. The child that did not found himself in a hostile environment, getting bullied, and ended up refusing to go to school. He will end up with literally no qualifications. These two kids did not get the same chances after age 11. Their entire future, in effect, was decided by an exam they took before they reached puberty.

 

[Meridian]

There is an element of that, but is it not better than selection by house price?

Instead it will be selection directly by salary, as the richer parents tutor their children to pass the exam (and there will have to be some sort of exam). So the same children will get in, but at less expense for the parents.

 

[Meridian]

Do you think employers and universities don't factor in schooling if it's comprehensive? Really?

Also, I genuinely don't understand this? Could you please elaborate?

 

[leaskovski]

Poll is rubbish. Where is the pancake answer. Jesus, these forums are becoming too sensible for its own good. Be like blooming mumsnet on here soon with people posting pap like MOH or DD yada yada.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Surely to solve the issue of 'selection by house price' it would make more sense to raise the standards of all schools, rather than (re)introduce an alternative method of selection.

If all schools were good, parents wouldn't need to move house to get into a 'good' school.

I don't think league tables and the screwed up target-based system helps either. It just encourages teaching for the test, rather than 'education'.

 

[Bonjour]

Poll is rubbish. Where is the pancake answer. Jesus, these forums are becoming too sensible for its own good. Be like blooming mumsnet on here soon with people posting pap like MOH or DD yada yada.

I beg to differ.

 

[Lakeland]

That drive is already happening Tom, coasting / underperforming schools have huge pressure put on them. You are right though, the solution is to improve every school.

@Dolph, I have no issue at all with selection, or in isolation, grammars, the issue for me is the impact that grammar schools will have on the rest of the education system.

The issue with good schools and catchments is a good one but there is better ways to solve it than to go back to grammars. A case in point is two local schools close to where I live - One used to have 20% A*-C, and the other 60%+. The latter had and still has ridiculous house prices (relatively speaking), the former is in a fairly deprived area and house prices were extremely cheap, you could buy a two bed semi for 65k.. The former school had massive improvements over the years and is now as good as, if not better than the one which drove up houses prices. We now have two extremely good schools in the area and the one which saw massive improvements is making big differences to the lives of many less well off students. This to me is a massive success story, the school is available to every local no matter of their background or ability.

 

[jimjamuk]

I agree that it is. The current applications process is ludicrous, with families renting homes close to a good school for a few months just to get their first child in (siblings then usually get in regardless of address). Selection on merit should, in theory, mean that those in more deprived areas get a chance to go to a good school.

In practise though, I think more would lose out than benefit. It is entirely divisive, splitting society down the middle, and leaves many with a lifelong feeling that the don't make the grade.

I know someone with two children in Kent; one of whom passed the 11+ and the other that did not. The child that passed has just finished his A-Levels with outstanding grades. The child that did not found himself in a hostile environment, getting bullied, and ended up refusing to go to school. He will end up with literally no qualifications. These two kids did not get the same chances after age 11. Their entire future, in effect, was decided by an exam they took before they reached puberty.

And the problem is the grammer school? Seriously the standard needs to rise across the board. I agree that one exam is a bit of a blunt assessment but the principle of it all is fine with me - one of my boys is "gifted" in maths and science and was quite frankly bored as everything was taught to the lowest denominator (and that was still apparent in the highest set)

 

[Lakeland]

And the problem is the grammer school? Seriously the standard needs to rise across the board. I agree that one exam is a bit of a blunt assessment but the principle of it all is fine with me - one of my boys is "gifted" in maths and science and was quite frankly bored as everything was taught to the lowest denominator (and that was still apparent in the highest set)

Why exactly do you think a grammar school would make any difference to your child?

 

[Dolph]

Also, I genuinely don't understand this? Could you please elaborate?

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.

 

[Dolph]

Surely to solve the issue of 'selection by house price' it would make more sense to raise the standards of all schools, rather than (re)introduce an alternative method of selection.

If all schools were good, parents wouldn't need to move house to get into a 'good' school.

I don't think league tables and the screwed up target-based system helps either. It just encourages teaching for the test, rather than 'education'.

Do you believe all kids to be equally capable of learning? This is an important point when looking at school performance.

 

[Dolph]

Instead it will be selection directly by salary, as the richer parents tutor their children to pass the exam (and there will have to be some sort of exam). So the same children will get in, but at less expense for the parents.

Unless you take kids away from the parents, you can't stop background influencing their future.

You seem to want equality of outcome, not opportunity. That only ever leads to mediocrity.

 

[Bonjour]

Do you believe all kids to be equally capable of learning? This is an important point when looking at school performance.

No. Hence 'differentiation' being a key area of modern pedagogy.

 

[Dolph]

No. Hence 'differentiation' being a key area of modern pedagogy.

So are you going to level intakes across all schools through non-geographic placement based on test scores?

Otherwise how are all schools going to provide a similar learning experience?

Edit: just realised you weren't the original poster for the quote that reply related to. It still stands about the making all schools equal though.

 

[Lakeland]

It's going to be interesting if the grammar schools do come back and the best of our teachers flock to them - for the parents who backed grammars and have kids who just miss out on the entry test - enjoy going to schools where all the best teachers have handed their notice in.

 

[DRZ]

I read of a study recently which pretty much concluded the obvious: Thick children are thick and no matter what you do with them, they will still be thick.

Put kids in an environment that allows them to flourish and go at the maximum rate they can learn at. That means differentiating them, and that absolutely is not a bad thing.

The "issue" with selective schools is that while a child might be terrible enough at English and maybe one other academic subject, making them not good enough to pass the 11+, they might be exceptionally gifted at a more vocational subject. That's fine, but not if the schools they end up at are ring-fenced as the place where "stupid kids" go.

What we need is for education to stop being about schools hitting targets and "improving" and instead have them about maximising every child's abilities, whatever the outcome might be. We're fine sending our children to a different hospital if they have a condition that is better treated elsewhere but not to a different school if they have an educational need better suited by a different school. Madness!