often they have been failed by their parents long before reaching school and as I said if they progress at a later date, from an environment that caters to helping them, then there should be an option to move
Poll: Grammar Schools back on the table.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
often they have been failed by their parents long before reaching school and as I said if they progress at a later date, from an environment that caters to helping them, then there should be an option to move
yes, that would need dealing with
So early intervention is important then.
Which begs the question, why were 800 Sure Start Centres closed.
they go to a regular school like they already go to now...
I failed my 11+ but they had a streaming system in my comprehensive where I was moved up to "grammar stream" after a couple of years. This arrangement works quite well IMO.
However, I don't see the harm in catering for very academically gifted kids in a Grammar School - it's easy to get held back or bored in a comprehensive if you're in a class with disinterested or disruptive children.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,194
We all know Comprehensives are **** holes that cater to the lowest common denominator. If you're bright and want to get ahead they hold you back.
Its based on on the socialist principle that no-one is better than anyone else the same reason in old communist countries you could earn more working in a coffee shop than as a university professor.
Its based on on the socialist principle that no-one is better than anyone else the same reason in old communist countries you could earn more working in a coffee shop than as a university professor.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,818
Terrible idea
What will happen is that the good teachers will go to the grammar schools, leaving the dross to stay in the comprehensives.
Children develop at different rates, you may have some late bloomers, or you may have some incredibly gifted youngsters who just ended up in a poor primary school. Likewise you could have some idiots who by a miracle, and great primary school gets them into a grammar.
Having a two tier system doesn't seem right. Good quality education should be for everyone.
Stronger penalties for parents of troublemakers wouldn't do any harm either.
What will happen is that the good teachers will go to the grammar schools, leaving the dross to stay in the comprehensives.
Children develop at different rates, you may have some late bloomers, or you may have some incredibly gifted youngsters who just ended up in a poor primary school. Likewise you could have some idiots who by a miracle, and great primary school gets them into a grammar.
Having a two tier system doesn't seem right. Good quality education should be for everyone.
Stronger penalties for parents of troublemakers wouldn't do any harm either.
I live in a grammar school area, and it's great for me as I can get my kids a better standard of education for the relatively small price of 3 years of tutoring.
Of course, it's hardly a democratic provision when you need to pay for those three years of tutoring to get a spot. Poor kids are relegated to the lower tier comps, which are worse for strivers than in a non-comprehensive area because the ambitious middle class kids are all elsewhere, and the pushy middle class parents aren't around to pressure the school over areas needing improvement.
Of course, it's hardly a democratic provision when you need to pay for those three years of tutoring to get a spot. Poor kids are relegated to the lower tier comps, which are worse for strivers than in a non-comprehensive area because the ambitious middle class kids are all elsewhere, and the pushy middle class parents aren't around to pressure the school over areas needing improvement.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
I think this quote from the article is a very fair point:
Addressing the 1922 committee of backbench MPs, the PM said "selection by house price" already existed within the state school system, with wealthier parents able to ensure a place for their children at high-performing schools by buying homes in the catchment area.
Like it or not, the existing system has segregation. Children do better at school when their parents are engaged in the process. At the very basic level its reading with them when very young - and then ensuring homework is done when they get older. When a school performs well, it will attract those who want to do well - and moving into their catchment is one of those steps. This is basic economics and you will always lose to the markets in the end.
Allowing selection by ability casts the net wider. I will quote the very personal example of my mum - who came from a definite working class background (her dad was a skilled manual worker). She passed the 11+ and went to the grammar school and then on to university - first in the family to do so. That moved us up into the middle classes. Were it solely on catchment, she'd never have made it.
My oldest daughter has just started at grammar school - today is her second day. Given she got 99% in the 11+, NOT sending her would have been a waste. My wife was hesitant to send her as it is single-sex, but the very clear ambition shown by the school for all the girls to do well, and backed up by its results and being well-spoken of by older children and their parents won her over.
Also, having seen first-hand the destruction one disruptive little **** can do in a classroom, a school where they are out on their ear suits me just fine. That is a very selfish attitude and I make no apologies for it, the little **** wouldn't have done and the world doesn't give you a free pass either.
Addressing the 1922 committee of backbench MPs, the PM said "selection by house price" already existed within the state school system, with wealthier parents able to ensure a place for their children at high-performing schools by buying homes in the catchment area.
Like it or not, the existing system has segregation. Children do better at school when their parents are engaged in the process. At the very basic level its reading with them when very young - and then ensuring homework is done when they get older. When a school performs well, it will attract those who want to do well - and moving into their catchment is one of those steps. This is basic economics and you will always lose to the markets in the end.
Allowing selection by ability casts the net wider. I will quote the very personal example of my mum - who came from a definite working class background (her dad was a skilled manual worker). She passed the 11+ and went to the grammar school and then on to university - first in the family to do so. That moved us up into the middle classes. Were it solely on catchment, she'd never have made it.
My oldest daughter has just started at grammar school - today is her second day. Given she got 99% in the 11+, NOT sending her would have been a waste. My wife was hesitant to send her as it is single-sex, but the very clear ambition shown by the school for all the girls to do well, and backed up by its results and being well-spoken of by older children and their parents won her over.
Also, having seen first-hand the destruction one disruptive little **** can do in a classroom, a school where they are out on their ear suits me just fine. That is a very selfish attitude and I make no apologies for it, the little **** wouldn't have done and the world doesn't give you a free pass either.
Largely indicative of lack of resources or quality of teaching (maybe something needs to be done about discipline but we had a good head at my secondary who effectively dealt with troublesome students where others might not want to put in the effort) - as mentioned above you get some late bloomers, etc. and those who learn from watching other more able than themselves, etc. who'd be let down by segregation.
I was fortunate enough to get educated in a grammar school.
At the time I did not appreciate the difference it would make in respect of my future opportunities. Luckily my parents did and throughout my primary school days I was loaded with night school and personal tuition because they appreciated the difference it would make.
I have no idea in the difference in teaching standards because obviously I only have one perception to go by, what I do know though is that the grammar school segregated me away from other children and teenagers who could potentially be disruptive to a teaching environment.
In many ways it enabled me to be educated in a manufactured environment with other similar minded children (and also parents) and peer pressure pushed me to achieve in my GCSEs and A-Levels.
Was this crappy for other children who missed out because of the 11+ tool? Yes obviously, but for me it worked.
I can understand the concerns that it creates a two tier system, but that is the reality. a lot of parents these days pay over the odds for housing because of the catchment area mechanic with schooling ( I know we did when we were in the UK). As snobby as it sounds I wanted my children to go to a school with other children that had a similar social economic background to them.
Now I am in India I pay way over the odds to privately educate my children. They could get a similar education up the road in another private school, but I pay almost double to get the same. Why? To maintain the social economic dynamic I want for my children.
At the time I did not appreciate the difference it would make in respect of my future opportunities. Luckily my parents did and throughout my primary school days I was loaded with night school and personal tuition because they appreciated the difference it would make.
I have no idea in the difference in teaching standards because obviously I only have one perception to go by, what I do know though is that the grammar school segregated me away from other children and teenagers who could potentially be disruptive to a teaching environment.
In many ways it enabled me to be educated in a manufactured environment with other similar minded children (and also parents) and peer pressure pushed me to achieve in my GCSEs and A-Levels.
Was this crappy for other children who missed out because of the 11+ tool? Yes obviously, but for me it worked.
I can understand the concerns that it creates a two tier system, but that is the reality. a lot of parents these days pay over the odds for housing because of the catchment area mechanic with schooling ( I know we did when we were in the UK). As snobby as it sounds I wanted my children to go to a school with other children that had a similar social economic background to them.
Now I am in India I pay way over the odds to privately educate my children. They could get a similar education up the road in another private school, but I pay almost double to get the same. Why? To maintain the social economic dynamic I want for my children.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,818
why have we weak standards?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,988
- Location
- South Wirral
If Ellesmere Port is anything to go by, because the parents who used them were the middle class ones who didn't need them. Poor families didn't have the time or inclination.
Which might be acceptable if the criteria were simple ability / potential, but at eleven years old or less, it's far less about talent and potential than it is home life / how good a start you got / personality. I didn't have a great early life and whilst bright as a child, I had some problems academically. By the time I was 16 I was pretty much top of my class in nearly all subjects and got straight A's across the board. If I'd been exam assessed at nine or ten years old and then funnelled off to a second-rate school of low-achievers, that would be a Hell of a lot less likely and I might not be where I am today.
This is the flaw with such a system - not that it's wrong to fast track more talented children, but that the reasons kids get filtered out are far more to do with things other than their potential. Kids don't all begin at the same starting line and it takes more than the first ten years of their life for that to be averaged away and real potential and drive to learn to become the dominant factors in whether or not they succeed.
Because the liberals of this country want to be all gugs and inclusion. They are scared of competition and of offending people by admitting we are not all equal. Some are brighter than others and should be helped accordingly to achieve great things in life.
For the record I went to a comprehensive and didn't even go to uni but am still in favour of grammar schools.
I think the biggest issue with the current education model is that we still insist on educating children in batches based on their date of manufacture rather than on their ability level. If that gets changed across the board is their really any need for grammar schools at all?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,818
It just sounds like we are running away from the problem.
So the presence of a grammar school siphoning off the better teachers and the more advantaged children in the area has no impact?
Schools do not exist in a vacuum.