Poll: Grammar Schools back on the table.

[Dis86]

Again agree with Cheesy. It is completely wrong to write someone off just because at an early age they're either arses or get poor results. They can completely change.

I do appreciate that some morons can disrupt classes and hinder other pupils but what's needed is the powers for teachers and schools to be able to deal with them effectively - and the will to do so. NOT to relegate hundreds of thousands of kids to a second class education.

 

[rG-tom]

Lots of people are saying "look, kids with bad parents are bad at school, whereas kids from good parents are good at school. Lets separate out the good kids so that they don't get distracted by the bad ones, and let the bad kids distract each other".

Regardless of the exact details of just how **** their home life may be, you're ****ing those bad kids over a second time, and giving the others a second boost.

Giving everyone the same access to quality education isn't punishing anyone, it's simply giving everyone the best chance the school system can offer, as equally as it can be.

Or to elaborate on your example, why not do exactly what you've suggested which stops the good kids from being distracted but also allows a more focused approach to be taken on the kids that DO need different attention...teaching in a conventional manner to those that do not want to learn is going to yield poor results, so why not split this?

your suggestion is to treat everyone the same and race to the bottom....

 

[Dolph]

Lots of people are saying "look, kids with bad parents are bad at school, whereas kids from good parents are good at school. Lets separate out the good kids so that they don't get distracted by the bad ones, and let the bad kids distract each other".

Regardless of the exact details of just how **** their home life may be, you're ****ing those bad kids over a second time, and giving the others a second boost.

Giving everyone the same access to quality education isn't punishing anyone, it's simply giving everyone the best chance the school system can offer, as equally as it can be.

But this isn't what happens now, we still have selection, but it is by house price instead of ability.

Furthermore, do you think a one size fits all approach can both challenge those at the top of the curve and support those at the bottom, or will it cater to the middle and fail those at the top and bottom?

 

[Dolph]

Can't say I have ever seen this. Teaching is one of the few careers where staff are selfish like that. I've yet to see a teacher that doesn't want what's best for their kids (sans the one alcoholic at my old school but that's another story).

Your mileage varies to mine then, or perhaps your perspective is different. Don't confuse wanting to do what is best with knowing what is best, it's very easy for vested interests to confuse the two and add a dash of personal ideology and come out with a self selected, self supporting solution that achieves none of it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Or people who aren't mature enough emotionally and intellectually should perhaps hold off on having children until they have the mental fortitude to realise that having a child means a lot more than a **** then ignoring them for the next 18 years.

The intent is to treat the child fairly, not compound any disadvantages from their parents. The children are what matter here, not the parents.

 

[Lunatic Dreyfus]

I grew up in Buckinghamshire and they love Grammar schools there. I just missed the cut in the 12+, and got carted off to the local secondary modern.

Despite suspecting it did change the course of my life, I never had a problem with that system. Dragging everybody down to the same level, because of fairness is not a solution and just breeds mediocrity. Dragging all kids up to be Grammar standard is simply not going to happen. However if any troublemaking scumbags were removed from the equation when they appeared, then you'd have a chance.

 

[Malevolence]

So will this weed out all the divvy kids and chavvy types that aren't interested in learning anything at school?

 

[Mr Jack]

Thread title is biased. Real question is should Secondary Moderns be brought back in.

All evidence says re-introducing Secondary Moderns will increase inequality, and where the system has been maintained inequality is higher.

 

[Dolph]

Thread title is biased. Real question is should Secondary Moderns be brought back in.

All evidence says re-introducing Secondary Moderns will increase inequality, and where the system has been maintained inequality is higher.

Is that because pupils at grammars perform better than at comprehensives, because pupils at secondary moderns perform worse than at comprehensives or both?

If you are reducing inequality by lowering the top standards, you are failing to let people reach their potential.

 

[Lakeland]

Where's the evidence that says you will perform better in a grammar?

Just because they get better A*-C doesn't mean individual students make better progress, if you group a large number of A*-C target students together in a school it's not a surprise that the school gets better A*-C results. This is why there is a movement to measuring progress which should be a more accurate way of judging how good a school is.

 

[Mr Jack]

Is that because pupils at grammars perform better than at comprehensives, because pupils at secondary moderns perform worse than at comprehensives or both?

If you are reducing inequality by lowering the top standards, you are failing to let people reach their potential.

IIRC the best pupils do equally well corrected for funding, the main effects are negative on the pupils who go to Grammar but are the bottom of the school and a general negative effect on everyone selected against. Doubtless if you peer closely enough you can pick out a group that benefits.

Also those who go to Grammars aren't the top in any meritocratic sense but rather merely the children of the better off.

IMO, it's a bit of a moot point. Designing an education system so that a tiny minority do better at the cost of the rest doing worse is not a good policy aim. What is it Spock said? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[adolf hamster]

interesting the link everyone is putting between grammar schools and being filled with kids from a good background.

funny thing is that's not the case (at least not in my experience), plenty of folk in my school came from your common or garden council estate dole families and could generally be found behind the art hut in a fog of smoke at break times.

some of them went on to succeed in life, some of them followed their parents footsteps.

the issue comes with attitudes, a good example is a freind of my mothers has 2 kids, raised in the same househould with 2 non working parents. both kids were intellegent but one managed to get themselves through a degree with first class honours, and the other has ended up the generic nightmare child even into adulthood (although an adult only by chronological age rather than maturity of character)

likewise i've met many from well to do families who fell down the rabbit hole of the traditional sex drugs and rock and roll lifestyle and didn't end up acheiving much.

i think the key is role models, people need them, if you find someone to inspire you in a way that gives you a good path through life (regardless of wether or not your related to them) then that can make the world of difference.

it's not where you start in life, it's how far you move forward that is what you should be judged by.

 

[Lakeland]

@Moses. My point is - where's the analysis? If the argument is so compelling there should be evidence to hand.

Even if grammar schools did enable better progress, what happens to all of the other schools? Is there actually a net gain or do grammar schools benefit a few at the detriment of many?

 

[Tefal]

IIRC the best pupils do equally well corrected for funding,

read:the best pupils do equally well....when you change the data to get the result you want

 

[robgmun]

I think in general it's a good idea but they need to be very careful how selection is handled, the old 11+ was too blunt a tool

This in a nutshell. The core principle of grammar schools is sound. But needs to make sure selection process has nothing to do with anything other than the ability of the pupil

 

[Lakeland]

Did grammar schools help social mobility? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37311018

 

[Danthus]

Is that because pupils at grammars perform better than at comprehensives, because pupils at secondary moderns perform worse than at comprehensives or both?

If you are reducing inequality by lowering the top standards, you are failing to let people reach their potential.

The data the BBC showed tonight didn't back that up in Kent.

 

[fez]

Is there a strong link between the intelligence of parents and children by the way?

 

[Eurofighter]

I don't like segregation, i am against this.

 

[Malevolence]

I don't like segregation, i am against this.

So you're OK with the brighter kids' education being dragged down by the inclusion of the disruptive divvy kids.