Well Northern Ireland has consistently had better GCSE results than England and Wales they still have plenty of Grammar schools.
Poll: Grammar Schools back on the table.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Well Northern Ireland has consistently had better GCSE results than England and Wales they still have plenty of Grammar schools.
Have glanced most of thread and seen a general consistent agreement that parents especially at an early age has the biggest impact on a childs development.
Is this all not just an ever changing band-aid to cover up the fact we still won't admit that not all people should have children, and as such will still not put things in place to prevent this? As a non-parent the fact that it is far more difficult to get a mortgage than have a child baffles me. The bank thoroughly checks you out to make sure you can pay back that loan, but thats only money, not a life
Yes, where would we draw the line on 'who' should be 'allowed' to have kids. I don't know but that single mum with 2 kids already by different dads and newly pregnant by the guy who was hanging around with Dave probably wouldn't make my cut.
But yes changing school styles and structures will definitely help as it has helped to reduce these problems since schools existed.
Is this all not just an ever changing band-aid to cover up the fact we still won't admit that not all people should have children, and as such will still not put things in place to prevent this? As a non-parent the fact that it is far more difficult to get a mortgage than have a child baffles me. The bank thoroughly checks you out to make sure you can pay back that loan, but thats only money, not a life
Yes, where would we draw the line on 'who' should be 'allowed' to have kids. I don't know but that single mum with 2 kids already by different dads and newly pregnant by the guy who was hanging around with Dave probably wouldn't make my cut.
But yes changing school styles and structures will definitely help as it has helped to reduce these problems since schools existed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
Have glanced most of thread and seen a general consistent agreement that parents especially at an early age has the biggest impact on a childs development.
Is this all not just an ever changing band-aid to cover up the fact we still won't admit that not all people should have children, and as such will still not put things in place to prevent this? As a non-parent the fact that it is far more difficult to get a mortgage than have a child baffles me. The bank thoroughly checks you out to make sure you can pay back that loan, but thats only money, not a life
Yes, where would we draw the line on 'who' should be 'allowed' to have kids. I don't know but that single mum with 2 kids already by different dads and newly pregnant by the guy who was hanging around with Dave probably wouldn't make my cut.
But yes changing school styles and structures will definitely help as it has helped to reduce these problems since schools existed.
funny how you need a licence for a dog, but change that to a human and you don't.
to quote susan sto helit from the hogfather "sometimes i wish parents had to pass an exam before having kids, apart from the practical"
but then that's brutal and inhumane and you're basically literally totally worse than hitler, mussolini, stalin and trump rolled together for even suggesting that.
Is that not because the type that get in are more able? More able students tend to do well wherever they go (ignoring private schools which obviously gives you opportunities you don't get anywhere else). It's the less able that schools can have the biggest impact on and I don't see how grammar schools help. I obviously have no evidence but I'd call it a net loss if new grammar schools started appearing again.
How would they be dragged down? No-one is arguing against streaming in this thread. The 'divvy' kids would be in a different class to the kids who'd pass the modern equivalent to the 11+.
For most schools streaming is only really possible in the main subjects such as English, Maths and Science. The rest of the subjects don't usually get enough hours or have enough teachers or, if option subjects, enough students to stream by ability.
Everyone does have the same or at least very similar opportunities though? Education is free till 18 then university is basically free minus living costs until you finish.
Yes some schools may perform better than others, but you will never create all schools even. Much like different businesses have better career potential than others. It's just life.
I don't have fact or figures for it but people arguing that kids should not be punished because of their parents need to wake up. They are not being punished directly because of their parents. If they unfortunately come from a family that don't care for education or even care much for their child then it's a mentality they more often than not develop. Lack or caring. Which in turn means their education suffers...
Even some of the worst performing schools in the country will give you the tools to get on with life and get a job. What it comes down to is if you have the right attitude. I hazard to guess most of the students who attend these poor schools, which are most likely in poor areas, don't. Then apparently it's every one else's fault.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 914
- Location
- Darwen
I think it is a great idea. I went to a grammar school on an assisted place. Im from a working class background and was brought up with my sister by a single parent. Thanks to a grammar school education i managed to do a lot better than if i would have gone to the local comp. It is just a shame that when Tony Blair got into power he scrapped assisted places so others from poor backgrounds couldnt get the same education as others before them did. I have never forgiven Labour for this, especially when they came out with the slogan education education education lmao
@Andy. How can you compare your grammar to a school you never went to? You may have done equally as well n a secondary.
The only way to prove it is with huge data analysis.
Even if it was good for you, is it good for society? Imo the focus should be on creating an education system to cater for the bottom end of the spectrum but we all know the government have no interest in that.
The only way to prove it is with huge data analysis.
Even if it was good for you, is it good for society? Imo the focus should be on creating an education system to cater for the bottom end of the spectrum but we all know the government have no interest in that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
It's a pointless argument until 'in some form' is defined clearly.
For what it's worth, there have always been many problems with 'grammars for mobility' thinking: no point under the academies programme as conceived; inherently divisive off selective measures that still better correlate with family income than any shade of merit; will still not remove children (unless you board everyone) from troubled families, or fix the issues affecting said families; will mirror the wide spread found in the private and academy sector in terms of regional quality and career outcomes; will amplify over-reliance on immigration to patch up a rigidly stratified society and skills base; in case people have forgotten -- we haven't got the money to add yet another layer of complexity in the middle of other ongoing and underfunded reforms; does not address issues of ongoing teacher training, teacher recruitment and retention in key subjects and stratification of teaching talent; spreads the responsibility for educational outcomes too thinly for my liking, increased parental choice is a good excuse if as the government you just want to wash your hands of delivering quality education for the greatest number of people to meet the country's needs; most importantly, grammars will not fix the effects of poverty and inequality in society.
There are better ways to cater for the thinking behind streamed education today. Look at how the Finnish system was reformed, for example: high average; extremes of ability are well-integrated; costs less (having less systematic failures generally does); higher spend on tertiary education per student as a result is possible. Yet once again we split kids into strivers and skivers (again often by prejudging the class of their parents), and go with dogma against expert advice, elevating countries that employ cram schools to massage PISA rankings, and enjoy high suicide rates to boot, as beacons of excellence.
The future longevity of a new grammar system is also in question. Undertaking the cost of this reform now, based on personal experiences of a number of wistful politicians, advisers and hopeful parents (mostly looking for a cheaper/free alternative to private education anyway), and any subsequent problems is not worth it. It'll become another political football, will be fudged and the mess will vanish without grace after throwing the dice on lives of an entire generation of kids a few times. No thanks.
For what it's worth, there have always been many problems with 'grammars for mobility' thinking: no point under the academies programme as conceived; inherently divisive off selective measures that still better correlate with family income than any shade of merit; will still not remove children (unless you board everyone) from troubled families, or fix the issues affecting said families; will mirror the wide spread found in the private and academy sector in terms of regional quality and career outcomes; will amplify over-reliance on immigration to patch up a rigidly stratified society and skills base; in case people have forgotten -- we haven't got the money to add yet another layer of complexity in the middle of other ongoing and underfunded reforms; does not address issues of ongoing teacher training, teacher recruitment and retention in key subjects and stratification of teaching talent; spreads the responsibility for educational outcomes too thinly for my liking, increased parental choice is a good excuse if as the government you just want to wash your hands of delivering quality education for the greatest number of people to meet the country's needs; most importantly, grammars will not fix the effects of poverty and inequality in society.
There are better ways to cater for the thinking behind streamed education today. Look at how the Finnish system was reformed, for example: high average; extremes of ability are well-integrated; costs less (having less systematic failures generally does); higher spend on tertiary education per student as a result is possible. Yet once again we split kids into strivers and skivers (again often by prejudging the class of their parents), and go with dogma against expert advice, elevating countries that employ cram schools to massage PISA rankings, and enjoy high suicide rates to boot, as beacons of excellence.
The future longevity of a new grammar system is also in question. Undertaking the cost of this reform now, based on personal experiences of a number of wistful politicians, advisers and hopeful parents (mostly looking for a cheaper/free alternative to private education anyway), and any subsequent problems is not worth it. It'll become another political football, will be fudged and the mess will vanish without grace after throwing the dice on lives of an entire generation of kids a few times. No thanks.
I always look back at my time on school with a tinge of regret for not getting the most out of it. I needed to be pushed harder, shown how amazing education is, have a maths teacher who when asked "will I ever use this when older" respond back with, "probably not, but look how amazing it all is and how things fit together like e=mc^2." Instead in a comprehensive school we got the Nike phrase "just do it". Placed in a mixed class (the comprehensive school put some of the disruptive students in each class) I just got lazy. Fortunately, I made a few good choices, rejected the "you must go to University" (to make the school figures look good) and got a good job and progressed quickly.
I support the use of grammar schools. I think the next step is they need to focus on comprehensives guiding people into apprentiships early on. Those who can excel accedemically should be giving every effort to allow them to excel. Those who suit a trade should be given every opportunity to find and become skilled in that trade, as well as having a solid general education, but with more of a focus on skills they will need and use such as accounting for their business. Placing everyone in the same classroom just brings the average down and you're doing no one any favours.
I support the use of grammar schools. I think the next step is they need to focus on comprehensives guiding people into apprentiships early on. Those who can excel accedemically should be giving every effort to allow them to excel. Those who suit a trade should be given every opportunity to find and become skilled in that trade, as well as having a solid general education, but with more of a focus on skills they will need and use such as accounting for their business. Placing everyone in the same classroom just brings the average down and you're doing no one any favours.
All schools should guide students to success. No student should leave school without any options. Some people are acedmeically gifted and some people are more praticle and would suit a trade. An apprentiship is not the lesser option and comprehensives are well placed to guide students down this path, they can also provide the framework that these people will need to support them in life, skills in finance, accounting, surveying and quantity estimating. They could leave school with the ability to setup their own business as a plumber.
I'm not saying this with any bitterness, but basing it on my expirence. My experience at the local comprehensive was by no means bad. I left at the age of 18 with the qualifications, skills and experience to get a good paying job and progressed my career quickly. At the age of 23 I brought a house in the south east (I could afford to buy a flat at the age of 19). My sibilings did great there too with my eldest sister becoming a pharmacist, my other sister a police officer and my brother, being the most academic, went to a top university (ranked in the top 10 worldwide and best in the country for his course) and went on to getting a PhD there too.
If selecting the children who are most academic and giving them the best chance to succeed and will therefore allow them to succeed in life, then I fully support that objective. However I hope there is as much focus on comprehensives to allow them to meet the objectives of their students into adulthood.
I'm not saying this with any bitterness, but basing it on my expirence. My experience at the local comprehensive was by no means bad. I left at the age of 18 with the qualifications, skills and experience to get a good paying job and progressed my career quickly. At the age of 23 I brought a house in the south east (I could afford to buy a flat at the age of 19). My sibilings did great there too with my eldest sister becoming a pharmacist, my other sister a police officer and my brother, being the most academic, went to a top university (ranked in the top 10 worldwide and best in the country for his course) and went on to getting a PhD there too.
If selecting the children who are most academic and giving them the best chance to succeed and will therefore allow them to succeed in life, then I fully support that objective. However I hope there is as much focus on comprehensives to allow them to meet the objectives of their students into adulthood.
Depends on the size of the school but if you only have 45 students taking an option subject you can't really stream for ability. They may be set for everything else (or they may not, teaching in Tutor groups is common in lower years) but that assumes a child is equally good at French, Comuting, Geography, Art, English etc.
Mum went to a grammar school in the 60s despite coming from a pretty deprived background in a far flung mining village. Had to spend 3 hours a day on buses to get there and back and did ok for herself.
No she didn't cure cancer and didn't goto Uni , but probably did far better than ever expected from her original start in life.
Her Grammar school ( also in a deprived Mining Village ) eventually became a Comprehensive that I went to in the 80's and despite being a Comp, still quite clearly segregated pupils based on ability ( regardless of wealth / background) and a number of kids with ability from tough beginnings did ok for themselves all things considered.
All for it .
No she didn't cure cancer and didn't goto Uni , but probably did far better than ever expected from her original start in life.
Her Grammar school ( also in a deprived Mining Village ) eventually became a Comprehensive that I went to in the 80's and despite being a Comp, still quite clearly segregated pupils based on ability ( regardless of wealth / background) and a number of kids with ability from tough beginnings did ok for themselves all things considered.
All for it .
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,773
- Location
- Under the Hill
If they bring them back I would like to see an 11 plus and annual transfer opportunities up until the beginning of the 1st year of GCSEs and again for A Levels.
Yes, there needs to be multiple opportunities to move up.
As far as i'm concerned, the 11+ still existed in 1981 , it simply wasn't "official" policy
We lived in a very Labour area under a Conservative government, but my school was split into 3 groups, the top 90 or so into the top group, dont know how it split into group 2 and 3 below that.
As i understand i was 95th or something like that exiting (mutiple) Junior schools in the area and some better off parents with kids classed worse than me, managed to get there kids into the top group by harassing the Head etc. My parents didn't challenge it and that's fine with me, ( i dont blame them for what i have or haven't done since ).
I suspect had the top kids gone off to Grammar leaving the rest of us semi thickos to develop, then maybe i'd have received more the of kick up the bottom i'd needed.
If there's multiple chances to move up after the 11+ , then that sounds the right approach.
As far as i'm concerned, the 11+ still existed in 1981 , it simply wasn't "official" policy
We lived in a very Labour area under a Conservative government, but my school was split into 3 groups, the top 90 or so into the top group, dont know how it split into group 2 and 3 below that.
As i understand i was 95th or something like that exiting (mutiple) Junior schools in the area and some better off parents with kids classed worse than me, managed to get there kids into the top group by harassing the Head etc. My parents didn't challenge it and that's fine with me, ( i dont blame them for what i have or haven't done since ).
I suspect had the top kids gone off to Grammar leaving the rest of us semi thickos to develop, then maybe i'd have received more the of kick up the bottom i'd needed.
If there's multiple chances to move up after the 11+ , then that sounds the right approach.
Last edited: