[Closed] "New" Grammar Schools... Thoughts?

Grammar schhols are a good idea

Maybe and they may have been good in the past but currently they are not helpful for the reasons I have already posted and as described by MrWhyte.

I agree with MrWhyte (teach at the same school). I grew up in Staffordshire and was no where near any type of grammar system. Went to the local comp but picked the better one out of choices available.

I don't 'get' the grammar system as it all feels very alien to me. However I can see why parents are attracted to it and why teachers want to work in schools where you get the smarter kids from the area.

To me it all feels a bit like a way of making sure we continue to slow down social mobility and separate the haves and have nots as soon as possible. I may be reading way to much into all this but on one hand you have the academy program which is designed solely to reduce the amount of money LEA's have to use to keep schools going - as a way of reducing costs to government (nothing at all to do with standard of education) and then this which is a way of keeping the old boys clubs schools going and strong.

If you are going to increase the grammar school system then brilliant go for it, if the brightest of the next generation get to work with peers of equal ability from a younger age and really strive forward then that is amazing. Three things have to happen though IMO.

1) Jobs for those who will not end up being university level have to be made better and more attractive - this means the government actually investing in things like apprenticeships and not just paying lip service to them.
2) Judgments on schools who don't get the top 15% (academically) have to be different as we do so much more with our young people - keeping them is school is a phenomenal task in some instances. Yet I am not a good teacher because my class did not get 60% A*-C?! Come on some of these kids are young carers because their parents are too smacked up to raise them.
3) Speaking of parents there should be some way to seriously monitor what is gong on at home with people, especially the most vulnerable students so they can at least have the chance to succeed. Though that requires putting more money back into social services and I guess they don't think that is worthwhile as it keeps getting cuts.

Sorry I started with a simple 'I agree...' and got quite agitated by the end.

Agree AA, they only work if there is support for those outside the grammar system and that leads into mrwhytes post, intervention has to be early and consider the whole family, but that kind of long term multi discipline approach is very expensive and Sure Start was pretty much the first victim of austerity

I started high school the year after the grammar system ended in our area. I went to a modern comp, as that is where my older brother went, a school that was designed to churn out factory fodder, there was no expectancy or inspiration to achieve academically.

The old grammar school on the other hand even when it wasn't allowed to use selective admissions still continued to achieve better results and send many more pupils into higher education.

It wasn't arbitrary selection at 11 that made the difference it was the quality of the school. And if entering further education is to be used as a yardstick, the expectation that is the normal path to follow.

t wasn't arbitrary selection at 11 that made the difference it was the quality of the school.

So whyvwas the other one shit?

We removed the onus form parents when we made all education compulsory - would you return to a point where we had no schools as we al home educated? If not you have removed the responsibility from parents and placed it in the hands of the state.

Speaking of parents there should be some way to seriously monitor what is gong on at home with people, especially the most vulnerable students so they can at least have the chance to succeed. Though that requires putting more money back into social services and I guess they don't think that is worthwhile as it keeps getting cuts.

Nobby yet more anecdotes and skewed samples wont negate the overwhelming research which counters what you experience.
I am not saying there are no poor children at grammar schools i am just saying that disproportionately well off kids will be there
This is what the research shows.

This is what the research shows

All I'm saying is my personal experience doesn't tally with much of this research - a lot of which I believe is undertaken with specific agendas and floats over the surface of the issues. Too often these debates are dragged into (almost) party politics rather than socioeconomics.

By default, many grammar schools are in fairly affluent areas so you would be safe in assuming the general demographic of the students. This, however, is changing as far as I can see locally with all 4 grammar schools casting their net much further - Jr's year group has boys from Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex and various bits of London. Clearly this is the schools attempting to bring in the very brightest of each year group by promoting in areas that do not have grammars of their own.

Whether this is good or bad for education and social mobility remains to be seen.

I'd like to see some worthwhile research into parental involvement in the education system - reckon it would shock many and possibly convince the overwhelming numbers that seem to think it's the school's responsibility to educate their kids, both academically and morally, that they still have a responsibility.

All I'm saying is my personal experience doesn't tally with much of this research

I wonder which is the bigger sample, your direct experience, or the academic research?

a lot of which I believe is undertaken with specific agendas and floats over the surface of the issues.

You're surely not arguing that you don't have an agenda

Not at all - if you knew me, my background & my family you'd get that.

All I'm saying is my personal experience doesn't tally with much of this research - a lot of which I believe is undertaken with specific agendas and floats over the surface of the issues.

A really helpful clarification that makes me realise just how much weight I should give to your ability to handle date and express opinions on the subject .

Not at all - if you knew me, my background & my family you'd get that.

So you're arguing a premise based on a tiny sample, and you admit you have an agenda. Ok.

My limited education taught me one good lesson - we are all entitled to our opinions and encouraged to express them. I've not once suggested my experience is anything other than that.

Nor have I suggested that it is in any way more relevant than this research that you keep going on about - it's just different.

If you feel the need to insult me then carry on.

Edit: And no, there is no agenda.

My limited education taught me one good lesson - we are all entitled to our opinions and encouraged to express them. I've not once suggested my experience is anything other than that.

And I am trying to place your experience in its very limited context. If you feel that constitutes an insult, I can only assume that you feel insulted a lot of the time.

That wasn't aimed at you ransos.

This is a great thread with some really good opinions coming up. Naturally education is a contentious issue as we all have an investment in it at some level and have been through the system ourselves.

Can we buck the trend of threads on internet boards everywhere in the world though and keep things objective and not resort to personal slagging?

Yes someone has an opinion, yes it is different to ours but that is to be expected. Also if we are to mention or quote research for those of us in education it would be useful if a link or an author name could be included so we can read up on this.

I am not trying to belittle or stir the pot but this is something I am really interested in and would like this thread to keep going as an informed discourse not a playground spat.

Thanks.

Can we buck the trend of threads on internet boards everywhere in the world though and keep things objective and not resort to personal slagging?

This.

There is absolutely no excuse for grammar or private schools. They are elitist and the source of a divided society. It is impossible to tell what a child or person is going to go on to achieve in their life until they have achieved it. The argument of holding children back is a valid one, but it is an argument against grammar schools. Grammar schools prevent the majority from achieving their true potential. People that want grammer schools want a society of exclusive not equal opportunity. Make all schools good and let children do their best in that environment. Anything else buys in to the flawed market distortion of Darwinian Theory. More recent research in to behaviour amongst humans, shows that groups that work together and for each other are more successful. Children can flourish at any age so to put a cap on when society will recognise this is rediculous. Society should be more focused on the glass floor as opposed to the glass ceiling. Their are many midddle and upper class children that are prevented from failing by a system that props them up. This is the truth that many fail to recognise. We do not have a meritocracy at all, its a fallacy and a lie that masks the true nature of our hegemony.

My limited education taught me one good lesson - we are all entitled to our opinions and encouraged to express them. I've not once suggested my experience is anything other than that.

Nor have I suggested that it is in any way more relevant than this research that you keep going on about - it's just different.

If you feel the need to insult me then carry on.

Edit: And no, there is no agenda.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to an opinion on the way you have made it and the evidence you use to support it. Anecdote/personal experience and claiming bias in scientist is no substitute for actual facts and actual research which refutes your opinion. Your claim you are not biased is bizarre seeing you are so biased you even want to claim that the scientists have an agenda whilst denying you have one.

If stating what you are doing is seen as a personal insult then so be it but the facts and your opinion dont match.
I have "insulted" your thinking and you conclusions and i have stated why these are flawed. They are flawed and therefore so are your conclusions

So whyvwas the other one shit?

why is any school poor?

oh I forgot, it's Thatcher's fault

Grammar schools are very attractive to the aspirational working class, which is why the left hates them yet will fight to get their kids in them or go private

oh I forgot, it's Thatcher's fault

Grammar schools are very attractive to the aspirational working class, which is why the left hates them yet will fight to get their kids in them or go private

I suspect the irony of complaining about a sweeping generalisation whilst making another one, is lost on you.

i'm a leftie, i don't hate grammar schools.

i just think they're a bad idea: they're a public expense, for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of everyone else.

As a leftie, it's not how i think public money should be spent.

So if the grammer system allowed transfers at, dunno, maybe 13 and 16 for those who developed late would that be the answer to some of the sticking points?

no. because the emphasis is still on helping the top 5% (10%, whatever).

stretch the gifted, by all means, great. But we never hear a peep about extra help for everyone else - especially those who'd benefit the most.

We HAVE heard that those not quite cutting the mustard are beyond help / need to work harder / have crappy parents / etc.

which is hugely insulting to the majority of us, who'd be left with depleted schools. with apparently no-one to blame but ourselves.

So if the grammer system allowed transfers at, dunno, maybe 13 and 16 for those who developed late would that be the answer to some of the sticking points?

Or you could stick everyone in the same school, but divide the classes according to ability. That would be a comprehensive solution.

By default, many grammar schools are in fairly affluent areas s

Whys that then?

Grammar schools are very attractive to the aspirational working class, which is why the left hates them yet will fight to get their kids in them or go private

No the left doesnt like them because they have a negative impact on the education of the vast majority of pupils living in the areas blighted by them.

stretch the gifted, by all means, great. But we never hear a peep about extra help for everyone else - especially those who'd benefit the most

There is a huge push in the primary education curriculum right now to get everyone to a minimum standard, a standard that to high achievers is a walk in the park. This means teachers are spending more and more time with low achievers and less with the more gifted. This is resulting in a almost zero difference to average achievement but a much narrower breadth of levels, basically, you have more "average" achievers.

Is this good? I guess it depends if your child is a low achiever who has been brought up to a better standard than expected or a a high achiever who has not achieved as much as they could have.

Sadly, you can't please both sides, certainly not with the size of classes at the moment and the funding challenges, so you decide where your priorities lie, pushing the lower up and neglecting the high fliers or push the high even higher and neglect the lower levels.

THM's post up there tells us all we need to know about his views. **** the poor I'm allright Jack.

Given that it points to nothing of the sort, you are merely demonstrating your own prejudice as per. Out of interest ever sponsored a student? What next, it's evil go go beyond the curriculum??

At least my parents' generation were able to seize the opportunity that grammars schools gave them. Gave them a life long passion for education which they fortunately passed on. Not least, the advice that you "read" for a degree.

The obvious question remains unsaid, why do successful and well-educated people often desire good education for their children. Now there's a causation for you! 😉

Sadly, you can't please both sides, certainly not with the size of classes at the moment and the funding challenges, so you decide where your priorities lie, pushing the lower up and neglecting the high fliers or push the high even higher and neglect the lower levels.

shirley the priority would be to increase funding then? 🙂

but quite frankly you statement doesnt wash, because parents really can fill the gaps for the high achievers

we just had a teach your child how to read and write class at our primary school, it was very well attended (by a broad range of parents), they gave us loads of info on the curriculum and methods they use and how we can use it at home

Whats wrong with asking people to invest in their child education? I'm not talking financially, but I am talking emotionally

Nothing lunge, it should be encouraged. It's THE most important driver.

teamhurtmore - Member

(a minority of) my parents' generation were able to seize the opportunity that grammars schools gave them...

fify.

what about everyone else? equally well looked-after?

You can lead a horse to water....

But no, I was lucky and have followed their example as hopefully will my children. I prioritise education over other things....too important to leave to others alone. Imagine relying on folk who downplay reading outside the curriculum. Why have government's determine what you should learn. Bizarre concept....

but quite frankly you statement doesnt wash, because parents really can fill the gaps for the high achievers

because, imo you can focus on the stragglers and help the parents to push the high fliers, so everyone gets the best out of education

The denial that it is partly a class thing strikes me as you having your head in the sand. Outcomes and socio economic factors are always linked and always have been. The children of the better off perform better than poorer peers. It clearly is a class thing

Class and wealth aren't the same thing. You keep conflating them. It makes your argument confusing. Please try and decide which it is that you are railing against and go with that.

teamhurtmore - Member

You can lead a horse to water....

that's quite an unpleasant thing to say.

Why have government's determine what you should learn. Bizarre concept....

you're the first to suggest it.

It's also very insulting to lower (sic) classes to suggest that parents can't/won't prioritise education. It's not a class issue per se.

because, imo you can focus on the stragglers and help the parents to push the high fliers, so everyone gets the best out of education

I guess I struggle to clear the idea of "education for all" with prioritising any level of kids about another.

The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success. That and motivation. Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.

You can lead a horse to water....

It's also very insulting to lower (sic) classes to suggest that parents can't/won't prioritise education. It's not a class issue per se.

Can you back that view up with a reminder of class and academic achievement- why do you think more folk achieve from the higher classes if its not a class issue ?
If it was not a class issue we would see no bias so that is just an incorrect statement. Obviously you would not lie but you are very very wrong on this point. I am surprised an educated educationalist like yourself is unaware of this fact. Very surprised actually.

A better question is how can we redress this imbalance rather than deny it exists. The answer is unlikely to be by having grammar schools where the selection is skewed to the extent that even fewer working class folk do well. You know this so dont pretend you want grammar schools to help the working classes as its not very believable.
I am not sure facts can be insulting - well possibly in your hands they can be 😉

We all know that class is a factor in educational achievement as is parental income as is parental educational status. Its not just about hard work but no one, I assume, will deny that is also important.

Redressing the imbalance is what matters and we dont do that by insultingly pretending it is not there.

It must be so hard being trolled with the facts 😛

Why have government[b]'s[/b] determine what you should learn.

...by having schools teach grammar? 😀

Sorry. Hard to resist given the context.

teamhurtmore - Member
The truth may be unpleasant, but hard work is the second most important factor determining success.

im genuinely confused, what is the first?

John 😀

1. Parents

nah. 1st is a montage

but do parents not consitute background and class?

Without either, you have a problem whatever type of school, background or class.