http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j7S0gcfy9sjmUG5w4uLCbsKEJs6Q?docId=N0014751341495718677A

Basically English schools are behind other country’s in terms of producing the producing the best maths students…and state Schools behind Independents and Grammars.

I did well at a grammar, and I’m no expert but it seems to me the brightest will benefit from selection/screening. Given this report, can the arguments against it retain credibility?

no, they can’t. Unless you want to “reduce the gap between the best and worst performing” by dragging down the best/more able.

Probably not, but bear in mind that you don’t need selective schools to have screening by ability. This was done in my state school back in the 80s in an attempt to staisfy the demands not only of the more able pupils but to also give some help to the less able.

so if you selected the brightest and then later compare them to everyone the brightest are brighter and private education is better than state education… Hardly shocking news is it?

As a teacher I really cannot see how a Grammar school system is beneficial.

The study also suggests that comparing the maths results of 18-year-olds would be even more stark because 90% of English pupils drop the subject after GCSE. In many other countries, maths is compulsory up to the age of 18.

Is this correct? If so, then it’s what I find most disturbing in the report.

I did well at a grammar, and I’m no expert but it seems to me the brightest will benefit from selection/screening. Given this report, can the arguments against it retain credibility?

Unfortunately, we aren’t told the nature of other countries’ schooling systems, so can’t draw much of a conclusion as to what is best suited to our society’s requirements.

anagallis_arvensis – Member

As a teacher I really cannot see how a Grammar school system is beneficial.

So teaching kids in classes appropriate to their ability doesn’t benefit the kids or the teachers?

he may saying grammar schools would get the most money and the best teachers thereby exacerbating the divide between the best and the least able due to money.

it is no surprise that selection leads to better outcomes for the most able the problem is it also leads to worse outcomes for the least able.

the brightest in our education system are not the ones we need to worry about it the least able we need to help most

Personally I am pro selection but only on the condition we dont go back to the old 11 plus system and the tiers of education are such that all pupils get the best possible education. i would also reduce the numbers at Uni and leave that for the best of the best.
I can see the argument against it though
Al there is more to life than maths and I bet we kick their arses at media studies 😈

PS this just means if you select on ability you select on ability

Those pupils in England who are considered to be “high performing” are most likely to attend private or grammar schools, the report says, rather than being state educated.

So what’s new. My grammar school was converted to a secondary during Harold Wilson’s government, but kept “streamed” classes. I was in 1J2 (for jet stream ffs) and thick kids were in the R for remedial classes. Not very PC but the system worked. The the edict came from above to remove all streaming and my class of 20 became a class of 40. The teacher continued teaching the 20 “J” kids at the front and ignored everyone else.

A friend is taking her daughter out of state and into private education because she wants the best for her. State school has let them down, unacceptable levals of staff turnover, absenteeism and apathy are not conducive to good education, sadly.

We need Technical Schools.

nothing new is it

When I was at a private school, I wished I was in a state one. Parents were determined I would stay put though.

First reason : closest ‘friend’ lived 32 miles away (so I spent 95% of my free time – weekends/holidays – on my own, cycling around the New Forest!)

Second reason : not being clever meant I was left behind. After years of being told I wasn’t bright/clever/intelligent, it had quite a knock-on effect with my life….

A transcript from an episode of Yes Prime Minister aired in 1988:

Bernard Woolley – Comprehensive education ought to be validated.

Sir Humphrey Appleby – Of course, but not invalidated.

BW – But if it was introduced to improve standards…

HA – Whatever gave you that idea?

BW – You mean it was to get rid of class distinction?

HA- Precisely!

BW – So that all children…

HA – Children? Who mentioned children?

BW I just…

HA – The Department of Education never mentions children! No, no, no, no, Bernard. It was to get rid of class distinction in the teaching profession. Improve the living standard of teachers, not the educational standards of children. Bring the NUT teachers up to the salary level of their rivals in the National Association
of Schoolmasters in the grammar schools.

BW – But the…

HA- When there is a Labour government, the Education Department says comprehensives abolish the class system. When there’s a Tory government, they say it’s the cheapest way to provide mass education. To Labour, we explain that selective education is divisive and to the Tories we explain that it is expensive.

That way, we have a happy relationship with the NUT and we educate our own children privately.

I think it is very dependant on where you live. My daughter goes to a village state infant school where there are 16 pupils in a class and she gets fantastic attention (she’s very bright and I was worried she’d get bored or not be pushed). The middle school also has an outstanding OFSTED report and then feeds into several outstanding Grammar Schools (South Bucks so grammar school system still alive and kicking).

We have friends in Devon and it’s a completely different kettle of fish so they are looking at private education.

Guess the house prices here cost as much as private education elsewhere so good job the schools are generally all very good!

In other news, it has been revealed that the pope is a catholic!

Not to worry though, by the time Pob has finished with his whole Free Schools nonsense, we’ll soon be back to the 50’s style educational apartheid that Dave and chums so yearn for.

The education system in this country hasn’t served them so badly, after all?

Oh… and I note that that article concentrates on maths yet conveniently omits media studies 😉

The fundamental problem with grammar schools is the idea that your educational path is locked in from the results of one exam at an early age.

Teach by ability for sure, but its got to be a flexible system that allows movement and improvement, and based on at least attempting to do the best for all pupils, not just those that pass the test.

The the edict came from above to remove all streaming and my class of 20 became a class of 40. The teacher continued teaching the 20 “J” kids at the front and ignored everyone else.

I take it you were at the back, class size and streaming are different issues.

ridethelakes – Member

So teaching kids in classes appropriate to their ability doesn’t benefit the kids or the teachers?

A-A was talking about grammar schools, not streamed classes within comprehensives. Last time I checked, it was quite a lot easier to go up a set or two in maths than it was to start in a new school. A child can do an awful lot of developing and catching up between years 7 and 10. We have enough barriers to social mobility in the UK already without putting more in, IMHO.

Pros and cons. You could push kids to develop the very best skills, or you could give them a well rounded social and personal education and development environment, and let the clever ones shine later at uni.

I’d have missed out on a whole lot of life experiences at school if I hadn’t been to a comprehensive. Then again, I might’ve had a different outlook on life. This may or may not have been a good thing. After all, if you are bright and university bound, all you need to do at school is get good enough grades to get to 6th form college.

Not really news as has been stated. Streaming works but is frowned upon so you end up with class where the average grade is depressed due to the mix of abilities and the brightest not being catered for while those who struggle are put off because their needs are not being met. Therefore the median are covered but extremes are effectively an after thought.
Actually in my experience it’s not like this but good teachers can overwork themselves trying to do their best for all.

Time for a lazy teacher barstewards line I feel. Is project not around yet?

Bright kids with good parents will normally find their way, if not at school then via the higher education system. I mean, how qualified do you really need to be at 16? My concern is that the kids at the bottom of the pile, societally and intellectually, get neglected and let-down, when they’re the ones who need the attention. By all means segregate kids to some extent, although not permanently, but don’t use that as an excuse to forget about the low achievers. That **** Cameron’s idea to pay teachers in low wage areas less is a disgusting example of how to ensure that starting off low means staying low.
And what also needs attention is the prejudice that gives kids from “good” schools preferential treatment in universities and jobs.

Zimbo, unis actually do run a two teir system. I have been doing UCAS applications for a few years and we have been told that our kids are seen as being privileged and therefore the course tarrif does not apply they should achieve higher than the minimum to be considered whereas kids with a different background can even get in with less than the minimum. For the record I do not think this is a bad thing.

A-A was talking about grammar schools, not streamed classes within comprehensives

indeed

Definitely not a bad thing onehundred, although I’m sure those less-privileged kids need to demonstrate some potential to improve. And I bet that positive discrimination is still far outweighed by the number of relative thickos who get on in life because they went to the “right” school…

I did well at a grammar, and I’m no expert but it seems to me the brightest will benefit from selection/screening. Given this report, can the arguments against it retain credibility?

You could just as well argue it’s a good argument for massively increasing funding for state schools so they can attract better teachers and have better equipment and smaller class sizes. Of course that might involve putting up taxes…..

And I thought streaming was standard in state schools? It was at mine – we had different sets based on ability/results for most subjects. Though it was a former grammar school with remaining pretensions.

how qualified do you really need to be at 16?

As I said.. but the issue is the sheer mind-numbing tedium of doing dull work all the time.

Of course that might involve putting up taxes…..

Better management of the current budgets would, of course, be too radical an idea. 😉 This assumes we are not so arrogant to presume that current management of budgets cannot be improved upon.

Better management of the current budgets would, of course, be too radical an idea.

I’m working with schools at the moment who are cutting staff numbers to almost unworkable levels just to balance budgets. I wouldn’t be so arrogant to presume they’re doing that because they’re all just rubbish business managers or accountants.

Having attended a South Wales ‘comprehensive’ school in the 1970’s I can’t see that anything has changed over the last 30 years or so; expect of course that the general public think it has!

State schools let down the brightest pupils then as it does now 😯

I am not sure its the schools that are at fault (although this may be the case), rather the constant government interference. So what do schools do when free of interference and when striving to provide the best education:

1. Stream in a dynamic manner (ie, not condemned by one year’s exam) and tailor teaching styles and aspirations according
2. Avoid government manipulated exams – so choose harder A levels or the new PreU exams (just a few) so that pupils can be properly challenged, parents cant do the course work, no constant re-takes etc; or offer one of the world’s most recognisable qualifications – the IB – rather than wait for a UK botched, government manipulated UK (or is it just English) IB version
3. Spend time teaching off the narrow curriculum
4….

Meanwhile governments preside over a system that, “is failing children at both ends of the spectrum: bright children are left to coast and practically minded pupils often miss out on good skills training.” (Headmaster of one of UK’s leading schools)

Perhaps, the answer is to replace the 11 plus with 13/14 plus when academic development is more advanced?

As for barriers in society – who is more at fault. Governments who have failed the education system? Britain has some of the finest educations establishments in the world when governments are kept out of the way. It can be done, but at the moment, is only available to a very small minority. That is the real failing/tragedy imo.

edit:

Junkyard – Member. i would also reduce the numbers at Uni and leave that for the best of the best.

+1 its not called “higher” education for nothing!

I am not sure its the schools that are at fault (although this may be the case), rather the constant government interference. So what do schools do when free of interference and when striving to provide the best education:

Pretty much your view on every issue, its the governments fault for intervening. Can you remind the class what the countries education system looked like before the state got involved?
Was it better or worse ?

Britain has some of the finest educations establishments in the world when governments are kept out of the waywe pay vastly more to educate the children than the state sector and we select the pupils on ability.

FTFY really not a fair comparison as the factor is money/selection not the govt.

Please lets not do academies if that is what you meant

+1 its not called “higher” education for nothing!

My sixth form was in the same town as where I lived. Shouldn’t it have been in the next town to be considered further education? 😕

Better management of the current budgets would, of course, be too radical an idea. This assumes we are not so arrogant to presume that current management of budgets cannot be improved upon.

‘Efficiency savings’ are always touted when people want to do more but don’t want to spend any more money doing it.

The problem with it is that it assumes both that current budget management is not 100% efficient (which is likely to be true), but also that the person proposing the efficiency savings is able to propose a new budget which is more efficient (which may or may not be true), and also typically ignores the inevitable cost and inefficiency that is imposed by the major reorganisation required.

Junkyard – Member
Al there is more to life than maths and I bet we kick their arses at media studies

LOL…I did further maths at A level and then a degree in it! I recently studied some social sciences which was an eye opener…

After all, if you are bright and university bound, all you need to do at school is get good enough grades to get to 6th form college.

Most uni admissions are filtered by GCSE results now. If you want to go to Durham to study history and didn’t get a raft of A*s at GCSE, don’t bother applying, no matter how good your predicted A levels.

Sixth form college budgets are being squeezed and squeezed. We’ve made staff redundant, are not replacing people retiring/leaving and are all teaching an extra hour a week for no more money.

Eye opener, do you mean piss simple?
Could mix the humanities and maths and do economics and have the worst best of both worlds and now you are a scientist to boot 😀

I think money is probably the issue. I would guess most teachers would LOVE to have enough cash to provide practical courses for those who wanted them (motor mechanics, welding, engineering etc etc etc) and high end stuff for those who needed it also (particle physics, philosophy etc)

That would be absolutely ace, and to be honest most kids would absolutely love the chance to do what they considered cool, but it would cost a bomb.

And let’s face it, kids are just not worth investing in, are they?

Aye, psychology, compared to law, the standards were way lower.

I have wondered if economics might be up my street, but too late to retrain from scratch now (done it once already).

Molgrips re vocational training …check out the colleges in any are and see what they do – its circa 10 k per year per student funding for a proper trade [ well it was 5 years ago].
the problem is not that we dont train people in the trades, we do and by the bucket load. The problem is there are next to no jobs in these trades so training people to do jobs we dont have makes no sense.
Everyone always thinks trade or apprenticeship training is the issue but without jobs it is pointless

Hairdressing, childcare. motor vehicle, construction trades, engineering, beauty therapy, animal care, sport studies, CSI studies/ forensics FFS we employ next to no one in this area . I suspect that annually we produce about what we employ in these fields if not more some of these it will be by factors of thousands [ forensics for example]

Certainly when i worked in a largish town they had more hairdressers in college than there were employed in the town. Motor vehicle had about 90 per year and there was no way more than one per year got ajob at the end.
its not a solution unless there are jobs in these trades and there are not.
might have worked in 1970 when we made stuff but we largely dont now.

check out the colleges in any are and see what they do

I’m not talking about vocational further education, I’m talking about main schooling 11-16.

There’s so much you COULD do to keep kids engaged, interested, happy and learn science, history and all the academic things THROUGH practical work.