O.K. I come from an area that has the top schools in the country but here's the beef; my kid's going to start P1 in a few years (year one as it is now!!!) No problems with Primary Schools here but Comps please! – Who are you fooling?!! As a product of the Grammar School education system short of:

(a) moving to a decent area and therefore decent schools and therefore blowing the socialist ideal that is the comp system
(b) moving back to an area in the U.K. that still has a Grammar School Education system

I really can't see what the alternatives are?!

Ideas in this socialist utopia appreciated (considering 33% of parents who live in comp catchment areas are moving house etc to get a better deal!)

I went to a comprehensive. I'm not sure what the problem is really. I was probably always destined for greatness, mind, but it didn't do any harm.

Didn't appear to do me any harm, and out of the three of us Shane, I'm definitely the most sane… 😉

I don't really understand what you're asking, but then I went to a comprehensive school so I'm probably a bit thick.

Comprehensives find it extremely difficult to improve, particularly if they're sited in 'bad areas' because the parents who care don't like the look of the school and either move or find a way for their kids to go elsewhere. Vicious circle and all that.

The secondary school *right* by us (100 yards away) hasn't got a brilliant reputation but it's the nearest school so our son went there.

For a start, sending him to a school close by is great, he walks there and back and he makes friends with kids in our local area which IMO is invaluable. Cool. They're not the most academically advanced school but they do look after their high achievers. That sort of thing doesn't show up in the league tables but they really do, and there's more of them than you'd think in a dodgy area. He's doing very well and is set to get good results in his GCSE's and most importantly, he's happy.

Yes, there have been a few incidents because he's clever and concientious and not violently inclined but he'd get that anywhere.

I don't really understand what you're asking, but then I went to a comprehensive school so I'm probably a bit thick.

Exactly my own thoughts.

WTF does this mean : "As a product of the Grammar School education system short of " ?

zokes – Member

Didn't appear to do me any harm, and out of the three of us Shane, I'm definitely the most sane…

Mark – I should point out I was sent to one of the worst secondary schools in Ulster. That said, I think that with rising literacy issues within the comp system I'm meeting a lot of kids who would benefit from a quality vocational style education. Of course it didn't do you any harm. It never was going to?! But there is a lot of kids who would benefit from a different system. You are obviously academic – but then others are different. We should uphold that difference rather than sticking square pegs in round holes

Samuri

I guess I'm as much questioning the system as I am the scenario. If that makes sense?

there have been a few incidents because he's clever and concientious and not violently inclined

you mean he's been bullied and belittled and called a swot and a boff because he's bright and hard-working (conscientious)and likes his teachers and enjoys going to school. And he's done absolute wonders to maintain his levels of achievement in the face of constant denigration from his peers?

he'd get that anywhere.

no he wouldn't

not if you'd sent him to a school full of clever and conscientious children

Samuri – that is a deeply sane post. I think that was exactly my dad's train of thought. 🙂

I really can't see what the alternatives are?!

I blame your education for this failing of imagination

JY

I think that as there are no alternatives here then that in itself requires little imagination

I think that as there are no alternatives here then that in itself requires little imagination

nor punctuation 😉
In honesty it depends where you live I dont think the Grammar school system would help
Granted though in some large cities there are schools so bad I would not want to send my children there. The problem is not the lack of selection but deprevation, underfunding, high classes etc.

>dont think the Grammar school system would help
It does to the extent that you're more likely to start with an intake that have some degree of self-motivation, rather than a bunch of kids who don't care (or equally, their parents don't)

If you have to rely on a bunch of shoddy local comps you're a bit stuffed. Bizarrely, in Richmond on Thames where a mate lives, the primary schools are good and used by the (well-off) locals but the secondary schools aren't that great, so parents send their kids to fee-paying secondary schools. And to keep the numbers up in the state schools, kids are bussed in from Roehampton (some of it's not the most salubrious of areas in sw London) – which makes the well-off locals even less likely to send their kids to the state schools. How you break that I dunno – but the basic problem is, if parents (quite reasonably) judge a school on it's results, given a set of pupils whose basic ability (regardless of background) is never gonna be stellar, the schools results still won't be outstanding.

Think I know where tankslapper's coming from (tho' to be fair I think comps have improved) – I was lucky enough to go to a small local grammar in the 70's. The following year, the idiot Labour Birmingham council in their dogmatic view of grammars turned a whole lot comp, including mine. Ironic, since a good proportion of the kids that got there were from a working class background, so all they did was bugger it up for mostly working-class kids. But they didn't dare touch the King Edwards grammars.
At the time there were GCEs and CSEs (the latter a lower attainment version, if you like), almost no-one in our year of ~120 kids was doing CSE in anything, the following comp year I don't think anyone was doing GCE maths, at least.
At one point the (grammar) 6th form were warned not approach some of the kids hanging around their common room 'cos they might pull a knife 😮
Certainly some of the teachers left in the next few years, I suspect as a direct result.
The bigger comps were at least capable of doing some of streaming…then again it was kids from those schools that occasionally would turn up at our gates, trying to pick a fight with the grammar kids !

No matter what the school you get twunts who will pick on others. Thats fact.
Do you think hiding them from that sets them up well for life ? I personally don't. I'm not advocating setting your kids up for bullying but insulating them from a range of different range of social skills to me me is a false way of protecting them.
I went to the first school to install cctv to try and manage the pitched riots that went on, was bullied, told by the careers 'advisor' that I would come to nothing etc but managed to scrape through. Then again i don't have kids so wtf would i know.

You don't have a comprehensive system.

I went to School in Glasgow in the 70s – one of the few times and places a true comprehensive system existed.

Education is about far more than exam results. You get a better and more rounded education in a true comprehensive system.

What you have now is middle class angst and flight from perceived "bad " schools. Not helpful. The school I went to had the best facilities in Glasgow – swimming pool, language labs, sports hall etc etc. Once parentla choice came in the middle class parent sent their kids to another local school that had been the grammer despite far poorer facilites and exam results in terms of "added value" but beause it was "Shawlands academy" in a victorian building rather than "Hillpark Comprehensive" in a 60s building This left my old school with its great facilites as a sink school. Such a waste.

What you need to do is ignore the simplistic school tables and look to "added value" This gives a far better indication of the actual teaching level of a school.

TJ – now we're getting somewhere.

My doubts about the comp system stem from the fact that a lot of comps are leaving kids who are not academic behind. Woodwork / metal work classes, basic skills etc etc have been shelved and the system is failing the very kids it proports to help – IMHO it is very much a one size fits all, education on the cheap approach and I take TJ's comments about simplistic school tables on board.

As I said I was sent to a school that was supposed to have become the new model for comprehensive education in N.I. but then they changed their minds and we were stuck with it. I turned out alright I guess but there really was some remedial cases who felt that educational life was one long boxing match. I'm not knocking these kids, what I'm saying is that they in this and all systems need a big help. My personal thoughts are a grammar school education system with secondary moderns with a strong focus on engagement and vocational skills.

The comp system rocks, what other system could possibly give you the oppertunity to meet various dross and nare-do-well's then in future life observe their spiral towards the dole via facebook?

tinas (clearly thick and un-saveable as he went to a comp and is northern)

🙄

My personal thoughts are a grammar school education system with secondary moderns with a strong focus on engagement and vocational skills.

So you're advocating a return to the 11+ system, whereby kids who haven't achieved the required academic status by the age of 11 are thrown on the educational scrap heap and thought to be good for nothing but manual labour?

I agree that the current system has it's faults but the system you are proposing has many, many more.

you mean he's been bullied and belittled and called a swot and a boff because he's bright and hard-working (conscientious)and likes his teachers and enjoys going to school. And he's done absolute wonders to maintain his levels of achievement in the face of constant denigration from his peers?

Again, I'm proably a bit too stupid to understand all that. It's not how I would have put it, and I didn't.

he'd get that anywhere.

no he wouldn't

not if you'd sent him to a school full of clever and conscientious children

As I say, I didn't go to a grammar school so I wouldn't know about that.

So you're advocating a return to the 11+ system, whereby kids who haven't achieved the required academic status by the age of 11 are thrown on the educational scrap heap and thought to be good for nothing but manual labour?

And you are a strong advocate of SAT's and other Americanised systems? Kids need assessed as to their capabilities, end of. What I am a strong advocate of is real engagement for children who are not academic and/or engagement via other means to untap real potential – that's hardly throwing kids on the scrap heap.

The scrap heap ideology is simply a bourgeois statement by labourites who really wish to save money at the expense of our children's education and future.

Do the girls in the Grammar School system let you go 'Yellow Pages' behind the bike sheds like they did in Comprehensive Schools?

It really must depend on your kids, surely? If they're bright then send them off to the comp – best place for them. If they're less academically inclined, need a bit of a push, then I guess looking at grammar schools would be helpful. If they're thick as mince then it's got to be public school, I am afraid.

The bottom line is that you're the parent, you're in charge and ultimately it is you who sets the agenda of learning and attainment for your children – not the School.

Can we have some clarification of what the original question was please before I formulate an answer?

[chuckles at Garry_Lager] 😀

Woodwork / metal work classes, basic skills etc etc have been shelved and the system is failing the very kids it proports to help – IMHO

I am going to stab wildly in the dark here and assume you do not work in the educational sector. Really is that what you think based on what exactly?
I wont bore you with details about all the year 10 /11 personal educational opportuniteis the specfic funding for those not engaing with vocational qualifications via local colleges providers. the stopping of the national curriculum for low achievers and focusing on the key skills (literacy and numeracy mainly – not the wider key skills which I am sur eyou can name without google)and functional abilities. In fact exactly what you think is not happening.

Kids need assessed as to their capabilities, end of.

So no other country does it to the extent that we do but we should not debate this? Do you think a teacher cannot assess the capabilities and needs of their pupils without some form of government endorsed assesment?

The scrap heap ideology is simply a bourgeois statement by labourites who really wish to save money at the expense of our childrens education and future.

Labour save money on education are you really that ignorant (though we could discuss if it worked)
Some facts
Educational spending has increased by an average of 5% in real terms since 1997. Spending will grow to £51.3bn a year at the end of the current spending period in 2010-11, an increase of 2.8% a year in the current three-year period which began in 2008-09
If you must rant about the system get some facts first. Surely your grammar school education enabled you to do that if it was so good?

Surely your grammar school education enabled you to do that if it was so good?

I think he went to a comprehensive school, although it's difficult to be sure (poor ability to express himself, contradictory comments, etc)

As I understand it, Slapper went to a comprehensive school which was a failure. Although strangely enough, he claims to have done "alright" out of it. Presumably that's all down to his exceptionally high intelligence though.

If you must rant about the system get some facts first. Surely your grammar school education enabled you to do that if it was so good?

No I was one of the scrap heap kids sent to what was to become a comp and didn't so no I did not go to a grammar school.

Educational spending has increased by an average of 5% in real terms since 1997. Spending will grow to £51.3bn a year at the end of the current spending period in 2010-11, an increase of 2.8% a year in the current three-year period which began in 2008-09
If you must rant about the system get some facts first

Spending on NHS has increased as well – do we have a better NHS?! My first hand experience is no.

Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily solve that problem. In my current role I am faced with kids from comps in south Wales who fall into the NEETS category, and their numbers are increasing. The comp system has and will continue to fail these children without some real intervention.

A very interesting programme was on last night on BBC2 which claimed literacy rates are falling and comps are failing kids from poorer backgrounds as richer more mobile parents vote with their feet for better schools. The only ignorance here is a government that fails to recognise these faults.

As a product of the Grammar School education system short of:
or
I should point out I was sent to one of the worst secondary schools in Ulster
or
As I said I was sent to a school that was supposed to have become the new model for comprehensive education in N.I. but then they changed their minds and we were stuck with it

I would suspect you are correct Senior Lynch not Grammar and confusing

EDIT:NEETS (Not in Eucation Employment or Training – unemployed young people basically)are increasing because there are no jobs
I guess at Careers Adviser Training officer for job?
Teacher working for Connexions (me that is not you)
Clearly some schools are truly dreadful and some problems cannot be solved by money alone but I assume you dont think either the NHS or the State Schools would be better with less money do you?

In terms of schools it just depends many schools with apoor catchment dpo some great stuff mbut some are just dreadul. It just deoends. Comprehensive education is not perfect but it it is not dreadful per se either.

Personally I would prefer a more European focis with both academic schools such as we have at present with vocational schools as well.
Both scholls would do academic courses and GCSE etc and could lead to University etc. the vocational would focus more on trades and skills for those less able or not intrested in classrooms. It would still have progression routes to NVQ/BTEC in trades and uni say as Engineers surveyors etc.
Generally the education system fails the less able not the brightest. Those who ar ebright will still be selcted within a comprehensive system in sets etc
The old sytem di throw people on to the scrapheap of unskilled labour (pits in your part of the worls , mills in mine)at aged 11.
It was not great. We need to probvide education universally but also to the needs of each individual.

I have never understood why a Grammer school should be better, its not like kids arent setted on ability anyway.

I wouldn't send my offspring to any frightful comprehensive. They're full of darkees and the like. They'll be on crack, knifing people and listening to that hippy hoppy stuff within weeks.

Much better to have them privately educated, where they can enjoy the benefits of superiority complexes and buggery

Much better to have them privately educated, where they can enjoy the benefits of superiority complexes and buggery

classic!

As for the worst comps failing the worst kids, I'd disagree, my mum works as a TA in a pretty piss poor school, manages to drag some pretty rubbish kids through the science element of the key skills. Enough for them to know where babies come from so they can get council houses, and what drugs do so they know what to spend their hard earned child suppourt payments on anyway.

not if you'd sent him to a school full of clever and conscientious children

As I say, I didn't go to a grammar school so I wouldn't know about that.

So you're saying that the only schools whch might contain clever and conscientious children are grammar schools?

But we've been told again and again that the grammar school system was evil because clever and conscientious working-class children were rejected and sent to secondary modern schools. So presumably all your parents neededed to do was find a sec. mod. that was full of grammar school rejects, and you would then have gone to a school full of clever and conscientious children.

The grammar school system is wrong because it's far too early to separate kids out in terms of academic ability. I went to grammar school, but often feel I would have done better at the local comprehensive.

we've been told again and again that the grammar school system was evil because clever and conscientious working-class children were rejected

I have never heard that one before.

The only argument against selective education which I recall hearing, is that it is absurd to believe that anyone can know with certainty what a person's academic abilities will be throughout the rest of their lives, at the tender age of 11. Some will improve later, and some will not do as well as expected. A comprehensive education provides for a child's changing needs. Furthermore, because a child might be good at maths for example, it does not automatically mean that they will also be good at art. In the old secondary modern schools, a child was not allowed to take GSEs even in subjects which they were good at – everything/everyone was lumped together. Again, a comprehensive education allows for childrens varying needs. Not all children are the same, and pigeon-holeing them makes no sense.

Did I get that wrong ?

No Ernie – you got the IDEAL absolutely spot on.

What I'm curious about is:

(a) What about poor performing Comps – should we move house, sell our soul's or (heaven forbid) pay for private
(b) Welsh speaking v English speaking?

cheers
TS

I went to grammar school, but often feel I would have done better at the local comprehensive

This is historical inaccuracy. If you went to grammar school, the other schools were not comprehensives, they were secondary moderns.

Grammar schools were for highly-able, academically-inclined, hardworking, well-motivated pupils from all social backgrounds

Secondary modern schools were for less-able, vocationally-inclined, hardworking, well-motivated pupils from all social backgrounds

Unfortunately this left no school places available for really stupid, work-shy, lazy, feckless, violent, socially inadequate pupils from degenerate backgrounds

So they were sent to the secondary moderns, with predictable effects on the achievements of clever and conscientious children who'd missed out on the eleven-plus

we've been told again and again that the grammar school system was evil because clever and conscientious working-class children were rejected

I have never heard that one before.

You've never heard of stories of able working class kids being rejected for grammar school?

Awesome igmorance

Grammar schools were for highly-able……

Nonsense. Children with IQs of 120 and over, were expected to attend grammar schools. An IQ of 120 is hardly spectacular – I believe that approximately one third of the population has an IQ of 120. So a bit above average then.

What makes you think 'work-shy, lazy, feckless, violent, socially inadequate pupils' didn't go to grammar schools btw ?

.

You've never heard of stories of able working class kids being rejected for grammar school?

And you've never heard the arguments in favour of comprehensive education which I have given ?

Awesome igmorance

What makes you think 'work-shy, lazy, feckless, violent, socially inadequate pupils' didn't go to grammar schools btw ?

of course, by the law of averages, a few must have done

but, thankfully for able working-class pupils at grammar schools, they were in a vanishingly-small minority and were therefore unable to drag their peers down with them in the way it happened at the sec mods

[/quote]Unfortunately this left no school places available for really stupid, work-shy, lazy, feckless, violent, socially inadequate pupils from degenerate backgrounds

Mmmm! Your all not really getting the point of this thread are you?

I'm not pointing at the Grammar school v Comp School question. I'm aiming squarely at those kids who simply do not fit in. I really am totally against minority rule, but surely kids that do not fit in deserve a chance too – or is factory school education for the masses o.k. by you?

Children with IQs of 120 and over, were expected to attend grammar schools. An IQ of 120 is hardly spectacular – I believe that approximately one third of the population has an IQ of 120. So a bit above average then.

The official percentage was 25% to the grammars, 75% to the sec mods.

The top 25% of any group are quite a lot better than

a bit above average

The top 25% of any abiliy group is highly able