[Closed] Grammar Schools, again.....

dont know but its not the creaming off of the best pupils, resources and teachers to the top 25% via grammar schools

I'll attack that on 2 (and a bit) points.

1) Why should the top 25% suffer for the needs of the many? There's already a problem whereby resources are diverted towards kids predicted to get C's and D's at GCSE to bolster the schools pass rate at the expense of pushing those kids on B's to get A's.

2) Resources, schools with a higher number of poor kids get more funding already (with the exception of fee paying schools).

2.1) Teachers, as a result of 2, schools with more money can pay more for teachers, so they have a choice, an easy life at a good school, or more money elsewhere.

which is fair enough and i don't blame anyone for wanting the very best for their kids at all.
however as a society we have an obligation to help those who ( for whatever reason ) cannot help themselves. juveniles, by their very definition, fall in to this category. for well-educated parents, a good education is obviously of enormous benefit that they will push down their kids' throat almost from day one. for the less well educated, the advantages are clearly not as tangible - they haven't experienced them first hand.

good education for all leads to better results for all of us, better health, fewer social problems, the benefits for all go on and on.

As has been said above the middle classes would be better served ensuring that all schools were good schools.

I just love this sort of sweeping statement as if it were so easy to achieve just by saying so.

Yes, and all hospitals would be great with no waiting lists, all trains would be on time with no overcrowding. Housing would also be cheap and readily available too.

There is a certain type of child who just can't or won't respond to any sort of teaching environment no matter how good and I think that proportion may be larger than most people want to admit to. You can't help all of the people all of the time.

went to a shit primary school, a shit secondary school, and Durham University. It's not elitism, it's standards

Traitor! 😀

I did a test at 8+ too - might as well prepare early 😀

MartinH - That is true to an extent, but we then need a better test, not an egalitarian system.

Surely Grammar schools are just an extension of setting? Competitive sport? At what point do we accept that life is a competition?

Most competitions and sports have rules to ensure fairness. Rich kids getting in grammars because their parents bought a house in a good primary catchment and paid for tutoring to get them through the 11+ is like academic doping.

In sport, that wouldn't be allowed. In education, that's government policy.

I do believe in opportunities for all, but my main priority is my kids.

If you only care about yourself, vote Tory. If you care about others, vote [s]Labour[/s] Green.

1) Why should the top 25% suffer for the needs of the many? There's already a problem whereby resources are diverted towards kids predicted to get C's and D's at GCSE to bolster the schools pass rate at the expense of pushing those kids on B's to get A's.

Schools are now monitored on progress, not on pass rates.

2) Resources, schools with a higher number of poor kids get more funding already (with the exception of fee paying schools).

Not that much more funding. Plus, the weaker schools have now been farmed off into academy chains, so that cash is going to the chief exec and the overpriced books they're buying from their publishing arm.

2.1) Teachers, as a result of 2, schools with more money can pay more for teachers, so they have a choice, an easy life at a good school, or more money elsewhere.

See above. Plus, the extra cash for Pupil premium has to be spent of specific things, and I don't think pay rises for teachers are in the mix. (And it's not enough extra for a substantial rise anyway.)

In the interests of transparency: I teach in a selective sixth form College - you need 5 C grades including maths [i]or[/i] English to study A levels here.

Miketually - I'd say there is a very close comparison between Grammars and sport. Parents with more money can pay for kit/coaching/facilities for their kids. Sport certainly isn't a level playing field. Would an equally talented cyclist from GB and Namibia have equal chances of Olympic success in the velodrome?

In terms of politics, Ive voted 3 different colours in the last 3 General Elections.

I also think acadamisation is a scandal.

Miketually - I'd say there is a very close comparison between Grammars and sport. Parents with more money can pay for kit/coaching/facilities for their kids. Sport certainly isn't a level playing field. Would an equally talented cyclist from GB and Namibia have equal chances of Olympic success in the velodrome?

I was taking your analogy and stretching it too far 🙂

The Olympics are a good example though: rich countries do better. If you were designing them from scratch, with the aim of making them purely a reflection of ability and effort, wouldn't you try to design that out?

If so, shouldn't we do the same with the education system?

[i]Wwaswas,

How though?[/i]

Sure Start was making massive difference to children (and parents) from low income (and often low achieving) areas being receptive to education - attending, learning, showing improvement.

It was axed by the Tories.

There's numerous other examples of how focusing on schools and ignoring other social and societal issues does not solve the problems.

Creaming off the top 25% of kids at an early age and grooming them for success does nothing for those that know they will never be those kids and diverts focus and resources away from those who would probably show more 'improvement' for the same investment.

binners dantsw13, so what can we do to help them? If their upbringing is being sat infront of the plasma tv to while away the day, watching the likes of the kardashians or<insert current reality sleb phenomenom> then that inevitably will be their aspiration.

You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them. Absolutely stream their education according to ability but make sure that it's possible to move between streams rather than deciding on a child's likely educational aspirations at 11.

I also think acadamisation is a scandal.

Its just a step towards full privatisation of education. I know someone who has just been in to teach pupils in sparkly new academy in a not too salubrious area. Their exact words used to to describe this brave new world, free of local authority control, and under the guidance of more businesslike professionals.....?

"An absolute ****ing shambles'

You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them.

This.

I currently teach in one of the existing grammar schools. Not only that, we're also local authority! Pretty rare these days.

I agree with what folks say about entry, we have 2 types of kids, bright kids and posh kids. Bright ones get in on their own merit (we serve a disadvantaged area) and the posh ones are shipped in daily from miles away and spent the first 11 years of their lives being prepped to pass a test.

That said, we get excellent results (well into the top 100 this year for GCSE) yet we are the 2nd lowest funded school in the country. There's no way in hell we'd be able to achieve that as a typical secondary, we wouldn't have the man power.

Still, as a downtrodden prole from sunny Doncaster, I don't agree with the system. Separating students by ability is not a new thing, nor is it limited to grammar schools, every secondary will split GCSE groups into ability groups for maths, English and science. That said, the method used by grammar schools favours those with deep pockets.

It's quite a nice place to work though 🙄

In the interests of transparency: I teach in a selective sixth form College - you need 5 C grades including maths or English to study A levels here.

Whats wrong with that. If you are unable to achieve 5 C grades including M&E then A levels are probably not the correct choice for you.

I currently teach in one of the existing grammar schools...we get excellent results...yet we are the 2nd lowest funded school in the country....It's quite a nice place to work though

v

I currently teach in one of the existing grammar schools...we have 2 types of kids, bright kids and posh kids*....I don't agree with the system...the method used by grammar schools favours those with deep pockets.

Excuse the editing but an interesting summary? I doubt the bright v posh is a mutually exclusive as this makes out, but point taken otherwise.

[Always available to prep people for 11+, CE, scholarship, GCSE and A level 😀 ]

We all do but we also should still GAS about helping those kids already disadvantaged by having parent who dont GAS rather than the state joining in and also not GAS as that will not make anythign better for them.

But that is the plan Junky! Clearly two dim parents are likely to produce dim children, but if they have bred someone clever, then this system will allow that child to break out of their system and achieve their potential.

As mentioned before, there must be a way of creating a test that does not allow tutored pupils to get in front of brighter untutored children. Its actually all about getting our best kids to achieve and becoming the next generation of Doctors and Scientists etc. Its about getting British kids a platform to perform on the world stage, rather than leaving them in a class full of rowdy kids who don't GAS.

The plan is NOT to abandon those remaining in current systems, but to continue to improve them....as results have proved, has been done in recent years.

Whats wrong with that. If you are unable to achieve 5 C grades including M&E then A levels are probably not the correct choice for you.

[i]You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them.[/i]

This.

THIS??? Really? Jeez....you try and educate kids in mixed ability environment and you get what I grew up with, which wasn't a good environment to learn. No, you need to separate the kids who have no interest and allow kids who want to do well to learn in an ideal environment. How can anyone achieve their full potential in a class full of kids messing around continually?

The point is

If you intervened earlier than 11, then the rest of the class wouldn't be rowdy kids

And you wouldn't need grammar schools to let the bright ones shine

But middle class voters don't want their tax money spent on put kids at sure start centres, they just want a nice exclusive school they've bought their way into by tutoring etc

And in my view it's what happens to and how these kids that don't make the grade are labelled.

By who?

There's nothing wrong in being an academic failure,

Sorry, spoke too soon

You can succeed in so many other fields. We focus too much on academic results, and money and celebrity (among others) as measures of success. And it's wrong.

True. We all excel in different things. They key is to identify what they are and then develop them as much as possible. You are not a failure because you cant take exams or lack academic rigour.

And in my view it's what happens to and how these kids that don't make the grade are labelled. There's nothing wrong in being an academic failure, you can succeed in so many other fields.
We focus too much on academic results, and money and celebrity (among others) as measures of success. And it's wrong.

Yes....it was the labour parties plan to get all our kids into Uni that started a lot of problems, rather than focusing on non academic kids, who would have been better off serving apprenticeships or doing courses in trades etc.

In the interests of transparency: I teach in a selective sixth form College - you need 5 C grades including maths or English to study A levels here.

Whats wrong with that. If you are unable to achieve 5 C grades including M&E then A levels are probably not the correct choice for you.

I was actually slightly making a counter-point, albeit not very well. The selection we do is so minimal as to be almost no selection.

The point is

If you intervened earlier than 11, then the rest of the class wouldn't be rowdy kids

And you wouldn't need grammar schools to let the bright ones shine

But middle class voters don't want their tax money spent on put kids at sure start centres, they just want a nice exclusive school they've bought their way into by tutoring etc

sorry Kimbers, but IMHO, that is complete Bollox!

Clearly two dim parents and likely to produce dim children, but if they have bred someone clever, then this system will allow that child to break out of their system and achieve their potential.

kids whose parents are dim ( as you put it ) don't encourage their kids from an early age to actively pursue education so fewer of them get in to grammars.

I doubt the bright v posh is a mutually exclusive as this makes out

All that foie gras dulls the senses, don't you know.

You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them.

I disagree at least with the first bit. The first aim (since we are speaking about education) is to provide the best opportunity to maximise whatever academic skills you have been gifted with. Peer pressure (for want of a better phrase) is a big part of that.

As an anecdote (sorry) one of my sons, had a school peer group that was not academically focused and that was hard for him. In contrast at Uni, he lived with friends (from a wide social and academic background but) who all shared the desire to work hard and do well. The "Flat" achieved three firsts and three 2:1s.

Those who chose to work hard succeeded irrespective of money, class, social or academic background.

THIS??? Really? Jeez....you try and educate kids in mixed ability environment and you get what I grew up with, which wasn't a good environment to learn. No, you need to separate the kids who have no interest and allow kids who want to do well to learn in an ideal environment. How can anyone achieve their full potential in a class full of kids messing around continually?

The sixth form college in which I teach is in a town with no grammars, surrounded by other non-grammar areas from which we also enroll students.

There's still some selection in the secondaries which feed to us, with the 'best' schools being in more expensive areas but it's not academic selection at an arbitrary point.

This year, more kids from the 'worst' school in town went to Oxford or Cambridge than from the 'best' school in the town.

Would they do so well in a grammar system? The data says not.

sorry Kimbers, but IMHO, that is complete Bollox!

Do you have evidence to back up your opinion? Because the evidence says it's not bollocks.

Those who chose to work hard succeeded irrespective of money, class, social or academic background.

Not true, sorry.

If this were the case, 95% of OxBridge students would be from state schools. Unless you think privately educated kids are more likely to work hard?

That said, we get excellent results (well into the top 100 this year for GCSE) yet we are the 2nd lowest funded school in the country. There's no way in hell we'd be able to achieve that as a typical secondary, we wouldn't have the man power.

You wouldn't be expected to attain top 100 status with an open admission policy, though I'd imagine some schools do. Hats off to them!

Unless you think privately educated kids are more likely to work hard?

On the contrary, I know from experience that this is not (necessarily) the case.

As I said earlier, the causation theories are flawed. Other factors are involved. Starting with parents...

I disagree at least with the first bit. The first aim (since we are speaking about education) is to provide the best opportunity to maximise whatever academic skills you have been gifted with. Peer pressure (for want of a better phrase) is a big part of that.

I agree, and non selective education allows a greater proportion of the population to maximise whatever academic skills they have been gifted with as opposed to a selective education system which only provides that opportunity to the top tier*.

* Clearly not the very top tier as the likes of Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow etc don't really come into this discussion.

Sorry, spoke too soon

Sorry C'pn I was pulling your leg there!!

Clearly not the very top tier as the likes of Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow etc don't really come into this discussion.

I'll shut up them but FWIW they do....in fact they illustrate the "other factors" well

I'll shut up them but FWIW they do....in fact they illustrate the "other factors" well

Wasn't an attempt to shut you down at all, the more voices the better.

The reason I said that they weren't relevant is because they are not part of the state system and are really part of a separate discussion. To my mind this is more about how to achieve the best education for the greatest number of kids within the state system.

[edit] I may be wrong about the nature of the thread though and to be honest by page 4 I'd be expecting this thing to go wildly off the rails at any moment.

It's quite a nice place to work though

This is a massive reason why areas with Grammars end up with lower performance in other schools as they cream off the best teachers.

the causation theories are flawed

Essentially if they gave no advantage then no one would pay for it would they. Its not even debatable without lying or ignoring the evidence

Clearly you sent your kids to private school to give them a better education and not to waste your money as it made **** all difference

Stop being so dishonest

We need to achieve the best for all levels across the academic spectrum. Whilst there is any choice in state schools, the engaged parents will always try to keep their kids away from the worst perceived problems, so so will always have sink schools however you structure it.

There are plenty of extremely bright kids outside the grammar system for a multitude of reasons, so you already have the academic spread called for earlier. Abolishing the grammar system just removes another place for pushing the academically bright, which I think is a mistake.

Blimey, its sunny down south but clearly pouring down up North 😀

they cream off the best teachers.

How odd?

Abolishing the grammar system just removes another place for pushing the academically bright, which I think is a mistake.

So other than Kent, Reading and a handful of other places is everywhere else shit and not pushing the gifted?

Do you want universities to ban entrance requirements too?

How odd?

Why? As the man said they are nice places to work, meanwhile teachers are leaving state schools in droves. Now I know from experience that Grammars where I live dont struggle with recruitment whilst other schools in the area really really do.

AA, do you put words into the mouths of your students too? 😉

Why? As the man said they are nice places to work, meanwhile teachers are leaving state schools in droves. Now I know from experience that Grammars where I live dont struggle with recruitment whilst other schools in the area really really do.

so the conclusion is......?