Forum menu
do you mean the value parents at home place on education? because irrespective of class or not, if home places no value upon education, you are less likely to attain the results at school?
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.
Skirting the 'nobody expects the spanish inquisition' gag, I'd say access to opportunity is the most important factor. All this 'hard work' stuff is bollocks. I'm (relatively) successful but have never worked hard but have had good access to education, resources etc. To claim that somebody on minimum wage their whole working life busting their hump cleaning/digging/wahtever hasn't worked hard enough is mince of the highest order. I reckon they're likely in that position because they don't know how to get on to courses/can't fit change into their lives/aren't aware of what's available.
You Tory boys make me want to puke.
Sorry, I lost interest in contributing too much more to the thread once it got a little too insulting and circular for my tastes.
I will pick up this one though....
they have a negative impact on the education of the vast majority of pupils living in the [b]areas blighted by them[/b].
Kent - as said above, has only 6.5% FSM in the county - one of the lowest. Whilst I can buy the fact that good schools draw in house buyers of a certain type into their catchment I don't think that extrapolates to a whole county. A county with so few folk (comparatively) in FSM poverty can't be getting everything wrong educationally. Generations of grammar education in the county doesn't seem to have generated a rotten underbelly of above national average proportions from the 90% who don't get into the grammars of the county.
As I've said before I'm the product of grammar education, had a generally positive experience but recognise the negatives of the system. Like numerous other complex issues the answers are rarely as polarised between right and wrong or correct and totally flawed as many here like to profess. It would make the debating on here (which I guess is just a mirror of society itself) so much more intelligent if contributors were able to be more objective and less self righteous in their convictions.
I fail to see your point THM. The simple fact is more affluent parents are able to to better provide the resources that aid passing the 11 plus even when standardised for similar academic achievement so a high achieving kid from a poor family has worked hard, had parents support him as best they could but he's beaten in the 11 plus by a kid who has achieved the same in school but his private tutor has helped him pass the 11 plus. I fail to see how either parent hasnt tried their hardest to support their kid. I also fail to see how anyone could see this as fair.
So Grammar schools make places wealthy?? I'm lost.
...anyway this discussion is actually about the reintroduction of secondary moderns. Evidence is that these reduce social mobility.
If you're middle class (as in real middle class, hah) this is obviously a good thing.
The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others. Most people don't want this for their kids (I personally tend to a more phlegmatic view, fwiw, as you would if you had my bloody kids.)
Oh, and no more of this "grammar schools supported social mobility in the 50s and 60s". This time of economic growth, and change from a predominantly blue to white collar economy, used the output of the schools but this change was not driven by this output...
Well Im confused
I think we are all saying that the attitude of the parents to education are the primary factor in a child's attainment
Children from poorer backgrounds* do worse at school
so it seems obvious that parents from poorer backgrounds care less about their kids education
* lets be honest poorer=lower class, right?
so ultimately grammar schools are pointless, apart from a few rare cases
So Grammar schools make places wealthy??
I not implying it makes them wealthy. More that if an area was so 'blighted' by them for so long why has there not been the production of a large morlock like underclass of generation upon generation of poorly educated serfs?
As I have said, I'm not a total advocate by any stretch but [i]blighted[/i] a pretty emotive word.
Kimbers. The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars.
lets be honest poorer=lower class, right?
Can be, but not necessarily. Plenty of working class people around with stacks of cash though. Probably less common, but it is possible to be upper class and skint too.
We're saying children from poorer backgrounds do worse where there are grammar/secondary modern schools, than where there's less social stratification.
The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars.
Hang on, how does that work? I thought entry to a grammar school was based on achieving a certain level. I can understand if you said "less poor kids get into grammar school", that may be correct but surely the poor kids who do well are just as likely to get in as the better off kids who do well?
The point is even poor kids who do well at primary school dont get into grammars
There does seem to be evidence to back this up. Since I don't have the ability to review or analyse data I did look for the widest ranging study on selective education I could find. This seems to be a good start with a considerable amount of previous studies being reviewed as part of the research: [url= http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf ]http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf[/url]
Their conclusions surprised me, especially reference to selectivity:
Fourth, we have identified what seems to be a significant issue of social selectivity occurring across all types of school. While it appears to be relatively straightforward to understand how this can occur for grammar schools, it is rather more puzzling to see it evident in supposedly non- selective schools.
I not implying it makes them wealthy. More that if an area was so 'blighted' by them for so long why has there not been the production of a large morlock like underclass of generation upon generation of poorly educated serfs?
ever been to Bacup?
or you could take the view that it made people socially mobile and they left the area leaving the underclass
The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others.
is not relative downward social mobility of the middle/upper class what you want?
To claim that somebody on minimum wage their whole working life busting their hump cleaning/digging/wahtever hasn't worked hard enough is mince of the highest order.
Who is making that claim?
The corollary of upward social mobility for some is relative downward mobility for others.is not relative downward social mobility of the middle/upper class what you want?
Who cares what I want? An honest answer I suppose would be yes, as long as it's others' kids who are doing the downward thing.
Though actually I think feel this rather less than what seems to be the accepted norm in some circles ala 'I'd do anything for my kids, trample over anyone...' I genuinely do expect to see mine being downwardly mobile relative to me and my wife. I don't relish the prospect and I get bugger all bragging rights over everyone else's neophyte doctors/lawyers/bankers. I try to console myself that ours seem healthy, happy, well-balanced and independent (albeit not bloody financially.)
Surely what we should all want is an equal chance of success for all
What this debate should be about is the best way to achieve this
It seems that selective schools disproportionately help the better off and therefore it seems unlikely they achieve this goal
ang on, how does that work? I thought entry to a grammar school was based on achieving a certain level.
Stat schools do Sats at the end of KS2 to asses kids. Grammar schools get the kids to sit the 11plus. The two are, I am told i've never seen them, very different. You need training to pass the 11 plus even when doing very very well in sats. This is why many private primary kids get into grammar as they dont do the sats and just teach to 11 plus. It is also why better educated and/or richer parents have the resources to help or buy help for their kids. This is why poorer kids with less educated parent even when the brightest and tp achieving struggle with hetting grammar school places.
You need training to pass the 11 plus even when doing very very well in sats.
Neither Jr, his cousin nor their 2 friends had any kind of additional coaching or tuition.
Oh well thats that proven then. Wpuld you like a 20 min lecture about normal distribution and probability?
Much of the 11 plus has zero relevance to the subjects assessed via SATS. Fairly abstract puzzles using words, numbers and symbols make up the bulk of it in most cases. A good vocabulary and a bit of numeracy will help, but a lot of it is simple pattern recognition rather than anything academic.
Not proven, just that your statement is not necessarily correct.
Just as a snapshot, only one of the 6 kids from his school that passed the 11+ had tuition so, whilst he was not part of some great research programme, from my perspective the view that additional training is needed and that's why poorer kids are disadvantaged is untrue.
I expect my anecdotal experience is irrelevant to the argument yet nobody has produced anything to evidence some of the viewpoints repeated on here.
The simple fact is more affluent parents are able to to better provide the resources that aid passing the 11 plus even when standardised for similar academic achievement so a high achieving kid from a poor family has worked hard, had parents support him as best they could but he's beaten in the 11 plus by a kid who has achieved the same in school but his private tutor has helped him pass the 11 plus.
To be fair a_a has been making this point more coherently than others are still struggling to for about four pages on and off now, and it's the bit I'm admittedly surprised to find the evidence supports - I know that the plural of anecdote isn't data but my own experience mirrors some others explicitly stated on here as well - kids who weren't tutored passing while the tutored ones didn't. Maybe not all schools are doing this the same way - the one I know about (because my child got in) assure us that the tests are designed to test aptitude, which isn't something you can tutor into someone. Maybe that's rubbish, maybe not all schools test the same way, I don't know.
But, setting all that aside, if the premise is true and kids from more affluent backgrounds with the same level of educational attainment at 11 are getting into grammar schools ahead of their less affluent peers and this is because of the buying in of extra tuition, then surely the problem that presents isn't that the academically selective education that follows is fundamentally bad, or discriminatory, it's merely that the manner of selection is faulty and they need to look at that and work out how to adjust for "richness" -
It's the same problem they're wrestling with at universities - Oxford know that, all other things being equal, the kid from Eton will apply with higher predicted A-levels, and probably a richer smorgasbord of extra-curricular stuff than the equally bright kid from Shitsville Academy. It's a known issue, but a real one, and if the same thing is an issue at 11+ (and a_a has provided a link some pages ago to a credible source suggesting it is) then it needs to be taken seriously. But I don't hear anyone suggesting that it's wrong in principle for universities to academically select their intake? No difference, imo, with grammar schools - none of this seems to be an argument against the principle of academic selection, more that the practice of it currently isn't fair or equitable.
Surely what we should all want is an equal chance of success for all
Well that's what we'd all like.
But since the reality is some kids are academically better than others it makes sense to group & teach them by ability.
Nobody objects to selection in the workplace. Nobody objects to selection at University. Nobody objects to selection (streaming) within individual schools.
ely the problem that presents isn't that the academically selective education that follows is fundamentally bad
Thats true. I expect we either need a shit load more grammar schools or none at all.
ut since the reality is some kids are academically better than others it makes sense to group & teach them by ability.
Which happens in every school every day
Another way to look at grammar schools is they select based on other things as well as academic ability. Part of this will include work ethic, ability to perform under pressure aspiration to succeed. None of which is exclusive to middle class parents but is more likely to be found amongst that group. Why is that the case, probably to become middle class you need to have those characteristics and a drive to better yourself in the first place, probably instilled in you by your parents.
The big question is how do you get more working class people to embrace these characteristics (assuming it's not morally wrong to dictate to people how they should live their lives). The grammar school isn't the problem it's the lack of drive to give it a go.
So generally there is nothing stopping anyone from applying themselves apart from their own self perception. The only caveat is the cost of tutoring but even that is not beyond most people if they really want to find the money, give up smoking / booze for a couple of months, maybe one year not have a holiday, if that's too much of a sacrifice then you've probably just reinforced social immobility in your child.
Nobody objects to selection in the workplace. Nobody objects to selection at University. Nobody objects to selection (streaming) within individual schools.
What people object to is consigning kids to lifetime second class status at age 11.
What people object to is consigning kids to lifetime second class status at age 11.
...but it's ok at A-Level time?
Selective schools could be tweaked to answer pretty much all the concerns, but the fundamental problem - some kids having a **** start in life is hard to address. Has any country ever brought kids with a rubbish background up to the same standard as kids with an excellent start?
NO country can redress the balances caused by natural variations
Then again no country can end crime but that does not mean we dont try
The big question is how do you get more working class people to embrace these characteristics (assuming it's not morally wrong to dictate to people how they should live their lives).
Do you not think the question may be how to we get grammar schools to embrace the characteristic that working class kids have? Work with these Inspire them in different ways.Not everyone aspires to be middle class
The grammar school isn't the problem it's the lack of drive to give it a go.
Which means that by having them and giving a better education you further entrench this as driven kids are only in one school so the other kids see no role models of these fantastic aspirational middle class values all people should strive for - its making it worse basically
So generally there is nothing stopping anyone from applying themselves apart from their own self perception.
Its much more complicated than that as the child born to drug addicted parent v the child born to millionaires. Its a little unfair to blame the child and saying their is nothing stopping them. Life has dealt them a shitty hand and that is stopping them.
The only caveat is the cost of tutoring but even that is not beyond most people if they really want to find the money, give up smoking / booze for a couple of months, maybe one year not have a holiday,
You do realise that poor people dont actually go on holiday and they really dont have the spare cash for a tutor - FFS some of them are wondering where the next meal comes form not which foreign country to go to this year 🙄 The smoking thing is a lay stereotype
if that's too much of a sacrifice then you've probably just reinforced social immobility in your child.
And you think society should then further reinforce it with grammar schools rather than intervene to address this. Part of what we should be doing is giving these kids with the shitty start a helping hand not giving them a harder start.
Has any country ever...
Finland?
When it comes to cycle infrastructure, if you're not copying The Netherlands, you're doing it wrong.
When it comes to engineering a groovy happy well-educated society, it's Finland.
I've read half the thread will catch up on the rest
To startl with @aa's comment which I think is highly relevant
Evidence is pretty clear on balance Grammar schhols are not helpful.
Helpful in what respect ? Where selective schools are extremely relevant is in producing excellence. Whilst we are pouncing around discussing social mobility etc the Chinese, the Indians are busting their balls in striving for excellence in highly selective schools and it I they we will be competing against in the future for jobs and in designing and developing products.
Our move away from Grammer schools has been one of the biggest supprters of private education. That's actually helped the state sector as these are kids the state doesn't have to pay to educate.
We abolstely should have selective schools and we should have entry at 13 or 14 too, where this will be controversial as it's likely some kids will be sent the other way.
Of course parents more engaged in education have kids who are more motivated and more successful. You will see this in areas and stats like the school meals one, intelligence is hereditary and kids from poorer backgrounds are less likely to have grown up in an environment which values education and academic study and achievement
What we had before with Secodary Modern and Grammar wasn't "right" IMO primarily due to lesser resources
The French have an almost entirely state education sector and it's highly selective.
The world is a highly competitive place and becoming more so. We need to grasp this and decide how to adapt. An education policy overly focuses on based on false notions of social mobility or afraid of competition is in my view a grave error.
I would read that and reply but you [ literally it seems on the PMQ thread] just ignore it when folk show [literally and without doubt]you are spouting the usual factually incorrect BS - shame i syou know you were found out and lack the character/confidence to change your views
you have my pity but you know you were wrong again dont you ...shameful and shameless
Oh dear junky that was so predictable. No I don't think grammar schools should adjust their aspirations downward. I do agree the less inspired kids should have help to increase their aspirations but that needs to happen before the kids get anywhere near the grammar school.
I knew I shouldn't have used class as a lazy way of describing different groups, yes you're right not everyone wants to be middle class, equally not everyone wants aspiration forced down their throat, there's a fine line there.
Yes you are right about it being a bit of a circle but again dumbing down the grammar schools is not the answer, this is merely enforcing the race to the bottom mentalitity.
The child born to a druggie vs. a millionaire is extremes at both ends, not really very helpful. You are of course right it's not the child's fault if their parents don't give them a great start but hey let's drag everyone down to the bottom to make it all fair.
And you went for the holiday comment, ok ignore holiday and concentrate on the drink, most people could afford some tutoring if they really wanted to, yes some really can't but denying everyone else isn't right either.
There's 2 sorts of people, those that seize opportunities and make the most of them and the rest that don't. We were lucky, our daughter got into the local grammar last year, she worked hard and got through the exam. Many others in her primary didn't,including a number who were allegedly brighter. Yes they all had tutoring but they were from a mixed bunch of backgrounds. Some with the wealthier parents didn't get in,the kid with a single mother who made a big effort did get in. Are we in an affluent area, no, we're in Bacup, you're local enough to know the area.
I don't agree with your world view and I'm fairly sure you don't share mine. In the meantime the world continues and the harsh reality is life's opportunity isn't handed to you on a plate, blaming those lucky / hard working / whatever enough to make the most of the opportunities isn't going to help those that don't.
Maybe coming from parents who did move up the aspirational ladder I get rather annoyed with being told I've got it easier, my grandparents were firmly working class and so were my wife's parents. The real shame is a lot of the genuine social mobility opportunities have been destroyed in the quest to make everything fairer, tution fees for example.
Maybe schools should be 'selecting', but in a different way. Select out the disruptive and troublesome kids for a different education, more suited to them. Then watch as the regular secondary schools breath a collective sigh of relief and get on with the job.
A virtue is that they help separate those kids who want to work from those who don't. Having spent the last 2 weeks in a class where 7 little sh*** are wrecking the education of the other 22 I see this as a virtue.
In the arse end of Gloucester where most of my supply work is, the grammar schools are seen as a way out. Most by the Asian families. There is more to school than grades, somewhere nice to learn is worth a lot.
Oh yeah, I have seen many a kid pass without tutoring. Those were the satisfying ones.
Kind of my point. Adjust the schools by fishing out he 7 sh***.
Guys, guys, guys,you can't do that, it's not their fault their screwed up lives are adversely impacting everyone around them. Everyone else should be feeling guilty that they are so lucky because they aren't a drain on society.
Unfortunately mocking them or beating them to death with a straw man wont improve anything for anyone in that class.
Oh dear junky that was so predictable.
where as that was oh so original 😉
The alternative to grammar schools is not a race to the bottom no matter how often you say it
NO not everyone can afford private tutoring if they really wanted to- what you going to say next they sell the 50 inch tv ? Lazy stereotypes 🙄
blaming those lucky / hard working / whatever enough to make the most of the opportunities isn't going to help those that don't.
Who is blaming them? What I am saying is they are not the ones who need the most help so why are we targeting them?Its the equivalent of giving gym membership [ at the very best gym available]to all the healthy people and ignoring those who dont exercise. It just exacerbates the difference/problem rather than offers a solution. Its great for those that get it but shit for everyone else
Maybe coming from parents who did move up the aspirational ladder I get rather annoyed with being told I've got it easier, my grandparents were firmly working class and so were my wife's parents.
It may annoy you but it does not mean it is untrue. Your daughter would seem to be proof of that Were there one local to me I am sure my kids would get in. Again not the kids who need the most help
The real shame is a lot of the genuine social mobility opportunities have been destroyed in the quest to make everything fairer, tution fees for example.
Grammar schools still dont help social mobility they still have a disproportionate number of the middle classes there.
I do agree social mobility in this class riven society is very very poor
Not helpful in improving the overall education sulystem. On balance they make it worse.
e grammar school isn't the problem it's the lack of drive to give it a go.
So generally there is nothing stopping anyone from applying themselves apart from their own self perception.
ChristcI give up..whens the rugby come back on?
What I am saying s they are not the ones who need the most help so why are we targeting them?
That argument works both ways. If you segregate out the ones who need least help into selective schools you can target the ones who need most help.
I genuinely laughed at that
No offence but no one anywhere is claiming we have grammar schools to help those who dont get in its ....well..... erm laughable.
Night all no ones opinions are going to get changed are they.
No, you're right, as I said our world views are very different.
In the meantime I'm going to continue to encourage my kids to do their best as long as they don't actively disadvantage others. If they make more of the opportunities in life than others because I've given them a better start in life so be it and I'll be happy with that. I'm sure you'll consider that selfish but meh, that's life.
no ones opinions are going to get changed are they.
Mine has.
When I first read this thread I was broadly more in favour of non-selective than selective but with a bit of thinking and reading I became broadly more in favour of selective than non-selective.
As soon as a poster above pointed out that University is selective it hit me that education is 100pc selective from ~16 onwards and selective in terms of streaming as soon as kids are out of primary school. Which makes the whole debate a bit futile. The selection argument has been emphatically decided. Now we're just quibbling over the correct age to select, and whether or not we select into different buildings or just different rooms.
I'm sure you'll consider that selfish but meh, that's life.
No it seems like the logical choice for an individual to make. I will do thecsame for my kid.