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

No offence but no one anywhere is claiming we have grammar schools to help those who dont get in its ....well..... erm laughable.

It already happens. One example: The kids with the biggest problems often get 60 hours of a teaching assistant's time to themselves over a month. I suspect that's still available in the areas with selective schools and you can bet the selective Schools don't get much of that kind of budget.

Moreover what is a Pupil Referral Unit if not a selective school where less academic kids get high levels of resources...

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.

I do the same, and I don't think it selfish - unfair, maybe, and I do what I can to enable others to have the same opportunities. That means recognising that some kids are not as lucky as we've been, and don't deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents.

Work hard, grasp any opportunity in front of you, read and then read more and be respectful and grateful - ignore the rest of the noise

Oh and if a teacher tells you not to extend yourself beyond the curriculum, ignore them. Don't let their hang ups rub off on you. Make the most of every opportunity....

...and read

Who you talking to thm? Whats this advice for?

"Guys, guys, guys,you can't do that, it's not their fault their screwed up lives are adversely impacting everyone around them"

Maybe, maybe not
But much more importantly it is not the fault of the behaving kids when their schooling is buggered through no fault of their own.
Why should they suffer at the whim of the few?
When you have 10 year olds asking for their class mates to be removed so that the rest can work it sort of boils your piss. And sadly our system doesn't care about the hardworking majority.

"don't deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents"
But it's ok to punish those who work?

Oh and if a teacher tells you not to extend yourself beyond the curriculum, ignore them.

Who is this teacher you keep referring to?

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

yes but its not pass or fail selective is it.

and I like the idea of second chances at 13 & 16, considering some secondary moderns didn't even teach other languages the concept is comical.

Who is this teacher you keep referring to?

Me. Its his tiresome personnel dig that he uses when trying to scrabble around and rescue his arguements from the bottom of the barrel. I once said something alongvthe lines of its pointless reading around the subject to aid a level grades because the exams do not go beyond the specification. Everytime i point out something about his somewhat strange views regarding educational opportunity he brings this out. Not doubt hoping I'll tell him what I think of his digs and get banned. To be honest that doesnt bother me. I only restrain myself more these days as I dont really like making work for the mods.

Ps. What are my hang ups THM?

In much the same way he use the word sweaty to duckman as he knows this annoyed him once and he calls me a troll*. I guess we all must have quirks eh and his is to try and press buttons to get emotional reactions.

On the plus side I am in the great position of being able to comment on his gibberish and not receive any of it back.

Thanks for the WIn win

* never really annoyed me but it did make me chuckle at the irony.

ignore the rest of the noise

Tbh thm, best advice you've ever given out. Although, probably not in the way you intended.

next move is we get some emoticons as he is pleased that some folk mentioned him
Wont happen now I have mentioned it

yes but its not pass or fail selective is it.

I have plenty of sympathy for he argument that 11 should not be the age where there is a definitive selection, there should be other opportunities for transition. However, there should be selection. Life is selective and its competitive.

It is NOT a primary objective of schools to provide social mobility. They are there to provide opportunity. Our state system does not provide sufficiently for excellence which is why our private school system is so vibrant. Nothing would please me more than for our state system to mirror the excellence we see elsewhere in Europe or indeed the US where private schools are virtually non existent.

I see the usual suspects are showing the weakness of their arguments by focusing on individuals rather than issues. common guys come come back on the issues.

@klunk University is 100% pass or fail, you either get in or you don't. Jobs are selective, you get the job or you don't.

sorry but it isn't the same is it, you have resits, second choices as with jobs there are others to apply for, no resit with the 11+ no second chance fail and you were condemned to academic black hole called the secondary modern.

and I like the idea of second chances at 13 & 16, considering some secondary moderns didn't even teach other languages the concept is comical.

this seems strange in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be higher according to the anti's

so why is a school with a higher budget going to serve it's pupils less?

It is NOT a primary objective of schools to provide social mobility. They are there to provide opportunity.

is it the poverty of ambition of the teachers? or the parents? or is it Thatchers fault?

are "secondary moderns" sink schools for teachers before the kids even get there?

jambalaya - Member
I see the usual suspects are showing the weakness of their arguments by focusing on individuals rather than issues. common guys come come back on the issues.

Better than an argument based on a mis-read quote.

t is NOT a primary objective of schools to provide social mobility.

No but it is to provide education of a good standard which helps social mobility. I see my job as trying to keep as many options open to a pupil as possible.
However grammar schools are currently having a negative effect on social mobility where they are so should we accept that? I dont think so.

are "secondary moderns" sink schoo

This is a big issue, not just in grammar systems but for all schools with lots of pupils from poorer backgrounds.

That should say "sink schools for teachers"

From last year's ONS study

[b]The level of parental qualifications has been proposed as one of the most important factors in the intergenerational transmission of poverty[/b] (Blanden & Gibbons, 2006; d’Addio, 2007). In the UK, evidence suggests that parental qualifications are more important to future outcomes than income and social class (Field, 2010).[b] Parental education is generally viewed as the most important predictor of a child’s educational outcomes [/b](Ermisch & Pronzato, 2010; HM Government, 2014) affecting the likelihood of a child being well-educated in a number of ways; more educated parents are more likely to engage their children in educationally stimulating activities, are better able to help their children with education and have higher aspirations for them (Sylva et al., 2004; Bird, 2007). However, the precise nature of the relationship between parental qualifications and children’s attainment is uncertain and the transmission mechanism may be through genetic traits or a relationship between educational success and parenting ability (Field, 2010).

So yes, DD, a lot of the rest IS noise.

more educated parents are more likely to engage their children in educationally stimulating activities, are better able to help their children with education and have higher aspirations for them

How very dare they?? Shocking.....

Proposed, suggested, generally viewed, more likely and uncertain.

Nailed down

Not sure what your point is, THM? The results of the research you quote seems obvious to me (i.e. fit my prejudices) but they don't provide an argument for filtering off kids at an early age and setting their prospects in stone.

[quote=jambalaya opined]I see the usual suspects are showing the weakness of their arguments by focusing on individuals rather than issues. common guys come come back on the issues.

Indeed we should be so much more like you and make factually incorrect statements then run away too embarrassed to either comment or say anything

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/have-we-done-todays-pmq/page/2#post-7243482

You really do have no shame
Interesting you say nothing about THM's repeated digs to AA though - that actually required a question he did not answer - GIven this why are you shouting at the usual suspects [ as is this is not focusing on individuals] rather than on him Hypocrisy and an inability to handle the data
Chuckles

THM you did not claim it was the educational levels of parents that was the crtical factor you claimed it was

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.

You even emboldened it
However it is not what you claimed was most important.
We are not worthy of your genius nor personal digs

Still at least you are lucky to have the colossus Jamby at your back.
With friends like that eh 😆

OK enough big hitting for one day
Have a nice weekend y'all

The argument is simple DrJ. There are more important factors driving educational achievement than the type of school. Of course they fit less well with the cliched class arguments, hence they often get overlooked.

Not sure what your point is, THM?

You wouldnt be the first or the last. What I dont understand is that his points are pretty much the same as mine. Parental education and wealth ade more likely to make kids achieve better and grammar schools make it worse. B
However I think this can and should be reduced to give kids with less well off/less well educated parents more opportunities to do well, he seems to think the either it cant be changed or it shouldnt be changed, although it is admittedly hard to be sure what he is trying to say.

here are more important factors driving educational achievement than the type of schoo

Wow a moment of clarity and I agree but the state can easily control the type of school and not choose types that provide worse out comes for the majority.

Grammar school 0 : Comprehensives 1 (thm - o.g.)

what you haven't answered is why in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be condemning them to an "academic blackhole"

I do the same, and I don't think it selfish - unfair, maybe, and I do what I can to enable others to have the same opportunities. That means recognising that some kids are not as lucky as we've been, and don't deserve to be punished their whole lives for a poor choice of parents.

the pupil premium is designed to counter this, so what is the excuse for poor schooling in deprived area's when the school clearly gets more cash?

what you haven't answered is why in an environment where the £ per pupil is likely to be higher as the number of kids on FSM (and therefore attracting the pupil premium) is likely to be condemning them to an "academic blackhole"

Asked

poor schooling in deprived area's

Answered.

Next question?

the pupil premium is designed to counter this, so what is the excuse for poor schooling in deprived area's when the school clearly gets more cash?

Oh, and don't assume the good teachers want to go to the schools in the best areas. I know a lot of teachers and many much prefer to work in schools in a lower demographic.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

So why don't you send them to a school in a poor area, if you think those kids get a better deal? Are you going to do that? No - didn't than so!

DrJ - you just be very pleased with the result. Congrats and enjoy the warm glow.

Lunge 😉 indeed.

Oh, and don't assume the good teachers want to go to the schools in the best areas. I know a lot of teachers and many much prefer to work in schools in a lower demographic.

This is not what I see and experience every day in schools wherecI have taught. It is nuch tougher recruiting teachers in schools in deprivedcareas than more affluent areas. I'm sure that lots of data exists to back this up too if you were to go and look for it.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

Because your kids are in a better school with less SEN or emotional problems and most likely a more experienced set of teachers.

So why don't you send them to a school in a poor area, if you think those kids get a better deal? Are you going to do that? No - didn't than so!

Second, equal opportunity for all is just that, equal for all irreverent of their family or economic background, you either want that or don't.

Err, yes, I think we all want that (apart from thm, anyway). The question is whether grammar schools deliver it. Instead of batting the question around like a ping pong ball, we could just look at the data:

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/

sorry if it's already been posted

[url= http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf ]http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf[/url]

8. Conclusions
The single most important policy decision under the 1944 Education Act was to provide free secondary education to children from all classes of British society. However, for two main reasons, the implementation of the policy was largely a failure. First, there was a wide chasm in the quality of secondary school provision as between grammar/technical schools and modern schools. The former provided nationally recognised qualifications to one-third of children and led to distinctly improved chances of achieving post-school higher qualifications. The latter offered two-thirds of children virtually no opportunity for within-school qualifications and provided a platform of learning that was not able to support a broad set of further education and training qualifications. Second, selection into one or other of these secondary schools was predicated on performance in a series of IQ tests at the age of 11. Almost certainly the selection process was tilted in favour of children from middle-class family backgrounds. The absence of subsequent movement between grammar/technical schools and modern schools served seriously to exacerbate the results of this selection bias.

The biggest gainers from the free education provision were children from relatively disadvantaged family backgrounds who gained competitive entry into the grammar school system. These constituted only about 15% of all children attending tripartite schools. A further 20% of children were from more advantaged backgrounds and a high proportion of these may well have received a grammar school education in the absence of the new education policy. For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools the policy served generally to stifle educational and post-educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes.

Thank you Klunk.

It's this bit that bothers me:

... For the large majority of the remainder who were required to attend secondary modern schools the policy served generally to stifle educational and post-educational development and this in turn was reflected in relatively poor subsequent labour market outcomes.

Indeed as with capitalism in order to have winners* we must have losers and grammar schools help only the winners who are the ones who need the least help.

*To some degree this is inevitable but we dont need to make it worse.

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair?

So I work hard to eat well and exercise and look after myself and then the NHS spends more money on other unhealthy people than they do on me and these people still have poorer outcomes than me

how is that fair?

FTFY

this thread got me thinking about my middle school, which I was at in the mid 70's and it was in transition from a secondary modern, IIRC we were it's first comprehensive intake. They were big on woodwork, metal work, TD, Home Ec/Cooking. There was no foreign language provision in the first year and in retrospect the maths teaching was very poor and the sciences virtually non existent. That said I could have taken passed my O level TD at age 13 🙂

Lets ignore the implication that anyone who does not get there is not working hard?

Anyway grammar schools, it's a priority thing basically, do you prioritise helping the high achievers get higher possibly at detriment to those at a lower level or the do you prioritise getting everyone to a minimum standard possibly at detriment to those who could push on? It's not about class, wealth or the area you were brought up in, though I accept this can have an impact on where you are on the scale.

And that question is why it's such a decisive subject.

it's a priority thing basically

Well, in fact, it's not. Grammar schools are socially divisive, and educationally ineffective, as the link I posted up there ^^^^ demonstrates.

Anyway grammar schools, it's a priority thing basically, do you prioritise helping the high achievers get higher possibly at detriment to those at a lower level or the do you prioritise getting everyone to a minimum standard possibly at detriment to those who could push on? It's not about class, wealth or the area you were brought up in, though I accept this can have an impact on where you are on the scale.

And that question is why it's such a decisive subject

Hang on, so I work hard to get my child into a good school in a good area and they get less money spent on them? How is that fair? Why are they getting punished for my success? I thought we were trying to take parental position out of it?

what the teaching profession don't want to admit is that the issue is failing schools in deprived area's. Secondary Modern schools don't attract teaching talent where grammar schools exist

This is not what I see and experience every day in schools wherecI have taught. It is nuch tougher recruiting teachers in schools in deprivedcareas than more affluent areas. I'm sure that lots of data exists to back this up too if you were to go and look for it

this is despite having more money thrown at the schools

ergo: the problem isn't the selective nature of the schools for students, it's the follow-on selection of teaching staff. So selection of pupils is itself not the problem it is the lack of leadership and teaching talent in the deprived schools despite the extra funding

This probably stems from weak/ CBA governing bodies in these schools

hat the teaching profession don't want to admit is that the issue is failing schools in deprived area's.

No thats a big issue but its not necessarily anything to do with Grammar schools as its the same where there are no grammar schools.

o selection of pupils is itself not the problem it is the lack of leadership and teaching talent in the deprived schools despite the extra funding

The extra funding isnt necessarily spent on teachers its often spent on all the other things like getting kids into school in the first place or SEN provision etc. But given the chronic lack of teachers "selection" isnt a luxary we have. We have been looking for a science teacher for over a year now, cant get one and my school is a "nice" comp.
You could argue its lack of leadership but when its a national problem it suggests to me that other factors are involved too.