Insurance2 mins ago
Grammar Schools
It would seem that Mrs May is poised to take Britain back to the 1950's here.
This man is the Chief Inspector of Schools, so he should know what he is talking about ::::
http://
This man is the Chief Inspector of Schools, so he should know what he is talking about ::::
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The problem with this is that while in theory opening schools up to clever poor children, it doesn't address what happens to the rest. And if there are only a few grammar schools they will, as our local ones do, cast their net very wide so simply creating ever higher and exclusive standards of entry. I'm also not convinced that there is no link between wealth and ability to perform well in selection exams, which is what these proposals rely on
I think there are select schools - I only know this from the education law I used to practice. What some parents wouldnt do to ensure their offspring got into the "right" school!
Not only are there select schools, but there is then selection within the schools. I know one of the schools round here where the bright kids have every resource thrown at them - the not so bright kids and ones on School Action or School Action + (I do not know if these are still the terms used) are effectively dismissed. There is a feeling that the school actually does its best to "move on" these children in whatever way it can.
I do not know what the answer is though. The Grammar school system wasnt perfect; the current system isnt either.
Not only are there select schools, but there is then selection within the schools. I know one of the schools round here where the bright kids have every resource thrown at them - the not so bright kids and ones on School Action or School Action + (I do not know if these are still the terms used) are effectively dismissed. There is a feeling that the school actually does its best to "move on" these children in whatever way it can.
I do not know what the answer is though. The Grammar school system wasnt perfect; the current system isnt either.
AndyH; "The solution is not to go down the previous path of segregating children at eleven into the 'worth educating, and 'the rest'" - yep that's the standard claptrap from the opponents of education. Grammar school selection seeks to make the best of academic abilities, those without those abilities have other aptitudes in other areas, that does not mean they are in some sort of chaff grouping as they are often labelled by the lefty ideologists, it just means they take a different path.
I don't think the argument against grammar schools is that they favour the rich, but that they cause social division, not actually necessarily based entirely on class, at an early age.
It's a laudable aim in theory to give gifted children the best opportunities, or rather that you shouldn't be excluded from a 'better school' because you can't afford to live in an area whose 'better school' has upped the house prices. Something tells me we ought to be addressing that issue anyway. This might work if it was implemented widely and properly but it doesn't look like it is going to be
It's a laudable aim in theory to give gifted children the best opportunities, or rather that you shouldn't be excluded from a 'better school' because you can't afford to live in an area whose 'better school' has upped the house prices. Something tells me we ought to be addressing that issue anyway. This might work if it was implemented widely and properly but it doesn't look like it is going to be
I'm intrigued what TTT's definition of "disruptive yobbo" is. Or, at least, I wonder if he's making the sadly common mistake of assuming that disruptive behaviour is associated with low academic standards. In my experience this is not always the case.
There's the rub with academic selection at age 11. Not everyone who is bright at that age stays that way, and vice versa, and a narrowing of focus of high standards on a particular subset of children risks messing up the life prospects of both types -- ditto, assuming that badly-behaved children aren't worth wasting academic resources on (vicious circle much?).
The link with wealth and 11+ performance is pretty simple, really: private tutoring. Not every kid needs this but the children who are able to self-learn without funding are pretty exceptional; for the normal remainder, pumping time and money into their education is generally going to have a pretty strong impact, and lift children to the required standards if they couldn't get there on their own. I don't have a problem with this in principle, but it's foolish to assume that money and resources don't play a role. A child of rich parents can expect access to resources that a child of poor parents simply cannot. Private tutors can demand and get easily £30 an hour, probably more actually, a rate that is well outside the range of many parents on lower incomes. So although of course children in poor families can still meet the requirements, they'd have less help and so proportionately more well-off children end up passing the exam.
Grammar schools can only work as part of a wider increase in academic and general educational standards and resources, but then in such a world they'd be redundant anyway.
There's the rub with academic selection at age 11. Not everyone who is bright at that age stays that way, and vice versa, and a narrowing of focus of high standards on a particular subset of children risks messing up the life prospects of both types -- ditto, assuming that badly-behaved children aren't worth wasting academic resources on (vicious circle much?).
The link with wealth and 11+ performance is pretty simple, really: private tutoring. Not every kid needs this but the children who are able to self-learn without funding are pretty exceptional; for the normal remainder, pumping time and money into their education is generally going to have a pretty strong impact, and lift children to the required standards if they couldn't get there on their own. I don't have a problem with this in principle, but it's foolish to assume that money and resources don't play a role. A child of rich parents can expect access to resources that a child of poor parents simply cannot. Private tutors can demand and get easily £30 an hour, probably more actually, a rate that is well outside the range of many parents on lower incomes. So although of course children in poor families can still meet the requirements, they'd have less help and so proportionately more well-off children end up passing the exam.
Grammar schools can only work as part of a wider increase in academic and general educational standards and resources, but then in such a world they'd be redundant anyway.
More left wing cant and hypocrisy....Consider this.
Jeremy Corbyn attended Adam's Grammar School Shropshire, his son Ben attended Queen Elizabeth's boys school N. London
John McDonnel, hard left shadow chancellor attended Great Yarmouth Grammar School Norfolk.
Diane Abbot (yes her again) Shadow health secretary attended Harrow County Grammar school for girls Middlesex. Her son James went to £13,000 a year City Of London School.
Paul Flynn, Leader of the Commons attended St Illtyd's College Roman Catholic Grammar School Cardiff.
Jon Trickett(what an apt name) Shadow business secretary attended Roundhay Grammar School Leeds.
Graham Morris Shadow local government secretary attended Peterlee Grammar School County Durham.
Seamus Milne Chief spin doctor for Corbyn attended the private school Winchester College Hampshire.
Do as I say, not as I do. Whilst ensuring that they and their own gain every advantage they strive to prevent others getting the best education available. What are they so afraid of? Do they fear education and an ability to think for themselves, in what should be the Labour party core vote, and have a default setting that discourages aspiration. They so need the human zoo voters to survive.
Jeremy Corbyn attended Adam's Grammar School Shropshire, his son Ben attended Queen Elizabeth's boys school N. London
John McDonnel, hard left shadow chancellor attended Great Yarmouth Grammar School Norfolk.
Diane Abbot (yes her again) Shadow health secretary attended Harrow County Grammar school for girls Middlesex. Her son James went to £13,000 a year City Of London School.
Paul Flynn, Leader of the Commons attended St Illtyd's College Roman Catholic Grammar School Cardiff.
Jon Trickett(what an apt name) Shadow business secretary attended Roundhay Grammar School Leeds.
Graham Morris Shadow local government secretary attended Peterlee Grammar School County Durham.
Seamus Milne Chief spin doctor for Corbyn attended the private school Winchester College Hampshire.
Do as I say, not as I do. Whilst ensuring that they and their own gain every advantage they strive to prevent others getting the best education available. What are they so afraid of? Do they fear education and an ability to think for themselves, in what should be the Labour party core vote, and have a default setting that discourages aspiration. They so need the human zoo voters to survive.
I think by concentrating on alleged hypocrisy by labour politicians, and ranting about lefty ideology (Not sure you could call Cameron, Osborne and co 'lefty' and it's their policy that the new gibt is departing from) some of you are avoiding the real issue, which is 'will this policy achieve its desired aim'
I agree with TTT....you certainly bang on Togo !
And on.
Bednobs....there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Grammar Schools, but I am concerned about the 80% of kids that didn't and won't qualify to go to a Grammar.
I want good schools for everybody, not just for the bright, or the parents who can increase the chances of their kids being made to look bright, because of extra, expensive coaching.
Comps. on the whole have achieved that good education over the last 40 years, by providing the conditions where bright kids can do well, as the kids that aren't so bright.
Here in Swansea, we changed over to Comps, from a mixture of Secondary Moderns and Grammar Schools, about 40 years ago, and everybody benefited.
But what is more important, these schools allowed the not-so-bright kids to take subjects that would have been denied them in a wholly Secondary Modern, like the sciences and languages. That is the essence of a good Comp, to give the opportunity to all and not just the few.
And on.
Bednobs....there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Grammar Schools, but I am concerned about the 80% of kids that didn't and won't qualify to go to a Grammar.
I want good schools for everybody, not just for the bright, or the parents who can increase the chances of their kids being made to look bright, because of extra, expensive coaching.
Comps. on the whole have achieved that good education over the last 40 years, by providing the conditions where bright kids can do well, as the kids that aren't so bright.
Here in Swansea, we changed over to Comps, from a mixture of Secondary Moderns and Grammar Schools, about 40 years ago, and everybody benefited.
But what is more important, these schools allowed the not-so-bright kids to take subjects that would have been denied them in a wholly Secondary Modern, like the sciences and languages. That is the essence of a good Comp, to give the opportunity to all and not just the few.
//This man is the Chief Inspector of Schools, so he should know what he is talking about :::: ///
yeah here's another one:
https:/
"Later, Woodhead lived with Amanda Johnston, a former pupil of Gordano School, for nine years.[16] They insisted that their relationship had begun after they had left the school[5][17] but in 2015, immediately after his death, it was reported that...... " and you can read the rest of wili
TTT - //AndyH; "The solution is not to go down the previous path of segregating children at eleven into the 'worth educating, and 'the rest'" - yep that's the standard claptrap from the opponents of education. //
I am married to an Ofsted / ISA Schools Inspector, and my three children all work in education.
I am many things, but an 'opponent of education' is not one of them!
I am married to an Ofsted / ISA Schools Inspector, and my three children all work in education.
I am many things, but an 'opponent of education' is not one of them!
“Look at the figures for entry into colleges and universities and compare 1956 to 2016.”
Not a good measure of success, Mikey. In fact, in my view, it’s an indication of the failure of the secondary education system. Fifty years ago around 10% (max) of people went to university. Something in the order of 10% (max) of jobs in the UK required a degree level education. Now, something approaching 50% of people go to university (some of which are not worthy of the name) but still only around 10% (max) of jobs in the UK need a degree level education. (By this I mean that they need a degree level education because the nature of the work demands it – professions such as law and medicine for example. Many employers now restrict applications to those with a degree simply because they cannot rely on somebody who was educated only to the age of 18 being reasonably literate). The reason so many people need to go to “university” is because the State education system is singularly unable to provide a decent academic secondary education by the age of 18. And one of the reasons for that is that academically gifted children are thrown into second rate comprehensive schools among a load of children who have no interest in receiving a decent education and who have parents who do not encourage them to do so. Wanting your children to get a good education is nothing to do with being “posh” or rich, though wealthy people do tend to be more inclined to ensure their children receive a proper education.
“…comprehensives were meant to ensure that all pupils get the same opportunities,”
Well they don’t. The reasons are many and various but the experiment has gone on for long enough (and condemned enough bright children to a second rate education) that changes are necessary urgently. Under the usual socialist philosophy that because not everyone can have something then nobody can, Anthony Crosland (Highgate (fee paying) Grammar School and Oxford) vowed (according to his wife) “if it’s the last thing I do I’m going to destroy every *** grammar school in England”. Well he almost achieved that, though not quite. But what he did do, in his quest to ensure that no child should be unfairly “advantaged” (by being provided with a level of education that stretched their abilities) was to unfairly disadvantage those same children by insisting they attend (very) mixed ability schools where nobody in particular thrived (for such a thing is frowned upon in such institutions).
Not a good measure of success, Mikey. In fact, in my view, it’s an indication of the failure of the secondary education system. Fifty years ago around 10% (max) of people went to university. Something in the order of 10% (max) of jobs in the UK required a degree level education. Now, something approaching 50% of people go to university (some of which are not worthy of the name) but still only around 10% (max) of jobs in the UK need a degree level education. (By this I mean that they need a degree level education because the nature of the work demands it – professions such as law and medicine for example. Many employers now restrict applications to those with a degree simply because they cannot rely on somebody who was educated only to the age of 18 being reasonably literate). The reason so many people need to go to “university” is because the State education system is singularly unable to provide a decent academic secondary education by the age of 18. And one of the reasons for that is that academically gifted children are thrown into second rate comprehensive schools among a load of children who have no interest in receiving a decent education and who have parents who do not encourage them to do so. Wanting your children to get a good education is nothing to do with being “posh” or rich, though wealthy people do tend to be more inclined to ensure their children receive a proper education.
“…comprehensives were meant to ensure that all pupils get the same opportunities,”
Well they don’t. The reasons are many and various but the experiment has gone on for long enough (and condemned enough bright children to a second rate education) that changes are necessary urgently. Under the usual socialist philosophy that because not everyone can have something then nobody can, Anthony Crosland (Highgate (fee paying) Grammar School and Oxford) vowed (according to his wife) “if it’s the last thing I do I’m going to destroy every *** grammar school in England”. Well he almost achieved that, though not quite. But what he did do, in his quest to ensure that no child should be unfairly “advantaged” (by being provided with a level of education that stretched their abilities) was to unfairly disadvantage those same children by insisting they attend (very) mixed ability schools where nobody in particular thrived (for such a thing is frowned upon in such institutions).
Your later argument about the abolition of grammars is also a little strange:
“Here in Swansea, we changed over to Comps, from a mixture of Secondary Moderns and Grammar Schools, about 40 years ago, and everybody benefited”
How do you know? What benefit did it provide to the pupils of the grammar schools (and those younger who may have attended them)?
“But what is more important, these schools allowed the not-so-bright kids to take subjects that would have been denied them in a wholly Secondary Modern, like the sciences and languages.2
What was to prevent the secondary modern schools from providing those subjects? Why did it necessitate the abolition of grammar schools for all children to be taught those subjects? Was it because without a proportion of “grammar” children the courses in those subjects could not be justified (because it seems they are justified in comprehensives where there is a proportion of “grammar” pupils.
It is a laudable aim to ensure that all children receive the same type of education. But it has been shown that such a system does not work. There are some excellent comprehensive schools (many of them former grammars) but there are some truly appalling ones. Parents who want their children to be properly educated will find a way to ensure they do - either by paying for it directly or by living in an area where better schools prevail. (This, unsurprisingly, tends to push up house prices in the area leading to claims that the better schools are only for the rich). Grammar schools never were (and are not now) exclusively for the “rich” (which seems to be the main reason for opposing them). They are for children who can cope with a rigorous academic education. I went to a grammar school. My parents were not posh or rich and nor were those of many of the boys there. My school “went comprehensive” in the early 1970s (because it was in London and the ILEA was among the first authorities to carry out Mr Crosland’s edict). It is now a Voluntary Aided Academy but in Hertfordshire. However it selects over 90% of its pupils via the 11+ and entrance examination. It also achieves results that are usually in the top 10 of non-fee paying schools in the country. You cannot attend just because you live 100 yards from the school gates but this does not stop wealthy parents renting local houses in an attempt to gain their child one of the 10% of places. When I attended things were far simpler: you took the eleven plus, if you passed you chose three schools and had an interview at your first choice. If unsuccessful, you went for an interview at your second. There was such a large number of grammar schools in each area that gaining admission to one of them was not an issue and it did not discriminate against parents who could not afford to live in the area (as the comprehensive system does now).
I share your concern about the 80% or so of children who might night achieve the grammar school standard. But just as you don’t make the poor richer by impoverishing the wealthy, you don’t (as has been shown) raise the standards of the poorer schools by abolishing the better ones. There are lots of reasons why returning to the Fifties may not be desireable (diphtheria, whooping cough, rickets) but the grammar school system is not among them.
“Here in Swansea, we changed over to Comps, from a mixture of Secondary Moderns and Grammar Schools, about 40 years ago, and everybody benefited”
How do you know? What benefit did it provide to the pupils of the grammar schools (and those younger who may have attended them)?
“But what is more important, these schools allowed the not-so-bright kids to take subjects that would have been denied them in a wholly Secondary Modern, like the sciences and languages.2
What was to prevent the secondary modern schools from providing those subjects? Why did it necessitate the abolition of grammar schools for all children to be taught those subjects? Was it because without a proportion of “grammar” children the courses in those subjects could not be justified (because it seems they are justified in comprehensives where there is a proportion of “grammar” pupils.
It is a laudable aim to ensure that all children receive the same type of education. But it has been shown that such a system does not work. There are some excellent comprehensive schools (many of them former grammars) but there are some truly appalling ones. Parents who want their children to be properly educated will find a way to ensure they do - either by paying for it directly or by living in an area where better schools prevail. (This, unsurprisingly, tends to push up house prices in the area leading to claims that the better schools are only for the rich). Grammar schools never were (and are not now) exclusively for the “rich” (which seems to be the main reason for opposing them). They are for children who can cope with a rigorous academic education. I went to a grammar school. My parents were not posh or rich and nor were those of many of the boys there. My school “went comprehensive” in the early 1970s (because it was in London and the ILEA was among the first authorities to carry out Mr Crosland’s edict). It is now a Voluntary Aided Academy but in Hertfordshire. However it selects over 90% of its pupils via the 11+ and entrance examination. It also achieves results that are usually in the top 10 of non-fee paying schools in the country. You cannot attend just because you live 100 yards from the school gates but this does not stop wealthy parents renting local houses in an attempt to gain their child one of the 10% of places. When I attended things were far simpler: you took the eleven plus, if you passed you chose three schools and had an interview at your first choice. If unsuccessful, you went for an interview at your second. There was such a large number of grammar schools in each area that gaining admission to one of them was not an issue and it did not discriminate against parents who could not afford to live in the area (as the comprehensive system does now).
I share your concern about the 80% or so of children who might night achieve the grammar school standard. But just as you don’t make the poor richer by impoverishing the wealthy, you don’t (as has been shown) raise the standards of the poorer schools by abolishing the better ones. There are lots of reasons why returning to the Fifties may not be desireable (diphtheria, whooping cough, rickets) but the grammar school system is not among them.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Is This Man A Good Pick For Secretary Of...
News17 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology51 mins ago
ChatterBank142 mins ago
