Grammar Schools

[Trojan]

Yes against ALL evidence you insist on misrepresenting the Conservative Party. It's one thing to disagree with their policies, its quite another to attribute to them the things that you do.

No I don't misrepresent them I know what they'll do because they did it before.  They want to introduce this policy because it will benefit the sort of people who support them.  It wasn't in their last manifesto, they have no mandate to do it, but apparently they're going to do it anyway. Exactly like dismantling the NHS.  I don't oppose this because it's a Tory policy and I'm Labour, I'm Labour because I oppose policies like this.

Failing at 11 and my "education" at the hands of a Tory council who didn't give a flying **** about me and my kind   made my mind up for me which side I was on. 

Policies like this are the reason why I could never ever see myself supporting a Tory government.

[Bob8]

What's wrong with selection by ability? You get selected on ability for everything, ability to do the job, play scrum half/centre forward etc. To be the best you have to be surrounded by the best not held back by somebody who can't concentrate for 10mins

Yes.  Clearly, grammar schools should be great.  They should promote social mobility on the basis of ability.

However, despite it being evident what should happen there are two drawbacks:

- While social mobility should happen, it does not seem to happen in reality more that with the comprehensive system (which is not to say it does not happen at all or that it did not happen at all)

- Everyone wants grammar schools, but no-one seems to want secondary moderns.

[JohnM]

Secondary moderns don't exist, though. Long gone.  Comprehensives have developed, evolved ets and produce excellent results. SIxth form colleges too. Greenhead College in Huddersfield send a large number of students to Oxford and Cambridge.  Granddaughter #1 wnt to a comprehensive in Cheshire, then a college in Hastings, then chose not to go to Uni. Moved to Stoke, had various jobs and has now started at Staffordshire Uni.

 

TBH I think the problem is more complex that kids just being labeled failure at 11.  seehttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-education-system-is-inherently-prejudiced-against-white-working-class-boys-its-time-to-empower-a7072821.html

[Bob8]

Secondary moderns don't exist, though. Long gone.  Comprehensives have developed, evolved ets and produce excellent results. SIxth form colleges too. Greenhead College in Huddersfield send a large number of students to Oxford and Cambridge.  Granddaughter #1 wnt to a comprehensive in Cheshire, then a college in Hastings, then chose not to go to Uni. Moved to Stoke, had various jobs and has now started at Staffordshire Uni.

 

TBH I think the problem is more complex that kids just being labeled failure at 11.  seehttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-education-system-is-inherently-prejudiced-against-white-working-class-boys-its-time-to-empower-a7072821.html

I agree that it is more complex.  I am not hardened in my views and I am certainly not knowledgeable on this.

 

I also agree that naming schools "secondary modern" will not return.  However, if 20% of schools were to be grammar schools, then saying the others were not de facto secondary moderns is a little optimistic to my mind.

[Trojan]

I agree that it is more complex.  I am not hardened in my views and I am certainly not knowledgeable on this.

 

I also agree that naming schools "secondary modern" will not return.  However, if 20% of schools were to be grammar schools, then saying the others were not de facto secondary moderns is a little optimistic to my mind.

S h 1 t by any name still stinks.  They won't be called secondary moderns, but that's what they'll be.

[GeordieSaint]

S h 1 t by any name still stinks. They won't be called secondary moderns, but that's what they'll be.

What's your proposal then? Teachers on here have stated the brightest kids in our society are not achieving their potential in the current school system. What should be done about them?

[Bearman]

Yu plebs make me laff bangin on about skules.

I wuz heducated at arrer an us an them other lot from Heton av to smile cos heducation isn't about lurnin, sabout netwurkin.

Pater gis u a job in the bank an iff u dont lik it u goze into pollyticks or summut. Eezy

[Robin Evans]

I remember being told off for describing something as "ace" in my 2nd year.

"Ace is not a proper descriptor lad. Use the Queen's English or remain quiet you irritating individual". (Godber. R. 1974)

[marklaspalmas]

I remember being told off for describing something as "ace" in my 2nd year.

"Ace is not a proper descriptor lad. Use the Queen's English or remain quiet you irritating individual". (Godber. R. 1974)

 

Ah. You can't knock Bob Godber, Robin. He set little Billy Hague on his way to the top.

 

[ducks for cover]

[Robin Evans]

He stood for election as a tory mp did bob.

I grew to like him when my kids went to wath. Both of mine thought he was a particularly good teacher and all round decent sort.

I was no angel but neither was i a bad un. I was a gobsheeite who only learned it was better to keep one's gob shut as i grew older.

I believe your pater was one who first passed on that particular gem of wisdom!!

[Robin Evans]

Ah. You can't knock Bob Godber, Robin. He set little Billy Hague on his way to the top.

[ducks for cover]

Of course, william. I sat behind him in latin.

Other than that until "that day" he was a non-entity... not exactly part of my gang!

[marklaspalmas]

Of course, william. I sat behind him in latin.

Other than that until "that day" he was a non-entity... not exactly part of my gang!

 

Yeah, but boy could he sup some ale........

[Robin Evans]

Yeah, but boy could he sup some ale........

my fat ginger botty!

[Trojan]

What's your proposal then? Teachers on here have stated the brightest kids in our society are not achieving their potential in the current school system. What should be done about them?

And other teachers say that putting the brightest in with those who are average, pulls the average kids up, whilst the brightest don't really suffer.  We all know if we're honest what this is about, it's about class. It's about Tory voters not wanting their little darlings in the same schools as those rough working class kids.  As I stated earlier. in the sixties in order to retain the status quo they didn't want education to be a political football. Now they do. But more to the point. May has no mandate to make this change.

[Maximus Decimus]

And other teachers say that putting the brightest in with those who are average, pulls the average kids up, whilst the brightest don't really suffer.  We all know if we're honest what this is about, it's about class. It's about Tory voters not wanting their little darlings in the same schools as those rough working class kids.  As I stated earlier. in the sixties in order to retain the status quo they didn't want education to be a political football. Now they do. But more to the point. May has no mandate to make this change.

 

I'm not sure where you've got that from. 

 

If I taught a class of 6 bright children all year then of course they would do better than if I taught those 6 in a class of 30. I could move at a much quicker pace with children that generally understand things first time.

 

The reality is that in a class of 30, the lower ability children take up much more of a teacher's time than the higher ability children. When planning a lesson, the teacher pitches the lesson at the middle ability range and then has activities to fit maybe 90% of the class with differentiated activities. The remaining 10% often need something entirely different planning as they cannot access the normal lesson.

 

When the activities have been set, the HA children can usually work independently and the LA children often can't. Therefore, unless you have adequate and regular in class support, the teacher spends more of their time with the LA children during any activity. 

 

The key to this argument is balance. We obviously cannot increase the number of teachers to the point where there are 6 children in each class and there simply aren't the finances or the desire to remove the SEN children from mainstream education. However, LA children will always pull the brighter kids down as the level of every lesson is pulled down to suit them. The inverse is less likely to be true. If something is pitched below your usual level you will be bored by it, if it is pitched above your usual level you will not understand it. This is just a fact of life.

[Trojan]

I'm not sure where you've got that from. 

 

If I taught a class of 6 bright children all year then of course they would do better than if I taught those 6 in a class of 30. I could move at a much quicker pace with children that generally understand things first time.

 

The reality is that in a class of 30, the lower ability children take up much more of a teacher's time than the higher ability children. When planning a lesson, the teacher pitches the lesson at the middle ability range and then has activities to fit maybe 90% of the class with differentiated activities. The remaining 10% often need something entirely different planning as they cannot access the normal lesson.

 

When the activities have been set, the HA children can usually work independently and the LA children often can't. Therefore, unless you have adequate and regular in class support, the teacher spends more of their time with the LA children during any activity. 

 

The key to this argument is balance. We obviously cannot increase the number of teachers to the point where there are 6 children in each class and there simply aren't the finances or the desire to remove the SEN children from mainstream education. However, LA children will always pull the brighter kids down as the level of every lesson is pulled down to suit them. The inverse is less likely to be true. If something is pitched below your usual level you will be bored by it, if it is pitched above your usual level you will not understand it. This is just a fact of life.

It is also a fact of life that if you find someone can do something better than you, you will try to compete with them.  It is also a fact of life that the only way to improve at anything is to emulate those who are better than you.  It applies in all walks of life, so why not education?  The grammar schools cream off the better kids and thus there are no examples for the less able kids to emulate.  I'm not against streaming in schools, what I am against is removing the more able kids to another school.   By doing this you remove the incentive of the less able to improve.

[Maximus Decimus]

It is also a fact of life that if you find someone can do something better than you, you will try to compete with them.  It is also a fact of life that the only way to improve at anything is to emulate those who are better than you.  It applies in all walks of life, so why not education?  The grammar schools cream off the better kids and thus there are no examples for the less able kids to emulate.  I'm not against streaming in schools, what I am against is removing the more able kids to another school.   By doing this you remove the incentive of the less able to improve.

 

It's important to realise that children are not the same as adults.

 

Aspiration is great but you have to be at a certain level in the first place. If a lesson is pitched at a level too high in relation to your current level of understanding then you stand no chance of understanding it. 

 

Many kids are demoralised by higher achieving pupils and actually thrive on being the best in their lower ability group. Groupings are never purely about levels and the way they work is also taken into account. Many children are intimidated by the clever children who get the answers quicker than they can. Competitiveness is a great motivator but it can also be counter-productive if you constantly think you're losing and stand no chance of winning.

 

What happens in selective education happens on a smaller scale within streaming and within a class. If you are near the bottom of the class, more often than not you're not going to aspire to be as good as the best, you're going to think you're rubbish at that subject. 

[Tommygilf]

I personally am a fan of having the option of grammar schools in a town, and for those who consider it a snobbish Tory thing its most certainly the opposite. From personal experience the grammar schools were and still are percieved as the biggest threat to the old Public Schools, as they did not take into account what mummy and daddy would pay the school, only how intelligent you were (though private tutoring is often brought up its far from uncommon these days in all walks of life for parents to give their kids the best opportunity to succeed, its even evident in RL!). Its a method to change the social status quo, rather than entrench it.

Fundamentally comprehensive schooling fails the brightest pupils it educates. It reduces the (often oversized) class to the lowest common denominator and children aren't treated as individuals but as a number with targets. It fails to address the issues surrounding the acceptance of being bright as "okay" socially, and this is especially true in the North of England as well as in urban areas of London and the south (hence Diane Abbott's children not attending these schools).

[Tommygilf]

Specifically on the labour party, Jeremy Corbyn said in an interview last week that he would leave the decision to open (or re-open) new grammars would be left to local councils under his leadership. The ironic thing with this is that the majority of Tory councils in more affluent areas would support the reintroduction whereas most labour councils would ideologically oppose it, meaning that Labour would be denying the poorer people the chance to take advantage of these schools and the opportunities they present and as such further widening the economic inequity in future generations.

[JohnM]

It is also a fact of life that if you find someone can do something better than you, you will try to compete with them.  It is also a fact of life that the only way to improve at anything is to emulate those who are better than you.  It applies in all walks of life, so why not education?  The grammar schools cream off the better kids and thus there are no examples for the less able kids to emulate.  I'm not against streaming in schools, what I am against is removing the more able kids to another school.   By doing this you remove the incentive of the less able to improve.

But I have already shown you one example, that of Bourne in Lincolnshire, where the local secondary school has achieved excellent GCSE results, showing that those who havent attended Bourne Grammar School have not necessarily had the "incentive to improve" removed. Indeed, I suppose their might actually be some competition between the two schools.

In any case, I suspect that there can be more factors than this in play with low achievers than just the school. Parental attitude might be involved, too.

[Robin Evans]

With all due respect John, whilst i accrpt your example i would like to see a broader comparison. I would imagine that if you made that comparison across the board the results of thr grammar school would overwhelmingly exceed that of the local comp.... though i haven't any data to validate that.

[JohnM]

I'm sure it will show that. My point is that the days, not being at a grammar school is not necessarily the barrier to success that is being claimed .

[Trojan]

It's important to realise that children are not the same as adults.

 

Aspiration is great but you have to be at a certain level in the first place. If a lesson is pitched at a level too high in relation to your current level of understanding then you stand no chance of understanding it. 

 

Many kids are demoralised by higher achieving pupils and actually thrive on being the best in their lower ability group. Groupings are never purely about levels and the way they work is also taken into account. Many children are intimidated by the clever children who get the answers quicker than they can. Competitiveness is a great motivator but it can also be counter-productive if you constantly think you're losing and stand no chance of winning.

 

What happens in selective education happens on a smaller scale within streaming and within a class. If you are near the bottom of the class, more often than not you're not going to aspire to be as good as the best, you're going to think you're rubbish at that subject. 

I'm not a teacher and could never aspire to be one,  What I know is what it feels like to be dumped into a school with no real facilities for learning, using out of date text books in out of date classrooms.  And that is what will happen to the majority of kids in our country if we return to selection at 11.  As keep harping on, it may not be the intention, but it is what will happen, when money is in short supply, and councils prioritise, they will as they did before prioritise the grammar school.  TBH I see nothing wrong with the comprehensive system. It aint broke, why fix it? 

[Trojan]

But I have already shown you one example, that of Bourne in Lincolnshire, where the local secondary school has achieved excellent GCSE results, showing that those who havent attended Bourne Grammar School have not necessarily had the "incentive to improve" removed. Indeed, I suppose their might actually be some competition between the two schools.

In any case, I suspect that there can be more factors than this in play with low achievers than just the school. Parental attitude might be involved, too.

I don't doubt what you say, but it is an exception.  Exceptions prove nothing.  We know why the Tories want to do this.  It the same reason why they want to do anything.  They are an elitist party no matter what they say.  If a few poor kids do get an advantage from this policy, well good, but the main purpose is to benefit the kids of Tory voters.  And once again, where is their mandate for this policy?

[Trojan]

Specifically on the labour party, Jeremy Corbyn said in an interview last week that he would leave the decision to open (or re-open) new grammars would be left to local councils under his leadership. The ironic thing with this is that the majority of Tory councils in more affluent areas would support the reintroduction whereas most labour councils would ideologically oppose it, meaning that Labour would be denying the poorer people the chance to take advantage of these schools and the opportunities they present and as such further widening the economic inequity in future generations.

Which is why it should not be re-introduced, by a government with no mandate for this policy.