grammar schools

[wheresmyplacebo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3613940.stm

i think this rpvides evidence that grammar schools have their place, but the entry system needs to be made fairer and truly ability based, not training based, for poorer students

[kaptin pikarrrd]

Comprehensive education is top PC.

So what if children are 'demoralised' by failing an entrance exam? Schools should have the right to determine who enters them. If academic achievement is the criteria used, then so be it.

[wheresmyplacebo]

the only obligation the government has to parents with state education, is a good education in a local school, dont need to provide choice if the local schools are really good is it? and well grammar schools should stay part of that

surely a statefunded school that picks by ability, is the most meritocratic you can be, and if they dont pass the entrance requirements, then theres a decent regular school to go to

[_guest]

I went to a Grammar school for sixth form, and the one I went to was a specialist performing arts college. They got to select something like 20% of the intake on their ability at performing arts, even if they failed the 11+. Do people see this as fair?

Personally, I think it is quite unfair-they failed the 11+ test, they shouldn't be allowed in.

[wheresmyplacebo]

why not? it isnt all about one exam whether your abile or not, i didnt quite met my unis grade requirements they let me in still cause i showed them in interview

[Namaste]

Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
So what if children are 'demoralised' by failing an entrance exam? Schools should have the right to determine who enters them. If academic achievement is the criteria used, then so be it.

WE had a look at IQ tests for grammar schools in sociology and even tried them out. Apparently I have an IQ of 80... I mean a lot of questions had references to religious type things (like anagrams of a pope or something), or to foreign things and all that shit... I mean the language was blatantly ethnocentric.

They aren't reeling in the brightest students, they're reeling in the ones familiar with a certain form of the English language.

[kaptin pikarrrd]

Was the 11+ an IQ test?

I see nothing wrong with grammar schools per se.

[Fiend_85]

People do better when they are educated with others of their own ability. With a selective system the less academic students don't feel thick-as because there are so many people doing academically better, and the best academic students aren't held back lesson after lesson by having to re-inforce things for others that they'd grasped long ago.

[Dear Wendy]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
People do better when they are educated with others of their own ability. With a selective system the less academic students don't feel thick-as because there are so many people doing academically better, and the best academic students aren't held back lesson after lesson by having to re-inforce things for others that they'd grasped long ago.

I agree.
Which is also why I have respect for my own school, which managed to take a few of us out in language classes, when the level was clearly way below our standard. And took others out in classes as for example maths, when it was too hard for some people to get around.

[Fiend_85]

Are you aware of how the German school system works Jaqueline? That's my personal favourite. Streaming without the implied 'fail'.

[Dear Wendy]

Theirs is too complicated.
Ours is better (though I would personally have prefered yours).

Here we have one year of pre-school, and then 9 years of regular school.
After that you can either, totally drop out of the school-system. Take 10th grade, if you're not sure what you want to do. Or do gymnasium (high-school) or the equivalent in the education of handcrafts such as electricians, carpenters, buildders etc. Or you can go to a buisnessminded school, which gives tou capacity to be in charge of a store or as a specialised salesman/woman, or a technical school where you have a wide-range of courses and subjects.

No one here is really lost cause of low academical intellect or interest, as there are a lot of other things people can do, rather than just work.

[Fiend_85]

I always thought the German system was fairly simple.

At any rate, personally I like the idea of going through primary school up until the age of 11. The choosing, not being examined on, the best school for you. High-level academia, mid-range standard level education and practical education, HNDs BTECs and vocational courses.

[Kermit]

I am against grammar schools because they effectively consign those who fail the 11+ to the scrap heap. The grammar school gets all the best pupils, and therefore all the best teachers, leaving the comprehensive school down the road to fail miserably. And, even more telling, once you are in the grammar school you won't get kicked out, even if those who just failed the 11+ overtake you academically and become brighter, with more potential.

Eleven is too young to be determining life plans, and a grammar school system does that. If a child is a late developer it is consigned to the scrap heap. And the comprehensive school in grammar school towns is a scrap heap- take Ripon for example. yes, Ripon Grammar is very good, and very successful, but the comprehensives in the city are way below average.

The most effective way of educating children is through the comprehensive system, but by using streaming in all lessons rather than the unworkable "mixed ability" class system.

Vocational training also needs to be brought back in to the education system, this country has steadily declined since the demise of apprecticeships worthy of the name.

[Fiend_85]

Without the grammar system you consign bright pupils with potential to medeocrity. I failed my 12+ (which it was at the time) I never managed to let go of that. So I'm all for ditching the exam to separate pupils, but streaming really brings out the best in everyone.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Without the grammar system you consign bright pupils with potential to medeocrity.

That isn't true, not one bit. When you get comprehensive schools who don't stream, who have "mixed ability" schooling, then that moves everybody to the median level, killing initiative and potential.

I went to a comprehensive school, but it streamed pupils according to ability. The bright were taught by the top teachers, but those who were late-developers, or who couldn't maintain early potential, were moved through the streams until they found their ability level. It works- in my year, two people went to Oxbridge, five to Durham, a couple to Bristol, and so on. And this school was in one of the poorest areas of Bradford, and it was a Catholic school, the Bradford Catholic community still being largely made up by the poor-ish Eastern European immigrants of the 1950s.

[Fiend_85]

I think we're starting to say the same thing. Do you agree that streaming pupils allows for everyone to reach full potential?

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I think we're starting to say the same thing. Do you agree that streaming pupils allows for everyone to reach full potential?

Yes, streaming pupils is necessary to allow fulfilment of full potential.

Streaming pupils by sending them to different schools on the basis of an arbritary exam is despicable and wrong, however. Entrance examinations count as an arbritary examination.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Kermit
Yes, streaming pupils is necessary to allow fulfilment of full potential.

Streaming pupils by sending them to different schools on the basis of an arbritary exam is despicable and wrong, however. Entrance examinations count as an arbritary examination.


I propose scrapping any entry exam in state schools, the streaming should be a personal decision, and there should be the ability to change streaming at various stages, like yr7-GCSE, then GCSE-A-level/Vocational.

[Kermit]

I think we're getting confused over what streaming is. Or we're talkiing about different ways.

At my school it was based on sets, for arguments sakes sets 1 to 10. If you were bright you went in set 1, if you were the opposite you went in set 10. If the situation changed you could be moved at any time, the teachers would monitor pupils progress.

I think that up to the age of 14 then it should be purely academic, but after 14 there should be the option of taking 2-3 days a week from school in order to receive work-based training, such as a mechanic or a plumber or something.

[Adelle]

Most grammar schools now don't even use the same kind of entrance exam so it's hard to judge standards anyway. My school had three exams, one in English (ye olde comprehension test and two essays) a maths exam and then a non-verbal reasoning test. For the record, out of everyone who applied that year, I got the highest mark in English and the lowest mark in maths :D

Of course now Tony and Pals have done away with assisted places, the entrance exam is just a formality before your parents get the chequebook out :rolleyes:

[Fiend_85]

I don't think streaming, in the sense of separating pupils on the basis of academic ability for different styles of teaching, would work if it were in one school.

There's the added dimension of being bullied because you're in the top set of any given subject, if you're at a whole other school then it can be avoided.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Adelle
Most grammar schools now don't even use the same kind of entrance exam

They do, it's called the 11+. I think you mean private schools. The ones where people pay to go to.

[wheresmyplacebo]

yeh students who do badly academically, should be allowed to do vocational studies, and then for the rest they should have sets, but i think they should have sets after y8 or y9

strangely enough my english is bloody awful cause my 2ndry school messed up in between y7 and 8, as i was put in the bottom set, so giving us a book to read was a big deal and the teacher was too busy stopping fights to teach us, so whilst other students were learning essay skills etc i was basically heldback a year as they didnt move me sets

then the year after i was put into top set where i really shouldnt have been, cause i couldnt even do a 500 word essay, and my teacher didnt help, and i dont have private tuition to teach me, i manage to get a L5 in my english sats still whilst rest of my class got L7

and in science and maths i got L8 and L7, only got L7 cause my teacher wouldnt put anyone in for extention paper

the sets system can fail students, especially when they make mistakes! i got held back in probably most imporant year for learning essay writing, and i dont have access to improve, thank god all i do is experiment write ups in my chemistry with maths degree

[Adelle]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
They do, it's called the 11+. I think you mean private schools. The ones where people pay to go to.

The vast majority of grammar schools _are_ private though, at least they all are around here.

[Fiend_85]

Originally posted by Adelle
The vast majority of grammar schools _are_ private though, at least they all are around here.

They are different things. Grammar schools are not the same as private schools. It's basically a given that you're not thick-as and going to a private school, they get good results because then they can charge more money.

[Adelle]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
They are different things. Grammar schools are not the same as private schools. It's basically a given that you're not thick-as and going to a private school, they get good results because then they can charge more money.

I wasn't disputing the fact that they are two different things, many music colleges for instance are private schools. I was merely stating that most, if not all of the grammar schools in my area are privately funded.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Originally posted by Adelle
I wasn't disputing the fact that they are two different things, many music colleges for instance are private schools. I was merely stating that most, if not all of the grammar schools in my area are privately funded.

well they not grammar schools then

grammar schools are state funded, ability selective schools

[Dear Wendy]

Hmm... I don't get the difference between Private, Public and Grammar school.

[Disillusioned]

Originally posted by Jacqueline the Ripper
Hmm... I don't get the difference between Private, Public and Grammar school.

I think this is right:

Public school confusingly is the same as private school - you pay for it.

Grammar schools are usually paid for by the state but they're selective. Although I think some private schools call themselves grammar schools...

:confused: :confused:

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Fiend_85
I don't think streaming, in the sense of separating pupils on the basis of academic ability for different styles of teaching, would work if it were in one school.

But it does work. That is the cold hard fact.

But anyway. If it is streamed through separate schools you are consigning vast swathes of people to the scrap heap. When I was 11 I wouldn't have got into a grammar school, but by the time I was 18 I had the best A'Level results in the whole school. Under a two-tier secondary schooling system I wouldn't have got those grades, because I wouldn't have had the opportunity to.

All two-tier secondary education does is enrich the select group who are bright enough at a set time at the expense of all other people. The people consigned to the lower tier of schooling have no way or getting back to the top tier once they are out of it.

That is quite clearly wrong.

There's the added dimension of being bullied because you're in the top set of any given subject, if you're at a whole other school then it can be avoided.

No it can't. You should see the grief the boys from the private Grammar School down the road get as soon as they leave the school gates.

"Preventing bullying" is the worst possible reason to do anything. Because bullying cannot be prevented.

[Kermit]

The discussion is not about private schooling, it is about the case of ability-selection in the state schooling system.

The best example of this is the city of Ripon in North Yorkshire, where at 11 the children in primary schools are divided up- the ones who do best in the KS2 SAT go to the very good grammar school, the ones who don't dop so well are sent to the below-average comprehensive school.

The ones who "fail" the KS2 SATs are given no opportunity to move up into the grammar school, even if they are a late developer academically, and the school for the "failures" is significantly worse than it would be if the two schools were amalgamated, with classes determined according to ability.

Private schooling is abhorrent and should be abolioshed, but this is an entirely different argument.

[Adelle]

Originally posted by wheresmyplacebo
well they not grammar schools then

grammar schools are state funded, ability selective schools
not to be pedantic or anything but if that's true could you explain why my school's called hipperholme grammar school then? :rolleyes:

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Adelle
so why's my school called hipperholme grammar school then? :rolleyes:

Because that's what it decided to call itself.

The term "grammar school" strictly refers to ability-selective schools, regardless of sector, but this term is largely outdated. In this context the term is being used to refer to state-funded ability-selective schools.

For the record, I went to St. Flange Grammar School in Bradford (no, that's not it's real name) but it had been a Catholic comprehensive school for fifty years.

[FireFly85]

I think here we have to consider the correlation between social depravation - being "poor" - and lower academic ability/motivation. Before anyone starts on me I am in no way saying that people who don't have a lot of money are thick, but there is definitely a relationship between having less money and being less academically focused.

I live in a deprived area (Medway in Kent) which also has grammar schools. From my experience, those individuals who came from poorer areas but went to grammar school were the ones that tended to drop out as soon as they could to get a job, hardly any of them carried on to do sixth form or other academic courses or training. I think there is definitely an "attitude" amongst a lot of financially deprived young people that it is more important for them to get out there and get earning than it is to focus on and continue with education to get a better job in the long run. This is obviously understandable, and I think there are so many other factors involved when poorer children perform worse academically than just the grammar/coprehensive school divide.

Just because a child does not pass the 11+, I do not think this reflects on them permanently - a vast number of students joined my grammar school sixth form from comprehensive schools and indeed had performed better in their GCSEs than a lot of those who had always been educated at grammar school.

In my personal opinion as an ex-grammar school student, it would have made me feel terrible to have close friends who were in the "bottom" group of streaming for any particular subject whilst I was in the top, and at the same time I would have feel very self-conscious if as a student I had been in a lower ability group. Streaming occurs in both grammar and comprehensive schools anyway, but I think it can make the individual feel a bit better knowing that regardless of whether they are in the "top" or "bottom" group (as they will undoubtedly be termed) they are still in a school with students of a similar ability and aren't drastically under/over performing in relation to their peers.

Kermit, I think your argument that grammar schools get all the best teachers and effectively leave those in comprehensive schools "on the rubbish heap" is undermined by the fact that you also said

The bright were taught by the top teachers, but those who were late-developers, or who couldn't maintain early potential, were moved through the streams until they found their ability level.

If the "bright" are always going to be taught by the top teachers, then those in lower groups are always going to be deprived of those top teaching methods in one way or another. I understand that streaming children all in one school gives those of lower abilities an opportunity to catch up, but most comprehensive schools that are in an area with grammar schools have "grammar streams", for students that are basically working at a grammar school level, so for these children the opportunity is always there.

[Adelle]

Originally posted by Kermit
Because that's what it decided to call itself.

The term "grammar school" strictly refers to ability-selective schools, regardless of sector, but this term is largely outdated. In this context the term is being used to refer to state-funded ability-selective schools.

My school's been Hipperholme Grammar since 1647, it was private then (well, it was a private boys boarding school if we're being picky) and it still is now.

Anyway, for the record, I think having to pay for a decent education is quite absurd (my parents only did because of the lack of suitable schools near us).

[Kermit]

Originally posted by almost_innocent
there is definitely a relationship between having less money and being less academically focused.

This is very true. It tends to be as a result of parental conditioning, as much as anything- the poor won't aspire to reach the top, so they won't push themselves to get there. There is a serious problem among the poorest people in society of low academic achievement and low ability in the three Rs, and this is passed through the generations. Mum didn't see the point of school, so daughter or son won't either.

The Sure Start programme introduced by New Labour is certainly something that, if it works properly, will help this problem dramatically. It is true that low ambition breeds low social involvement, and also breeds other problems such as alcohol and drug dependency, and teenage sex and pregnancy.Just because a child does not pass the 11+, I do not think this reflects on them permanently - a vast number of students joined my grammar school sixth form from comprehensive schools and indeed had performed better in their GCSEs than a lot of those who had always been educated at grammar school.

Kermit, I think your argument that grammar schools get all the best teachers and effectively leave those in comprehensive schools "on the rubbish heap" is undermined by the fact that you also said...

This doesn't undermine my argument at all. The top teachers were available to all streams, and they taught all streams, not just the top streams. I should have explained myself better, but what I meant was that a comprehensive schooling does not deprive pupils of the best teachers, but it also gives the weaker pupils access to the teachers too.

Whilst a two-tier secondary education would not deprive all children of the opportunity to excel, it is my belief that it does not allow late developers time or the opportunity to catch up. As a general rule if you are bright enough you are good enough, but there is two serious problems about the division of school. The problem of late developers is one thing, but what about early developers?

If a child falls down behind the rest of the grammar school pupils, there is no opportunity for this child to get the help he or she needs without changing schools, which is damaging to the child's sense of stability and his or her sense of achievement, which wouldn't be helped by the feeling of "failing" at the grammar school. Moving a set down wouldn't have this same sense of failure.

Having friends in lower sets isn't really that much of an issue, or it wasn't at my school anyway. If a boy from a lower set was good at football, say, he wasn't short of friends from all tiers, and even if he wasn't there was little sense of exclusion.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Adelle
My school's been Hipperholme Grammar since 1647, it was private then (well, it was a private boys boarding school if we're being picky) and it still is now.

Did you actually read what I said?

Anyway, for the record, I think having to pay for a decent education is quite absurd (my parents only did because of the lack of suitable schools near us).

Hipperholme and Calderdale isn't that bad for schools, it depends on how snobby one is. Sorry if that sounds offensive, but I hear it all the time in Bradford- "oh, Reginald only goes to the private school because there are no good state schools". Which is utter bollocks, because I went to a good state school.

[Adelle]

I didn't say there weren't any GOOD schools around here, I said there weren't any SUITABLE schools and by that I meant suitable for ME. Just because I went to a private school doesn't mean I'm some snobby, toffee-nosed twit so please don't attempt to make me sound like one.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Adelle
Just because I went to a private school doesn't mean I'm some snobby, toffee-nosed twit so please don't attempt to make me sound like one.

Of course not. And I aren't.

I think every private school should be shut down and the children forced into the state sector, but that is a diffenent issue.

[Disillusioned]

Originally posted by Adelle
I didn't say there weren't any GOOD schools around here, I said there weren't any SUITABLE schools and by that I meant suitable for ME. Just because I went to a private school doesn't mean I'm some snobby, toffee-nosed twit so please don't attempt to make me sound like one.

To say that all private school pupils are posh is a crass generalisation. Ironically, the people who constantly bring up that stereotype are the same people that claim to be against any form of prejudice and narrow-mindedness…

As I only know two people at private school (although neither of them are posh) I can’t really say whether I think private school pupils are posh or not. But, given that so many people go to private schools I don’t think all of them can be aristocratic upper-class snobs…

I’m at a state grammar school but not really out of choice. In Amersham and this area almost everyone takes the 11+.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Disillusioned
But, given that so many people go to private schools I don’t think all of them can be aristocratic upper-class snobs…

Most private school pupils are from middle-class families who are just trying to give their children a head-start in life. I dislike the attitude that "there aren't any good state schools so I'm forced to send Chelsea private", because it isn't true, but that's not the same thing.

In a meritocratic society private schools have no place, and they should be closed down. Assisted Places was quite rightly closed down, as people shouldn't be given an advtange at the expense of everyone else, and the whole private sector needs to be closed down too.

[Adelle]

Originally posted by Kermit
Of course not. And I aren't.

I think every private school should be shut down and the children forced into the state sector, but that is a diffenent issue.

Sorry, I just get rather sick of people assuming that private school = mummy and daddy are Lord and Lady Wotsit, never worked a day in their lives &c. Especially when I hear it from people who live on the same bloody street as me but that's besides the point. As I said somewhere earlier on, I think it's ridiculous that for whatever reasons they might have (aside from playing some pathetic game of one-upmanship because people like that ought to be shot anyway) people have to pay for their child's education but unless the English school system gets a serious kick up the arse, then people will continue to pay.

[Disillusioned]

Kermit,

If you shut private schools down rich people will just send their kids to private schools abroad.

Anyway the government will never shut private schools down. Firstly because plenty of MP’s went to private schools and secondly because parents sending their kids to private school saves the government money.

I don’t like private schools as I think they probably lack diversity and create a somewhat false existence. However, if parents want to send their kids to one they should be able to.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Disillusioned
If you shut private schools down rich people will just send their kids to private schools abroad.

Good riddance.

Anyway the government will never shut private schools down. Firstly because plenty of MP’s went to private schools

That's why I think they should be. the state schooling system will never get any better whilst the elite have no advantage (and, in fact, a distinct disadvantage) should they get better.

There is no place for cash-selective schools in a meritocratic society. All it does is ensure that the elite remain the elite, and every bugger else gets shat on from a great height.

Private schools are not populated by aristocrats, but they are populated by the elite. It is greatly undesirable for the elite to continue to breed the elite, without giving the rest of society the ability to compete. If you're poor you can't go to private school, so the rich elite breed the rich elite who breed the rich elite.

Yes, I would send my children to a private school, because I believe it gives them an unfair advantage. Any parent would want that for their child. It doesn't make it right for them to be allowed to do so.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Adelle
Sunless the English school system gets a serious kick up the arse, then people will continue to pay.

People will pay even if the state school system is excellent.

"I don't want my dahling Georgina mixing with the hoi polloi" is a very common attitude. It's just the way it is.

[Disillusioned]

Kermit,

Either way it is irrelevant. Private schools will never be outlawed as you want. Denying people the freedom to set up or attend an educational establishment independent from the state would also be a gross infringement on people’s rights to live their life without government interference.

Private schools are unfair but so is private healthcare. It’s unfair that some people can use their connections to get a well paid job at Daddy’s friends stockbrokers immediately after graduating. ‘Life ain’t fair’. To outlaw something because it’s ‘unfair’ is a ridiculous ideology – the whole idea of something being unfair is entirely subjective. It’s idealistic nonsense.

[Renzo]

*buts in*

I went to a grammar school, well i managed to get to one. After a year at a comprehensive as i 'failed' the 11+ so by their standards I would have not been suitable for a grammar school environment....I have just come out with ABB in my A Levels.

I *do* think the system is unfair, it was so demorilising to think that I was a failure it almost makes children think that its not worth bothering in a comprehensive. However there is the argument that it gets the better students better grades, why not just have different classes in one high school?

[The Doc]

Originally posted by Kermit
Yes, I would send my children to a private school, because I believe it gives them an unfair advantage. Any parent would want that for their child. It doesn't make it right for them to be allowed to do so.

Why is it unfair?

If the state education systems was amazingly good and parents still sent their children to a private school, then I don't see problem with it. It wouldn't be an advantage, because they would be as good as each other. However, a country where every comprehensive is brilliant is idealistic pap.

A clever child is going to excel wherever they go. At the risk of appearing to use flattery to make a point, you seem to be a good example of this. That's why kids from local schools (and some of the schools around here are among the worst in the Midlands) go to Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol etc. On the other end of the scale, I go to school with kids who, however much money their parents waste, are never going to make much for themselves because they are stupid and lazy.

[Kermit]

Using money to get a better education is not compatible with a meritocratic society.

Of course they'll never be banned- the elite have too much to lose by banning them. That isn't the point, is it?

Drugs will never be legalised, but that doesn't negate the very valid reasons for doing so.

[The Doc]

Originally posted by Kermit
Using money to get a better education is not compatible with a meritocratic society.

Even when ability comes first? An isolated case, my own school, makes the kids take the test first, and then the financial side is looked once the kids are accepted. So if/when state schools, as a whole, are improved, what is the problem? The dumb, rich kids do go to state schools, or a public school (which, I think has more to do with social status than the quality of the school) and smart kids who don't come from affluent backgrounds are given bursaries. Which is why I don't understand why you disagree with Fiend 85's idea of streaming as opposed to your own. If the good teachers are spread accross the board, and they are, naturally, then the kids at the comprehensives don't suffer, as at the end of the day, it's about the teaching, not the school itself.

[Kermit]

In an equal schooling world then private schooling wouldn't bother me so much, as it'd be more about social kudos then the education.

My point is quite easy. Teachers choose schools upon reputations- schiools that are seen as "failing" find it very difficult to appoint teachers, and in towns where there are grammar schools the other schools in that areas are seen to be failing in comparison to the average. A school that does not have access to the brightest pupils is not going to be as a good as one that does. And if it is not as good it will not get as much funding, in these days of performance-related funding.

My issue about the grammar school system is not about the teaching, per se, it is about the fact that the children who get bundled into the poorer school get stuck there, in a poor school, and they are consigned to the scrap heap in comparison to the pupils lucky enough to go to the good, well-funded school down the road. The very brightest are not the issue- they will perform well anywhere- but the ones who are middling ARE the issue.

One or two exam percentage points aged eleven should not be the deciding factor between a good education and good life prospects, and the opposite. Read the BBC article again- that is exactly what happens. Such a narrow margin should not be used to determine the fate of a person's entire life, especially not at such a young age.