If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
grammar schools
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
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
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
0
Comments
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.
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
Personally, I think it is quite unfair-they failed the 11+ test, they shouldn't be allowed in.
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.
I see nothing wrong with grammar schools per se.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
They do, it's called the 11+. I think you mean private schools. The ones where people pay to go to.
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.