effective reintroduction of grammar schools

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

A school has the same resources to all pupils. It has the same buildings, the same teachers. The only thing that streaming does is ensure that all the pupils in the class are capable of working to the same stanard, and those who are striding ahead or lagging behind can be easily moved to another stream, where their intellectual peers are.

The sets have different teachers. Again you are simplifying and talking bollocks.

You are obviously not grasping my point.

Poor teaching is not a sine qua non of comprehensive education. More bollocks.

You do the best for your child, always. You don't let politics get in the way of it. What would keeping my child out of a good school achieve for society?

Some people have political principles. Your child would benefit, and they would want their children (your grandchildren) to benefit from that system.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

The sets have different teachers. Again you are simplifying and talking bollocks.

No they don't. Or no more than any other class anyway.

I can only talk from personal experience, but the teachers took many sets, not just the top one.

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

No they don't. Or no more than any other class anyway.

I can only talk from personal experience, but the teachers took many sets, not just the top one.

But you can't guarantee a certain teacher for a certain set. Even at a grammar school.

Do you think you could ever create a comprehensive system with all schools of the same standard?

You are avoiding crucial questions.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

But you can't guarantee a certain teacher for a certain set. Even at a grammar school.

No, but at least the teachers are in the same building, and are spread out more evenly.

Whilst you can't guarantee teacher A in a comp, you have more chance of enjoying her expertise than if she was at the school down the street where all the bright kids are.

Do you think you could ever create a comprehensive system with all schools of the same standard?

I think we could get quite close to it, but socio-economics will inevitably have an impact on any schooling system. The schools with a vibrant parent-teacher relationship (usually in better-off areas) will do better, of course they will.

We could get much closer than the current system, where anyone who is rich gets a free ride to university and a good education, and anyone who is subjectively adjudged "bright" at an early age gets a good education.

Most schools are not in grammar areas, and do just as well. Grammar schools are a dying breed, and I shan't shed a tear when they finally die.

You are avoiding crucial questions.

Such as?

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

I think we could get quite close to it, but socio-economics will inevitably have an impact on any schooling system. The schools with a vibrant parent-teacher relationship (usually in better-off areas) will do better, of course they will.

Yep. So you cannot claim that comprehensive schools will be fairer whilst there are socio-economic differences in society.

Grammar schools are a dying breed, and I shan't shed a tear when they finally die.

You may when the wealthy take their kids out of the state system and send them privately. That would be a true two-tier system. No chance at all for the poorer.

Such as?

I credit you with the ability to read (despite your comprehensive schooling). Scroll back.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Yep. So you cannot claim that comprehensive schools will be fairer whilst there are socio-economic differences in society.

I can.

I don't claim they will be 100% fair in a beautiful sugary world with harps and angels and no Huddersfield Town fans.

But they will be fairer.

You may when the wealthy take their kids out of the state system and send them privately. That would be a true two-tier system. No chance at all for the poorer.

You're missing the bit where I suggest that private schools should be abolished too.

As for your questions, I have used Ripon as an example to show that the local comps are worse in towns when all the bright kids go to the grammar school. I don't believe wanting something to be banned whilst not wanting to screw your kids over is hypocritical, because my children should have their own choice as to political principles- I don't agree with my parents anymore. I don't think comps will work 100%, but I think they are better than selection in terms of finance or ability at a very young age.

Any question I've missed?

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

But they will be fairer.

Realistically, I disagree.

You're missing the bit where I suggest that private schools should be abolished too.

I read it and laughed. How would that ever happen?

As for your questions, I have used Ripon as an example to show that the local comps are worse in towns when all the bright kids go to the grammar school.

Here's Doncaster's results. No grammar schools, but lots of comps of varying standard. Will you stand by your Ripon point?

Any question I've missed?

Yeah, if you really need me to list them for you.
You haven't justified how parents who have benefitted from a grammar school education would not want their own offspring to benefit also (only implying that you assume your kids will disagree with your choices). You haven't explained how having a grammar school in a town makes all other schools worse than those in towns without a grammar school (apart from the teaching quality, which is an independent point). You haven't convinced me how Comprehensive schooling is designed to provide an individual level of education unique to each child, so that they do indeed reach their potential (apart from through selection, or 'streaming' as you call it). And you didn't tell us whether you think teaching everyone to a universal average standard is a "perfectly fine and moral way to shape a child's entire life".

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

I read it and laughed. How would that ever happen?

for anti terroism reasons obviously

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

Yes that is because they are selective......

Can anyone prove that if we took identical people, put one through a comprehensive, the other through a grammar, that one would on average turn out better than the other?

I say this because I went to a bog-standrad comprehensive and I did fine, and don't really understand why anyone else would not..........

For the record, those children who were MORE able and MORE intelligent than me in the same year of primary school but when to the local comprehensive, did worse academically without exception that I did going to my grammar school.

The comprehensive in question is one of the best in my region.

ETA: just to explain I failed the 12+, (it was disliked by my head, and as such his political and personal preferences had a negative impact on the children he was supposed to be encouraging) but was accepted anyway.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Will you stand by your Ripon point?

Yes, because the difference is so stark.

You haven't justified how parents who have benefitted from a grammar school education would not want their own offspring to benefit also (only implying that you assume your kids will disagree with your choices).

Que?

Totally irrelevant to my point, and not one I was making anyway.

You haven't explained how having a grammar school in a town makes all other schools worse than those in towns without a grammar school

1. Teaching quality- good teachers are attracted to good schools.
2. Pupil quality- if all the cream are in one school, then inevitably this makes all the other schools worse. This isn't restricted to grammar schooling, but grammar schooling magnifies and exacerbates socio-economic discrepancies to an immoral and unethical extent.

You haven't convinced me how Comprehensive schooling is designed to provide an individual level of education unique to each child, so that they do indeed reach their potential (apart from through selection, or 'streaming' as you call it)

Teaching pupils with their academic peers is a good idea, and should be done. That is not my point, and never was.

My point is that putting the "cream" in one school and the "rejects" in the other creates a significant and insurmountable barrier, both for those who over-achieve in the comp and under-achieve in the grammar. You cannot change schools if you improve, and therefore you are trapped in an inferior school, with proven inferior teaching.

Streaming is not fixed, and can be changed at any time. If a child is not suited to one set he can be moved up and down, and his academic performance is not hindered or restricted. You can't do that if you've dumped one kid in a school full of "rejects", which is what comps in a grammar town are.

Sending different pupils to different schools based on an exam performance in young childhood is morally wrong. If you get stuck in the wrong one you can't get out, particularly if you're in the comp. That is the definition of a ghetto, isn't it? Sticking everyone in one place and not allowing them to get out?

And you didn't tell us whether you think teaching everyone to a universal average standard is a "perfectly fine and moral way to shape a child's entire life".

Teaching everyone to the same stanard is the best way of teaching, and grammar schools directly interfere with this idea, as the "clever" kids get better teachers and better resources, as Ripon shows.

Teaching everyone to the same standard isn't the same as teaching everyone the same. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean treating everyone identically, it means giving them the same resources in a school, not dumping them in a school without many intelligent pupils.

Former Member

Just to add -

Local employers who pick those who leave school and go to work will pick those from the "better" school when looking at a big pile of applications even if the people in question get the same grades.

Those with decent incomes tend to be the ones in these schools as well, because

1) Genetics - if little timmy has intelligent parents well, you know the rest.

2) They can afford the books etc that give their kids a leg up.

3) Better nutrition

4) Wider experience such as foreign holidays and so on.

This means that you are in effect splitting people up due to financial status from a very early age. Later in life the "not what you know, who you know" will kick in, too, giving one more advantage to those who went to the good schools."

Now, would I want my kids to go to that "good school?" too fucking right I would. Doesn't mean the system is fair? No of course not.

Former Member

I think we put too much pressure on kids for "academic" success. Outside the "big three" the other subjects are more or less useless unless you actually want to learn them. From my experiences it was quite obvious many did not, even with streaming.

Why should someone have to do a GCSE in Fuckology when they could be learning a skill that could get them a good job?

Marks are not the measure of a man (or women).

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

If giving children a fair chance to find their level in their own time, and not to have their entire destiny mapped out before they've even reached puberty, is "New Labour idealism", then I will take that every time, thank you very much. I will take "New Labour idealism" ahead of tossing children onto the scrapheap over a difference of three marks any day of the week.

Why are you in favour of destroying children's lives before they have even begun?

To add to Kentish's comment about the Kent system, I should add taht the door doesn't close at age 11. It is possible to move, if you wish.

The utopian dream of all children educated to grammar standard is irrelevant. It's the child's capabilities which make a difference here.

Former Member

klintock wrote:

Local employers who pick those who leave school and go to work will pick those from the "better" school when looking at a big pile of applications even if the people in question get the same grades.

Really? I look at grades. I don't care where the person was educated.

This means that you are in effect splitting people up due to financial status from a very early age. Later in life the "not what you know, who you know" will kick in, too, giving one more advantage to those who went to the good schools."

Really? My father was a milkman (no jokes please!) and my mother a phlebotomist. Hardly a silver spoon scenario...

Former Member

I don't think you help yourself by pushing the income line Kermit, both my parents went to Grammar schools form quite poor backgrounds.

The question that is important is that is it any better for us to seperate on lines of intelligence that it is on lines of wealth?

Former Member

Let's clarify a couple of points. You've got a knack for missing the point.

Kermit wrote:

Yes, because the difference is so stark.

Are the differences in Doncaster not equally stark? There are schools in that town with worse results than Ripon College, so your example is nonsense.

Que?

Totally irrelevant to my point, and not one I was making anyway.

I don't speak French, but the point was that parents who have benefitted from good schooling will inevitably want the same for their own.

1. Teaching quality- good teachers are attracted to good schools.
2. Pupil quality- if all the cream are in one school, then inevitably this makes all the other schools worse. This isn't restricted to grammar schooling, but grammar schooling magnifies and exacerbates socio-economic discrepancies to an immoral and unethical extent.

You will acknowledge that these phenomena aren't resticted to grammar schooling, but cannot see the inevitable paradox in your assertion.

Teaching pupils with their academic peers is a good idea, and should be done. That is not my point, and never was.

My point is that putting the "cream" in one school and the "rejects" in the other creates a significant and insurmountable barrier, both for those who over-achieve in the comp and under-achieve in the grammar. You cannot change schools if you improve, and therefore you are trapped in an inferior school, with proven inferior teaching.

Streaming is not fixed, and can be changed at any time. If a child is not suited to one set he can be moved up and down, and his academic performance is not hindered or restricted. You can't do that if you've dumped one kid in a school full of "rejects", which is what comps in a grammar town are.

Sending different pupils to different schools based on an exam performance in young childhood is morally wrong. If you get stuck in the wrong one you can't get out, particularly if you're in the comp. That is the definition of a ghetto, isn't it? Sticking everyone in one place and not allowing them to get out?

It's nothing like a ghetto. It's the same as streaming but in a different building. Is the only objection that the bright and the slow don't walk in the same corridors?

Teaching everyone to the same standard is the best way of teaching, and grammar schools directly interfere with this idea, as the "clever" kids get better teachers and better resources, as Ripon shows.

Towns without grammar schools have good comps and worse comps. Those with money will do all they can to get their offspring into the better schools, inclusing moving house into a catchment area if necessary. How would abolishing the grammar school help in this regard?

Teaching everyone to the same standard isn't the same as teaching everyone the same. Equality of opportunity doesn't mean treating everyone identically, it means giving them the same resources in a school, not dumping them in a school without many intelligent pupils.

But how can you claim in one breath that you want to stream the bright ones out of the ordinary classes, and in the other claim that comprehensives are better because the bright and the less bright are together? They're not.