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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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The term "grammar school" strictly refers to ability-selective schools, regardless of sector, but this term is largely outdated.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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
Did you actually read what I said?
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.
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.
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+.
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.
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.
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.
Good riddance.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.