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
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
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.
Do you think you could ever create a comprehensive system with all schools of the same standard?
You are avoiding crucial questions.
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.
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.
Such as?
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'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?
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".
for anti terroism reasons obviously
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.
Yes, because the difference is so stark.
Que?
Totally irrelevant to my point, and not one I was making anyway.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
Really? I look at grades. I don't care where the person was educated.
Really? My father was a milkman (no jokes please!) and my mother a phlebotomist. Hardly a silver spoon scenario...
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?
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. 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. You will acknowledge that these phenomena aren't resticted to grammar schooling, but cannot see the inevitable paradox in your assertion. 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? 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? 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.