[Closed] Grammar Schools, again.....

Del - Its a tough one, but at the end of it all, parents need to be invested in their childrens future. I want my kids to go to a school where the parents give a damn about what happens there, and avoid as many as possible that don't.

[b]binners dantsw13[/b], so what can we do to help them? If their upbringing is being sat infront of the plasma tv to while away the day, watching the likes of the kardashians or<insert current reality sleb phenomenom> then that inevitably will be their aspiration.

I think we have to face the fact there is always going to be an underclass badly brought up by it's parents and without a forced route to an alternative (prison/reformschool/national service) which makes me sound like some right wing a-hole, I'm actually not, but do despair at the UK syndrome, poor immigrants are not like it. What do we have to do?

What would you propose would turn the other 75% round?

I want my kids to go to a school where the parents give a damn about what happens there, and avoid as many as possible that don't.

Skimmed some of the above, but wanted to address this:

Its obvious the government dont give a crap about social mobility

This year the proportion of students entering Oxford from State Schools is the highest for at least 40 years.

1. 40% of OxBridge places went to state-educated kids. But 95% of kids are state-educated. Hardly a shining beacon of equality. (Number from memory, but about right.)
2. This year's uni entrants were the last ones to [i]not[/i] do the Tory government's reformed A levels, instead sitting the Curriculum 2000 A levels introduced by Labour. They started secondary when Labour were in power, so got most of their education under a Labour government's system.

The grammars in my area (Skipton) have a bizarre entrance policy - they deliberately limit and fix the proportion of kids from the actual catchment who can attend, and base offers to kids from further away on the mark achieved by the last local pupil above the cut off.

So rather than offer education (or at least choice) to more local kids, even if they achieve a respectable mark, they tart out the places to families up to 40/50 miles away. Kids from Ripon and the other side of Bradford end up getting places.

Backfired badly in the year my son took the test, as the local comp had been put in special measures and the tutor arms race went nuclear as a result. Average scores from Skipton kids in the test were so high they couldn't find enough qualifying out of area candidates to fill the remaining places and ended up short of numbers.

My lad made it by one mark...

Also, can we delete the posts of anyone spelling it grammer? Unless they were educated in a grammar.

Also, can we delete the posts of anyone spelling it grammer?

Elitism!

[img] [/img]

Surely Grammar schools are just an extension of setting? Competitive sport? At what point do we accept that life is a competition? One of the reasons I work hard is to give my family options and opportunities. I do believe in opportunities for all, but my main priority is my kids.

I do despair at the underclass we are creating in this country, but at the moment, whatever system a lot of kids end up in they show no interest towards.

Elitism!

I went to a shit primary school, a shit secondary school, and Durham University. It's not elitism, it's standards 🙂

Surely Grammar schools are just an extension of setting?

Except, most schools that stream pupils for ability don't fix the groups at age 10 based on a nonsensical intelligence test, then leave them languishing there even if they show the capacity to improve later in childhood.

dont know but its not the creaming off of the best pupils, resources and teachers to the top 25% via grammar schools

I'll attack that on 2 (and a bit) points.

1) Why should the top 25% suffer for the needs of the many? There's already a problem whereby resources are diverted towards kids predicted to get C's and D's at GCSE to bolster the schools pass rate at the expense of pushing those kids on B's to get A's.

2) Resources, schools with a higher number of poor kids get more funding already (with the exception of fee paying schools).

2.1) Teachers, as a result of 2, schools with more money can pay more for teachers, so they have a choice, an easy life at a good school, or more money elsewhere.

which is fair enough and i don't blame anyone for wanting the very best for their kids at all.
however as a society we have an obligation to help those who ( for whatever reason ) cannot help themselves. juveniles, by their very definition, fall in to this category. for well-educated parents, a good education is obviously of enormous benefit that they will push down their kids' throat almost from day one. for the less well educated, the advantages are clearly not as tangible - they haven't experienced them first hand.

good education for all leads to better results for all of us, better health, fewer social problems, the benefits for all go on and on.

As has been said above the middle classes would be better served ensuring that all schools were good schools.

I just love this sort of sweeping statement as if it were so easy to achieve just by saying so.

Yes, and all hospitals would be great with no waiting lists, all trains would be on time with no overcrowding. Housing would also be cheap and readily available too.

There is a certain type of child who just can't or won't respond to any sort of teaching environment no matter how good and I think that proportion may be larger than most people want to admit to. You can't help all of the people all of the time.

went to a shit primary school, a shit secondary school, and Durham University. It's not elitism, it's standards

Traitor! 😀

I did a test at 8+ too - might as well prepare early 😀

MartinH - That is true to an extent, but we then need a better test, not an egalitarian system.

Surely Grammar schools are just an extension of setting? Competitive sport? At what point do we accept that life is a competition?

Most competitions and sports have rules to ensure fairness. Rich kids getting in grammars because their parents bought a house in a good primary catchment and paid for tutoring to get them through the 11+ is like academic doping.

In sport, that wouldn't be allowed. In education, that's government policy.

I do believe in opportunities for all, but my main priority is my kids.

If you only care about yourself, vote Tory. If you care about others, vote [s]Labour[/s] Green.

1) Why should the top 25% suffer for the needs of the many? There's already a problem whereby resources are diverted towards kids predicted to get C's and D's at GCSE to bolster the schools pass rate at the expense of pushing those kids on B's to get A's.

Schools are now monitored on progress, not on pass rates.

2) Resources, schools with a higher number of poor kids get more funding already (with the exception of fee paying schools).

Not that much more funding. Plus, the weaker schools have now been farmed off into academy chains, so that cash is going to the chief exec and the overpriced books they're buying from their publishing arm.

2.1) Teachers, as a result of 2, schools with more money can pay more for teachers, so they have a choice, an easy life at a good school, or more money elsewhere.

See above. Plus, the extra cash for Pupil premium has to be spent of specific things, and I don't think pay rises for teachers are in the mix. (And it's not enough extra for a substantial rise anyway.)

In the interests of transparency: I teach in a selective sixth form College - you need 5 C grades including maths [i]or[/i] English to study A levels here.

Miketually - I'd say there is a very close comparison between Grammars and sport. Parents with more money can pay for kit/coaching/facilities for their kids. Sport certainly isn't a level playing field. Would an equally talented cyclist from GB and Namibia have equal chances of Olympic success in the velodrome?

In terms of politics, Ive voted 3 different colours in the last 3 General Elections.

I also think acadamisation is a scandal.

Miketually - I'd say there is a very close comparison between Grammars and sport. Parents with more money can pay for kit/coaching/facilities for their kids. Sport certainly isn't a level playing field. Would an equally talented cyclist from GB and Namibia have equal chances of Olympic success in the velodrome?

I was taking your analogy and stretching it too far 🙂

The Olympics are a good example though: rich countries do better. If you were designing them from scratch, with the aim of making them purely a reflection of ability and effort, wouldn't you try to design that out?

If so, shouldn't we do the same with the education system?

[i]Wwaswas,

How though?[/i]

Sure Start was making massive difference to children (and parents) from low income (and often low achieving) areas being receptive to education - attending, learning, showing improvement.

It was axed by the Tories.

There's numerous other examples of how focusing on schools and ignoring other social and societal issues does not solve the problems.

Creaming off the top 25% of kids at an early age and grooming them for success does nothing for those that know they will never be those kids and diverts focus and resources away from those who would probably show more 'improvement' for the same investment.

binners dantsw13, so what can we do to help them? If their upbringing is being sat infront of the plasma tv to while away the day, watching the likes of the kardashians or<insert current reality sleb phenomenom> then that inevitably will be their aspiration.

You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them. Absolutely stream their education according to ability but make sure that it's possible to move between streams rather than deciding on a child's likely educational aspirations at 11.

I also think acadamisation is a scandal.

Its just a step towards full privatisation of education. I know someone who has just been in to teach pupils in sparkly new academy in a not too salubrious area. Their exact words used to to describe this brave new world, free of local authority control, and under the guidance of more businesslike professionals.....?

"An absolute ****ing shambles'

You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them.

This.

I currently teach in one of the existing grammar schools. Not only that, we're also local authority! Pretty rare these days.

I agree with what folks say about entry, we have 2 types of kids, bright kids and posh kids. Bright ones get in on their own merit (we serve a disadvantaged area) and the posh ones are shipped in daily from miles away and spent the first 11 years of their lives being prepped to pass a test.

That said, we get excellent results (well into the top 100 this year for GCSE) yet we are the 2nd lowest funded school in the country. There's no way in hell we'd be able to achieve that as a typical secondary, we wouldn't have the man power.

Still, as a downtrodden prole from sunny Doncaster, I don't agree with the system. Separating students by ability is not a new thing, nor is it limited to grammar schools, every secondary will split GCSE groups into ability groups for maths, English and science. That said, the method used by grammar schools favours those with deep pockets.

It's quite a nice place to work though 🙄

In the interests of transparency: I teach in a selective sixth form College - you need 5 C grades including maths or English to study A levels here.

Whats wrong with that. If you are unable to achieve 5 C grades including M&E then A levels are probably not the correct choice for you.

I currently teach in one of the existing grammar schools...we get excellent results...yet we are the 2nd lowest funded school in the country....It's quite a nice place to work though

v

I currently teach in one of the existing grammar schools...we have 2 types of kids, bright kids and posh kids*....I don't agree with the system...the method used by grammar schools favours those with deep pockets.

Excuse the editing but an interesting summary? I doubt the bright v posh is a mutually exclusive as this makes out, but point taken otherwise.

[Always available to prep people for 11+, CE, scholarship, GCSE and A level 😀 ]

We all do but we also should still GAS about helping those kids already disadvantaged by having parent who dont GAS rather than the state joining in and also not GAS as that will not make anythign better for them.

But that is the plan Junky! Clearly two dim parents are likely to produce dim children, but if they have bred someone clever, then this system will allow that child to break out of their system and achieve their potential.

As mentioned before, there must be a way of creating a test that does not allow tutored pupils to get in front of brighter untutored children. Its actually all about getting our best kids to achieve and becoming the next generation of Doctors and Scientists etc. Its about getting British kids a platform to perform on the world stage, rather than leaving them in a class full of rowdy kids who don't GAS.

The plan is NOT to abandon those remaining in current systems, but to continue to improve them....as results have proved, has been done in recent years.

Whats wrong with that. If you are unable to achieve 5 C grades including M&E then A levels are probably not the correct choice for you.

[i]You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them.[/i]

This.

THIS??? Really? Jeez....you try and educate kids in mixed ability environment and you get what I grew up with, which wasn't a good environment to learn. No, you need to separate the kids who have no interest and allow kids who want to do well to learn in an ideal environment. How can anyone achieve their full potential in a class full of kids messing around continually?

The point is

If you intervened earlier than 11, then the rest of the class wouldn't be rowdy kids

And you wouldn't need grammar schools to let the bright ones shine

But middle class voters don't want their tax money spent on put kids at sure start centres, they just want a nice exclusive school they've bought their way into by tutoring etc

And in my view it's what happens to and how these kids that don't make the grade are labelled.

By who?

There's nothing wrong in being an academic failure,

Sorry, spoke too soon

You can succeed in so many other fields. We focus too much on academic results, and money and celebrity (among others) as measures of success. And it's wrong.

True. We all excel in different things. They key is to identify what they are and then develop them as much as possible. You are not a failure because you cant take exams or lack academic rigour.

And in my view it's what happens to and how these kids that don't make the grade are labelled. There's nothing wrong in being an academic failure, you can succeed in so many other fields.
We focus too much on academic results, and money and celebrity (among others) as measures of success. And it's wrong.

Yes....it was the labour parties plan to get all our kids into Uni that started a lot of problems, rather than focusing on non academic kids, who would have been better off serving apprenticeships or doing courses in trades etc.

In the interests of transparency: I teach in a selective sixth form College - you need 5 C grades including maths or English to study A levels here.

Whats wrong with that. If you are unable to achieve 5 C grades including M&E then A levels are probably not the correct choice for you.

I was actually slightly making a counter-point, albeit not very well. The selection we do is so minimal as to be almost no selection.

The point is

If you intervened earlier than 11, then the rest of the class wouldn't be rowdy kids

And you wouldn't need grammar schools to let the bright ones shine

But middle class voters don't want their tax money spent on put kids at sure start centres, they just want a nice exclusive school they've bought their way into by tutoring etc

sorry Kimbers, but IMHO, that is complete Bollox!

Clearly two dim parents and likely to produce dim children, but if they have bred someone clever, then this system will allow that child to break out of their system and achieve their potential.

kids whose parents are dim ( as you put it ) don't encourage their kids from an early age to actively pursue education so fewer of them get in to grammars.

I doubt the bright v posh is a mutually exclusive as this makes out

All that foie gras dulls the senses, don't you know.

You educate them in a mixed ability environment. Let them socialise with kids from a broad range of backgrounds, let them see that there are opportunities available to them.

I disagree at least with the first bit. The first aim (since we are speaking about education) is to provide the best opportunity to maximise whatever academic skills you have been gifted with. Peer pressure (for want of a better phrase) is a big part of that.

As an anecdote (sorry) one of my sons, had a school peer group that was not academically focused and that was hard for him. In contrast at Uni, he lived with friends (from a wide social and academic background but) who all shared the desire to work hard and do well. The "Flat" achieved three firsts and three 2:1s.

Those who chose to work hard succeeded irrespective of money, class, social or academic background.

THIS??? Really? Jeez....you try and educate kids in mixed ability environment and you get what I grew up with, which wasn't a good environment to learn. No, you need to separate the kids who have no interest and allow kids who want to do well to learn in an ideal environment. How can anyone achieve their full potential in a class full of kids messing around continually?

The sixth form college in which I teach is in a town with no grammars, surrounded by other non-grammar areas from which we also enroll students.

There's still some selection in the secondaries which feed to us, with the 'best' schools being in more expensive areas but it's not academic selection at an arbitrary point.

This year, more kids from the 'worst' school in town went to Oxford or Cambridge than from the 'best' school in the town.

Would they do so well in a grammar system? The data says not.

sorry Kimbers, but IMHO, that is complete Bollox!

Do you have evidence to back up your opinion? Because the evidence says it's not bollocks.

Those who chose to work hard succeeded irrespective of money, class, social or academic background.

Not true, sorry.

If this were the case, 95% of OxBridge students would be from state schools. Unless you think privately educated kids are more likely to work hard?

That said, we get excellent results (well into the top 100 this year for GCSE) yet we are the 2nd lowest funded school in the country. There's no way in hell we'd be able to achieve that as a typical secondary, we wouldn't have the man power.

You wouldn't be expected to attain top 100 status with an open admission policy, though I'd imagine some schools do. Hats off to them!

Unless you think privately educated kids are more likely to work hard?

On the contrary, I know from experience that this is not (necessarily) the case.

As I said earlier, the causation theories are flawed. Other factors are involved. Starting with parents...

I disagree at least with the first bit. The first aim (since we are speaking about education) is to provide the best opportunity to maximise whatever academic skills you have been gifted with. Peer pressure (for want of a better phrase) is a big part of that.

I agree, and non selective education allows a greater proportion of the population to maximise whatever academic skills they have been gifted with as opposed to a selective education system which only provides that opportunity to the top tier*.

* Clearly not the very top tier as the likes of Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow etc don't really come into this discussion.

Sorry, spoke too soon

Sorry C'pn I was pulling your leg there!!

Clearly not the very top tier as the likes of Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow etc don't really come into this discussion.

I'll shut up them but FWIW they do....in fact they illustrate the "other factors" well

I'll shut up them but FWIW they do....in fact they illustrate the "other factors" well

Wasn't an attempt to shut you down at all, the more voices the better.

The reason I said that they weren't relevant is because they are not part of the state system and are really part of a separate discussion. To my mind this is more about how to achieve the best education for the greatest number of kids within the state system.

[edit] I may be wrong about the nature of the thread though and to be honest by page 4 I'd be expecting this thing to go wildly off the rails at any moment.

It's quite a nice place to work though

This is a massive reason why areas with Grammars end up with lower performance in other schools as they cream off the best teachers.

the causation theories are flawed

Essentially if they gave no advantage then no one would pay for it would they. Its not even debatable without lying or ignoring the evidence

Clearly you sent your kids to private school to give them a better education and not to waste your money as it made **** all difference

Stop being so dishonest

We need to achieve the best for all levels across the academic spectrum. Whilst there is any choice in state schools, the engaged parents will always try to keep their kids away from the worst perceived problems, so so will always have sink schools however you structure it.

There are plenty of extremely bright kids outside the grammar system for a multitude of reasons, so you already have the academic spread called for earlier. Abolishing the grammar system just removes another place for pushing the academically bright, which I think is a mistake.

Blimey, its sunny down south but clearly pouring down up North 😀

they cream off the best teachers.

How odd?

Abolishing the grammar system just removes another place for pushing the academically bright, which I think is a mistake.

So other than Kent, Reading and a handful of other places is everywhere else shit and not pushing the gifted?

Do you want universities to ban entrance requirements too?

How odd?

Why? As the man said they are nice places to work, meanwhile teachers are leaving state schools in droves. Now I know from experience that Grammars where I live dont struggle with recruitment whilst other schools in the area really really do.

AA, do you put words into the mouths of your students too? 😉

Why? As the man said they are nice places to work, meanwhile teachers are leaving state schools in droves. Now I know from experience that Grammars where I live dont struggle with recruitment whilst other schools in the area really really do.

so the conclusion is......?

I think that proportion may be larger than most people want to admit to.

You can't help all of the people all of the time

AA, do you put words into the mouths of your students too

Does any of the shite you post ever make sense? Do you ever tire of casting aspersions on my ability to do my job?

I'd disagree about creaming off the best teachers, and disagree with sweeping statements saying grammar schools are better as they get better results. Of course they will, as they have the best kids. So other non-selective schools will perform worse as we were all judged on the % of A*-C inc. En & Ma.

The divisiveness of the grammar system highlights much wider societal problems that need to be addressed.

Junkyard - I think Aspiring for the best for ALL children is a great ideal. Personally, I just believe stretching the top end is as important as inclusiveness.

I'd disagree about creaming off the best teachers,

Why?
Obviously not all and some teachers at Grammars will no doubt be shit but all the evidence I've seen from up close shows they have less difficulty getting people to apply for jobs and have a bigger choice at interview (or indeed any choice or any applications).

sorry Kimbers, but IMHO, that is complete Bollox

Rockape the FT article that analysed the levels of social mobility and academic achievement completely backed up my Bollox

So do numerous studies showing that grammar schools benefit a tiny minority (of richer kids) while disadvantaging a much larger number (of poorer kids).

Abolishing the grammar system just removes [b]another[/b] place for pushing the academically bright, which I think is a mistake.
So other than Kent, Reading and a handful of other places is everywhere else shit and not pushing the gifted?

AA - please dont do what you accuse THM of.

and disagree with sweeping statements saying grammar schools are better as they get better results

Do you want universities to ban entrance requirements too?

No not at all, there's a big difference between testing someone at the age of 11 and at 18.

For me, one of the great things about Grammars, is the exceptionally bright pupils aren't made to feel like "The Odd Geeky Ones"

Bizarrely THM is going with his gut on this one and ignoring the facts

He'll be supporting Brexit next!

AA - please dont do what you accuse THM of.

There is no doubt that Grammars do push those who get into them but how the circle can be squared with them having such a negative impact on the vast majority that dont get in is beyond me. On balance they are a bad thing imo. Others may disagree like some in the government apparently but trying to dress them up as helping social mobility is underhand at best.

I work in a non-selective, I also have many friends who work in the grammar system in Kent. Every school is having issues hiring teachers at the moment.

It is easier attracting teachers to the grammar system as it is seen as an 'easier' option.

Many of the lessons I have observed in a grammar school have been dire, many of the teachers I have collaborated with have been next to useless. However, they still get good results.

Can we stop calling it the "grammar school system". It's not. It's the "secondary modern system".

Three to four times more kids ended up at secondary moderns - with all the sense of failure and tyranny of low expectations and other problems that went with them - than went to grammar schools. It's like calling the London road network "the cycling network" because about a fifth of journeys on them are on a bike.*

Just because the government have started taking about "inclusive" grammar schools (that's what we call an oxymoron kids) and wouldn't touch the term secondary modern with a barge pole doesn't make it any less about condemning kids at age 11 to years of mediocre expectations from their press, parents and teachers.

*NB I have no idea if those figures about London roads are correct but you get the idea. Also, we should totally start calling the road network the cycling network.

I work in a non-selective, I also have many friends who work in the grammar system in Kent. Every school is having issues hiring teachers at the moment.

It is easier attracting teachers to the grammar system as it is seen as an 'easier' option.

I'd disagree about creaming off the best teachers, based on what I've seen in my current school.

For one thing, I work here. Jk/ I try, but I am certainly no super teacher.

In my experience here, teachers can get away with more as the students are so lovely. My time isn't (usually) spent on crowd control, I can actually teach, and most of the time the students will listen, because the atmosphere created by the school is so positive. In other schools I've worked in, my time was spent stopping kids stealing craft knives to slash teacher's cars. I used to feel awful for the more willing kids who get left to it, but what else can you do!

Sorry AA - I felt you were putting words in my mouth, as you had just accused THM of.

As for being shit at my job, I'll find out tomorrow, as I have my annual simulator check, which I am allegedly studying for at the moment!

I came from a Norfolk working class family, that benefitted hugely from the government Assisted Places scheme putting me through an Independent Grammar School. It was a crying shame that scheme was abolished.

It is possible for Grammars to assist social mobility. Does the entrance exam system need adjusting? Quite possibly. I also would back any suggestion for schemes to ensure the brightest from the lowest social strata get a look-in too.

Do you ever tire of casting aspersions on my ability to do my job?

Tut, tut, AA you are being overly sensitive. In fact, I was doing exactly the opposite.

I was picking you up on putting words into someone else's mouth above* precisely because I am sure that you would never do that to your students. [*edit: as dant agrees]

If you that was too subtle, then perhaps you were right and I am wrong. You decide.

My time isn't (usually) spent on crowd control, I can actually teach,

So why the need for crowd control? The circle is beginning to square at last....

Tut, tut, AA you are being overly sensitive

No you are just a colossal ****.

o why the need for crowd control? The circle is beginning to square at last....

If you can manage an opinion why dont you give it?

No you are just a colossal ****.

ok, you win, I was wrong - as you were.... 😉

If you can manage an opinion why dont you give it?

You are the expert, I am not. I wanted the expert opinion on why the need for crowd control?

You are the expert, I am not. I wanted the expert opinion on why the need for crowd control?

Thats funny I thought you were suggesting something about squaring a circle?
What would you like to know about why the need for crowd control?

So why the need for crowd control?

Coz the grammar schools hoovered up all the nice kids and austerity has ensured the rest are left way behind