Grammer schools are back - and about time too

[tobyjugg2]

despite coming from a poor background, i went to a grammer school and believe in the streaming system.

 

If properly implemented it can help all kids get to the best they are capable of being.

 

Admittedly the current system should be able to do better than it does, but striving for mediocrity targets seems to be the way with the current system rather than striving for each to be the best they can be.

 

the grammer school streaming system did have its faults, but putting the best together, and giving targeted help to the lower achievers has simply got to be the best approach.

[obiter dictum]

As i remember it those pupils who required extra Schooling were referred to by their classmates as being members of the "thick club"

 

It never worked back then and will not work now

 

It is human nature to stereotype people

[tobyjugg2]

As i remember it those pupils who required extra Schooling were referred to by their classmates as being members of the "thick club"

 

It never worked back then and will not work now

 

It is human nature to stereotype people

 

and is that any different under the existing system?

... apart from the 'thick club' kids being more isolated in classes of smarter kids

and the smarter kids being held back by the 'thick club' kids,

and the 'thick club' kids being demoralised and demotivated by seeing things they don't understand everyday whilst those same things leave the other kids more time to be bored and mean?

 

... and it all leaving gifted poor kids unable to achieve their potential while mediocre rich kids get extra schooling and bypass them, turning us into a nation of mediocrity.

 

I would rather see 'thick club' kids, just like all the others spending their efforts on achieving the best goals they can rather than having the 'opportunity' to fail at something.

 

Its by stretching kids we get the best, not by snapping them under loads they cannot carry.

[obiter dictum]

I respect your views tobyjug as they are always objective

 

In this case i must disagree as you comments advocate a sort of "Social Engineering" and segrigation

 

Survival of the fittest, or as i put it

 

The "GATTACA" eutopian society where Society has categorised people less than suitable

Edited October 15, 2015 by obiter dictum

[unclebulgaria67]

Problem is that ideally in every area you would have a good mix of schools. A grammar school for academic studies, a school specialising in technical education etc. In some areas of the country you don't have much choice, as it depends on catchment areas.

 

What about identifying each childs natural abilities during primary education ? What about trying to engage parents more in helping children to be placed where they can receive the best education ? Some parents are not interested or just don't have the time to work with schools.

 

The problem with comprehensive type schools was that these were managed to teach large numbers of pupils in not ideal environments. When you have 30+ in each class, a full set timetable, teaching to exams and league tables, it sometimes forgets individual needs of each pupil.

 

In Asia where they achieve some of the best standards of education, they do very long days and it is done with extreme discipline. Also parents who can afford it, pay for tutors to help their children outside of school.

[tobyjugg2]

Survival of the fittest, or as i put it

 

I see it as quite the opposite if implemented correctly. Education can be the great leveler.

 

I have experienced the 'modern' grammer school system including stream changing and it would only need some 'tweaking' to be the best there is.

 

I have also experienced through my daughter the current system which I see as immensely inferior for all, including teachers.

[andydd]

I dont agree with Grammar Schools, I recall being pressurized to sit the 11+ when I was young, I failed miserably.

 

The Tory policy on this is bizarre, m,any top Tories have quoted they dont believe in it and those quotes are coming back to haunt them.

[tobyjugg2]

Problem is that ideally in every area you would have a good mix of schools. A grammar school for academic studies, a school specialising in technical education etc. In some areas of the country you don't have much choice, as it depends on catchment areas.

 

What about identifying each childs natural abilities during primary education ? What about trying to engage parents more in helping children to be placed where they can receive the best education ? Some parents are not interested or just don't have the time to work with schools.

 

The problem with comprehensive type schools was that these were managed to teach large numbers of pupils in not ideal environments. When you have 30+ in each class, a full set timetable, teaching to exams and league tables, it sometimes forgets individual needs of each pupil.

 

In Asia where they achieve some of the best standards of education, they do very long days and it is done with extreme discipline. Also parents who can afford it, pay for tutors to help their children outside of school.

 

We had classes of around 30 at all the schools.

It can be done with streaming of kids with similar needs.

 

Parent involvement in the education of their kids is a massive influence on the achievemnt of the kids, but some parents simply cant give the time or dont have the ability themselves despite their kids having that potential.

That is another related issue which needs addressing as best it can be.

[unclebulgaria67]

We had classes of around 30 at all the schools.

It can be done with streaming of kids with similar needs.

 

Parent involvement in the education of their kids is a massive influence on the achievemnt of the kids, but some parents simply cant give the time or dont have the ability themselves despite their kids having that potential.

That is another related issue which needs addressing as best it can be.

 

I was placed in some classes because of timetables issues, not based on abilities. Only English and Maths was purely based on ability assessed by testing. For other subjects, they tried to match as best they could.

 

Grammar school are great for kids who demonstrate an early academic ability, but for late developers they can miss out.

[tobyjugg2]

Grammar school are great for kids who demonstrate an early academic ability, but for late developers they can miss out.

 

Yes, but 80% benefit from 60% cost is better than 40% benefit from 60% cost.

 

Our poorer kids are all the poorer under the current system and that means the mediocre rich kids have little competition to push them. Look at our ruling elite (in all parties)

 

and darned doubleclick ad script keeps causing problems when I come here

https://s0.2mdn.net/ads/richme…0&topOffset=0&c=4sChLz8AfH&t=1:102

[andydd]

I can see an argument for streamed schools for people of different abilities, BUT grammar schools just pick the best or those whose parents can afford extra coaching and they only exist in a few areas, way too many variables.

 

Successive governments have said they are a bad idea yet some still remain it makes no sense.

[Conniff]

Best thing that's happen since Labour banned them in 1998.

 

All we need now is to repeal that silly law and build at least one Grammar school and Technical school in ever town and city in the country.

[unclebulgaria67]

Best thing that's happen since Labour banned them in 1998.

 

All we need now is to repeal that silly law and build at least one Grammar school and Technical school in ever town and city in the country.

 

There is no problem with grammar schools, as long as one is not seen as superior to the other, the entrance criteria is purely on merit based on an exam at the end of primary education and the funding by state per pupil is the same.

 

What you don't want is the grammar school being seen as for the bright kids and technical school kids are thick. There should also be opportunity for late developers to swap to the grammar school at a later date, if it is felt they would benefit.

[tobyjugg2]

BUT grammar schools just pick the best .

 

Do you mean that grammer schools only accepted those who's grades met the requirements?

Whether that was from 'natural ability/effort and/or parental help and guidance including paying for extra tuition.

And why shouldn't they? In fact why should it be anything different?

 

Now as far as I am aware, the grammer school system was purely merit based, unlike the existing university systems where money always could, and can still buy a place for unworthy drongos who will be a burden on those who really do walk the walk?

[andydd]

Do you mean that grammer schools only accepted those who's grades met the requirements?

Whether that was from 'natural ability/effort and/or parental help and guidance including paying for extra tuition.

And why shouldn't they? In fact why should it be anything different?

 

Now as far as I am aware, the grammer school system was purely merit based, unlike the existing university systems where money always could, and can still buy a place for unworthy drongos who will be a burden on those who really do walk the walk?

 

For the simple reason that parliament has previously outlawed new grammar schools, the one in the news has used a slight loophole and claimed its an annex to an existing school even though its ten miles away. Parliament and MPs clearly agreed that the grammar system was wrong and unfair and only allowed existing schools to stay open.

[tobyjugg2]

For the simple reason that parliament has previously outlawed new grammar schools, the one in the news has used a slight loophole and claimed its an annex to an existing school even though its ten miles away. Parliament and MPs clearly agreed that the grammar system was wrong and unfair and only allowed existing schools to stay open.

 

and they were wrong - it was a political rather than logical decision.

 

As evidence, you see streaming in the current school systems albeit not so obviously.

[andydd]

Wrong maybe but the Tories are not putting forward proposals to change the current system,. in fact only UKIP actually want grammar schools back and they are all loons.

 

Picking the elite and spending extra money on a few is fundamentally wrong IMO, and that is supported by the majority of MPs's, the recent development is just a confusing fudge.

[tobyjugg2]

Wrong maybe but the Tories are not putting forward proposals to change the current system,. in fact only UKIP actually want grammar schools back and they are all loons.

 

Picking the elite and spending extra money on a few is fundamentally wrong IMO, and that is supported by the majority of MPs's, the recent development is just a confusing fudge.

 

 

I never thought UKIP (as with the Tories) was completely wrong - just mostly wrong.

Neither do I think or claim that any party is always right.

 

Spending more money?

Can't really avoid that in higher education (which grammer schools should be thought of). It takes more to teach higher levels of things - even maths to a certain extent.

I'm certain the greater cost would be wasting all that talent in schools that can't or wont stretch them..

 

Does that mean those who 'fail the 11+ get nothing - absolutely not. That was something of a failing in the system of my day - failing the 11+ was failing - not streaming to appropriate quality teaching.

 

I'm certainly not saying it was or would be perfect - but it could be close to as good as we could get if we learn the lessons.

 

 

Which brings us to why not stream in the same school as they do to a certain extent?

Better than not streaming, but human nature means that separate schools will generally always be more effective by reducing friction.

[Mike_hawk]

How would a supporter of selective [Grammar] education suggest it be funded?

 

Do we return to right wing values of underfunding the majority to support the minority or do we continue with the fairer allocation of resources?

[Conniff]

What extra money are we talking about ?

 

It seems a shame to me that someone should have to sit in a class learning the 3 times tables when they are already fluent with the 12x. Rather than bringing the slower ones forward, it holds back the brighter one.

[unclebulgaria67]

What extra money are we talking about ?

 

It seems a shame to me that someone should have to sit in a class learning the 3 times tables when they are already fluent with the 12x. Rather than bringing the slower ones forward, it holds back the brighter one.

 

I think it can cost more organising a system, where kids are placed based on ability. You may need more facilities to be available.

 

How good a teacher is at helping each child develop fully is the main factor. Some of the best education is found in mixed ability classes, in small countryside schools, where the teachers have more time. They generally have more flexibility and are not run in the same regimented way as larger schools.

[tobyjugg2]

How would a supporter of selective [Grammar] education suggest it be funded?

 

Do we return to right wing values of underfunding the majority to support the minority or do we continue with the fairer allocation of resources?

 

 

To expand on Conniffs point, which is the greater crime - spending a little more on those who will benefit from it or wasting a childs potential - but especially those from poorer families.

 

But do realise that the extra amount spent would quite probably not be large, and all should benefit, including those less academically adept.

 

 

Unclebulgarias point that better quality tuition at teh very early stages is a key point in a childs education, which is why extra investment (not just paying for tuition) by the families and education system in the early period will pay off immeasurably.

[Mike_hawk]

To expand on Conniffs point, which is the greater crime - spending a little more on those who will benefit from it or wasting a childs potential - but especially those from poorer families.

 

But do realise that the extra amount spent would quite probably not be large, and all should benefit, including those less academically adept.

 

 

Unclebulgarias point that better quality tuition at teh very early stages is a key point in a childs education, which is why extra investment (not just paying for tuition) by the families and education system in the early period will pay off immeasurably.

 

The education budget is finite, there is no spending a little extra here or there to satisfy a minority. In the instance of 16-19 year olds real term spend has reduced year on year post 2010, no ringfencing applicable to that particular age group.

 

Grammar schools historically robbed Peter to pay Paul....... protected budgets for years 7-11 [1st to 5th form in old money] would be used to offset the cost of operating sixth form classes with low pupil numbers. With the introduction of the pupil premium for the disadvantaged it has had to look for ways to shift the local budget in its favour.

 

I thinks its great to have aspirations but should that be at the expense of the disadvantaged?

[Conniff]

I'm also not understanding the references to 'poor'.

 

Is it suggested that because mum and dad don't have much money their child isn't capable of achievement ??

[tobyjugg2]

I'm also not understanding the references to 'poor'.

 

Is it suggested that because mum and dad don't have much money their child isn't capable of achievement ??

 

Not in my case, quite the opposite.

but poor families has related very significantly statistically to less time to spend on children, less money to spend on children, and lower levels of parental education and focus on education to enable effective personal teaching of children.

 

Thats certainly not ALL poor children/families by any means whatsoever, and there are also financially rich families who spend little time and effort with their children, but the statistics are significant, and show some trends which we need to be aware of and should try to address.

 

Just re-introducing grammer schools is not the solution - just part of it.