# Why do the Left hate Grammar schools so much..



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

It all seems common sense to me, For the Olympics they got the best kids together with the best coaches, result is a world class team. Ergo, get the most intelligent kids with the best teachers we get a world class economy. Those suited to academia go to Grammar schools those who arent go to secondary schools and on to apprenticeships we need the top brains to push Britain forward...  The same education for every child idea is laudable but is like Communism it just dosent work in practise..  I come from Ripon the only place to actually have a vote on the Grammar school the ayes won with about 80%..  after that result the plan was scrapped..   And before you ask I went to the other place over the road..


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 10, 2016)

It's not just the left, plenty oppose them. They split society, they dump a group into second class status, scarred at 11. Does everyone who fails the 11+ want to be an apprentice? What patronising nonsense. 

People progress at different ages. Poor at 11, average at 13, top of the class at 16. Don't stifle those people.

I went to a good comprehensive, my kids do now. They are pushed, streamed but mix with all groups. None of us have been held back. Don't turn this into a class war, it's not unless you imagine it to be.


----------



## virtuocity (Sep 10, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			Ergo, get the most intelligent kids with the best teachers we get a world class economy.
		
Click to expand...

Would love to provide a full answer to this, but can you help with the below please?:

Define "intelligence".

Define "best teachers".

If you could also make a case linking academic performance to economic growth, that would be great.  Thanks.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

Intelligence is easy-  its the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. The second is a bit more difficult but it has to be assumed that having the most intelligent people in the correct and top jobs will move the whole economy upwards.  Competition is the prime mover for this, wanting to have a better life for a family is what drives some people.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

Big assumption there LT.  where is your proof they split society?? I lived through a failed 11+ my friends were and are still drawn from both schools nobody I know has been scarred by failing the exam, its the parents ( who care ) that find a problem with it, left to the kids it wouldnt be a problem. and as for your poor, average, top comment that just shows your ignorance of the system. There is cross over between schools right through the school life where any anomalies are sorted out..  AND you final sentence shows your doubts about the present system when you used the word 'Good'. 
=


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

I was bought up on a rough council estate, one of 5, no money in the house, no father from the age of 5. I passed my 11+ (with no extra tuition) and I absolutely want a grammar education to be available everywhere!

Good for The government rolling this out, I would just like to see them in poorer communities so that it would enable more bright poorer kids have the opportunity to go to them


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 10, 2016)

Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Sarah Woolaston, Ben Howlet, Mark Pritchard, Robin Walker, Niel Carmichael, Sir Micheal Wilshaw,  just to start with. Yip, lefties all...
Boy am i glad to be out of this circus.
In my humble opinion and i think you will find, the humble opinion of the majority of teachers, returning to a binary secondary education system, would be a retrograde step.
But what do we know. After all, if you have a leaky tap, call a joiner. We all know that, right ??


----------



## Rooter (Sep 10, 2016)

I know plenty of 'clever' people whom are plain stupid. Passing exams does not make you smart.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

Rooter said:



			I know plenty of 'clever' people whom are plain stupid. Passing exams does not make you smart.
		
Click to expand...

No it dosent but give me a better way of discerning the difference between those who are and those who are not?


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 10, 2016)

The lefties hate grammar schools because they all went to public schools.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

Well thats the other thing of course, if Grammar schools came back in sufficient numbers it would practically bring an end to Private Schools... they are nearly pricing themselves out of business anyway so if people can get a good education for their kids  without the outlay thats what will happen.


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 10, 2016)

It's always good to have success stories and it's great that you and chrisd benefitted from Grammars.
However let's compare it with the Olympics as you say.
Many people loved the success the UK had - brilliant. But some of us queried the inequality of the funding meaning other athletes from poorer nations didn't win medals not because of their skills but because we had better facilities.
That point was countered by mention of tons of cash being spent at grass roots level ensuring all the funding didn't go in one direction.
If we compare that to bringing back a Grammar system there will need to be a lot of investment ensure everything is in place with the best teachers and facilities aimed at maximising the performance of those showing potential at a young age.
In our current education system that, by definition, can only come by taking money away from the second tier schools.
There will be approximately 4 or 5 times as many pupils in these schools compared with the lucky few.
If you turned round and said we will increase the funding to academies to ensure they are delivering, and anything left over can go to Grammars, I would happily agree with you.
But to put something in place which will reduce the quality of education to the majority, and aid a selected minority is against everything the country stands for.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 10, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			No it dosent but give me a better way of discerning the difference between those who are and those who are not?
		
Click to expand...

How about the "way" we have now??
As LT correctly points out, children develop at different rates.
A progressive education system should not be defining a childs academic future at a set age.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

Bes. if you have a leaky tap, call a joiner. We all know that, right ??  Well depends, if the joiner installed the system and it worked great until it fell into the hands of Plumber who decided it didnt fit with his politics..


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 10, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			Well thats the other thing of course, if Grammar schools came back in sufficient numbers it would practically bring an end to Private Schools... they are nearly pricing themselves out of business anyway so if people can get a good education for their kids  without the outlay thats what will happen.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

No.

Brighton College have recently set up a prep school in Dubai, I believe.

They are set up to get top top results and introduce next generation leaders to each other.

Incredibly elitist - even the other local independent schools don't try and compete with their model.

But they never have problems filling their quota.

If you want to put more money into estate education take the charity status away from independent schools and ensure the business rates collected get distributed at the local state schools.

Then you may be getting nearer the right funding levels to support Grammars.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 10, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			Bes. if you have a leaky tap, call a joiner. We all know that, right ??  Well depends, if the joiner installed the system and it worked great until it fell into the hands of Plumber who decided it didnt fit with his politics..


Click to expand...

Education of our children shouldn't be about politics.
Its more important than that FG.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Sep 10, 2016)

We really don't want to risk upsetting a few people so let's all pander to the liberal lefties and set the bar at the lowest common denominator. After all, competition is a dirty word these days and should not be encouraged! 

As long as there is money in the economy there will be public schools and there will be competition in life whether it's in sport or for the best jobs or to win orders to keep the economy strong.

That's how it is people, learn to deal with it.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 10, 2016)

All that happens is that pushy middle class parents put an enormous amount of pressure and spend money on private tutors for their kids to get into grammar schools now. The Tories wanting to bring these back are harking back to the good old days when they were at school where there was more of a chance of kids from less affluent backgrounds getting into grammar schools.  Now you can just about buy your way in (move into catchment areas, private tutors), putting enormous stress on your kids whilst you do it. Yes there may well be some kids from poorer backgrounds who may end up at a grammar school, but the vast majority of places will go to middle class parents with sharp elbows.

And this will leave the rest to take their chances at the local secondary modern/comp who I'm guessing won't attract the best teachers. The original grammars got voted down because the public did not like the concept of effectively condemning children at age 11.  I'm pretty sure that is not an issue to some tories/right wingers in their dog eat dog world.  But all the best education systems in the world (Finland, Canada) do not have schools that select on ability, they just fund and respect education for all.  And surprisingly enough that works.  Yes there is not a lot of money to be made in that system which may upset some right wingers, but the kids get a good education. Over here we have LA maintained comps, foundation schools, academies, free schools, church schools, secondary moderns, grammars, private schools. Pure competition, market forces and choice is great if you are selling products to make a profit, but not so great when the losers in the system are young kids who have their life chances screwed at such an early age.

And as for 'liberal lefties' opposing grammars then see post number 7. Plus it will never get through the Lords anyway so it is mostly a waste of time.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 10, 2016)

drive4show said:



			We really don't want to risk upsetting a few people so let's all pander to the liberal lefties and set the bar at the lowest common denominator. After all, competition is a dirty word these days and should not be encouraged! 

As long as there is money in the economy there will be public schools and there will be competition in life whether it's in sport or for the best jobs or to win orders to keep the economy strong.

That's how it is people, learn to deal with it.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm wrong, but i thought the OP was discussing the reintroduction of "state" grammar schools. Not the abolition of the private sector. 
A system of state education abolished by the great queen of the right, if i remember rightly. :mmm:

Interestingly i seam to remember the right applauding the decision. After all its typical of liberal lefties to want something for nothing, whilst the hard working right understand you have to pay for decent education.
It's high time we kept politics out of state education. Let professional educationalists decide whats best. Its what they do.
Anyway thats all i have to say on the subject, I'm not getting drawn in, its no longer my concern, and deep seated resentments will only rise to the surface which won't end well for me, i thinks.
As Dewsweeper so rightly an kindly reminded me with his far superior maturity. Life's to short to fall out. :thup:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 10, 2016)

Why not set about repairing and improving what we already have rather than role out a new two tiered education system. Children develop at different ages and a failed 11+ doesn't mean that child couldn't go on and be a future high flyer with a university education ahead. Some may get through the 11+ and absolutely sink without trace in the ruthlessness of a grammar education and be better off in the more "mainstream" system and as a result perhaps never achieve what they are capable of in terms of qualifications as the grammar education passes them by


----------



## GG26 (Sep 10, 2016)

I went to a grammar school and believe that it was the best thing for me.  There are no grammar schools where I currently live and although my daughter's school is good, I feel that she is being held back in some subjects and would thrive in a grammar.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Why not set about repairing and improving what we already have rather than role out a new two tiered education system. Children develop at different ages and a failed 11+ doesn't mean that child couldn't go on and be a future high flyer with a university education ahead. Some may get through the 11+ and absolutely sink without trace in the ruthlessness of a grammar education and be better off in the more "mainstream" system and as a result perhaps never achieve what they are capable of in terms of qualifications as the grammar education passes them by
		
Click to expand...

There's always an exception that proves the rule!

Way back when comprehensive schools first came in the top kids were streamed in the top class until some bright spark decided that was selection too, so your bright comprehensive child was then streamed with a child who may be disruptive, bored illiterate etc so that your clever child could help bring them on - usual result I suspect, they suffer and do worse too!


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 10, 2016)

My apologies.
After further research, it was not queen T who instigated comprehensivisation.
But it is true that more grammars closed under her tenancy as ed sec than any others.
And i won't mention the milk........  oh, sorry.

Now thats me out. I promise. :cheers:


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 10, 2016)

I don't get why anyone would not want grammar and selective schools.

My son passed the 11+ and went into a grammar school. All of the kids there are gifted and they push each other along. 100% boys get grades A*- C GCSE 

We are not a low income family but are not rich either, just an average 2+2 family.

If my son was not afforded the opportunity he would not have 6 A* and 5 A's through a normal comprehensive I'm pretty sure of that.

20% of the boys from his school go to Oxbridge and he has a shot now at making that a reality now in 2 years time.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 10, 2016)

Hacker Khan has raised the subject of 'the pushy middle classes' the trouble with that term is that it is out of date.. The middle classes now do not have a unearned income or stuff like the 50s, they are the sons and daughters of the working class a generation ago. They know what it is to work hard to get where they want to be and they know what it takes to stay there so they want the same for their children. What I dont understand is how anybody could possibly not be a pushy parent!!  Its the pushy parents taking their offspring to the swimming baths at 5 in the morning or spending the whole weekend taking their kids to football games 2 hours drive away etc etc.. If you dont want the best for your children and am not willing to bust a gut to give it then that is far far worse than being pushy!


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			I don't get why anyone would not want grammar and selective schools.

My son passed the 11+ and went into a grammar school. All of the kids there are gifted and they push each other along. 100% boys get grades A*- C GCSE 

We are not a low income family but are not rich either, just an average 2+2 family.

If my son was not afforded the opportunity he would not have 6 A* and 5 A's through a normal comprehensive I'm pretty sure of that.

20% of the boys from his school go to Oxbridge and he has a shot now at making that a reality now in 2 years time.
		
Click to expand...

Because their kids can't have the same? They seem to have this (misguided) view that outcomes would be the same for everyone and the brightest kids should not be treated specially and they'd rather see your son underperform in a comprehensive than flourish in a grammar

I'm 100% in favour of selection and would, of course, hope it's available to all and that every school is made to perform for their kids


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			I don't get why anyone would not want grammar and selective schools.

My son passed the 11+ and went into a grammar school. All of the kids there are gifted and they push each other along. 100% boys get grades A*- C GCSE 

We are not a low income family but are not rich either, just an average 2+2 family.

If my son was not afforded the opportunity he would not have 6 A* and 5 A's through a normal comprehensive I'm pretty sure of that.

20% of the boys from his school go to Oxbridge and he has a shot now at making that a reality now in 2 years time.
		
Click to expand...


Stating the success of a grammar is not a fair comparison. It is equivalent of saying most golfers h/cap 5 or less, can shoot below 80 regularly. By definition grammar schools take the cream, so no wonder 100% get A* - C at your sons grammar. My kids go to a strong comprehensive. He has just gone through his GCSE's and a number of kids there got A* across the board. Entirely possible for any school if attitude of the teachers, head, kids and parents is spot on. Comps can and do succeed.

Back to the OP, I am not ignorant of the system. I grew up in an area that had a number of grammar schools and now live in an area where grammars are dissappearing quite rapidly. If you want to pay, go for it but I don't want to pay for your desire to be exclusive. 

I think this will struggle to go through. For every new grammar school built, or standard school adapted, then you need to have another duplicate school to take the non grammar kids. The town where I live has one main school. You would need to find another plot of land, build the school, have playing fields etc. Totally impractical. It may work in certain locations but across the board, I don't see it.


----------



## Ross61 (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			I don't get why anyone would not want grammar and selective schools.

My son passed the 11+ and went into a grammar school. All of the kids there are gifted and they push each other along. 100% boys get grades A*- C GCSE 

We are not a low income family but are not rich either, just an average 2+2 family.

If my son was not afforded the opportunity he would not have 6 A* and 5 A's through a normal comprehensive I'm pretty sure of that.

20% of the boys from his school go to Oxbridge and he has a shot now at making that a reality now in 2 years time.
		
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that YOUR son is doing well. What happened to his friends from junior school that didn't get selected? Are they struggling in a school with less gifted teachers perhaps? Never mind as long as your kid was afforded the opportunity eh?


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

Ok, my one and only comment on this thread....

I have no issue with selection. However, I would prefer there to be a mechanism that recognises the different development speeds of the individual. 

The issue I have with separate schools is that the division is final. We are telling our 11 year olds that their future depends on their performance at 11!! It doesn't recognise the fact that their could be as much as 11 months developmental difference. Almost 20% difference in school age development. 

I would much prefer there to be a considered investment in the current school system. Allow pupils time to develop. Push the brighter pupils in smaller groups. At the same time, pull the pupils that may be struggling. Give them the opportunity to progress at a different rate without telling them that they're second rate before they've even had chance to develop.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Ok, my one and only comment on this thread....

I have no issue with selection. However, I would prefer there to be a mechanism that recognises the different development speeds of the individual. 

The issue I have with separate schools is that the division is final. We are telling our 11 year olds that their future depends on their performance at 11!! It doesn't recognise the fact that their could be as much as 11 months developmental difference. Almost 20% difference in school age development. 

I would much prefer there to be a considered investment in the current school system. Allow pupils time to develop. Push the brighter pupils in smaller groups. At the same time, pull the pupils that may be struggling. Give them the opportunity to progress at a different rate without telling them that they're second rate before they've even had chance to develop.
		
Click to expand...

It used to be that at 13 later developers could move to a grammar if they wanted


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 10, 2016)

Ross61 said:



			Glad to hear that YOUR son is doing well. What happened to his friends from junior school that didn't get selected? Are they struggling in a school with less gifted teachers perhaps? Never mind as long as your kid was afforded the opportunity eh?
		
Click to expand...

He was afforded the same opportunity as EVERY kid. If the kid makes it then great but if not then so be it. The latter still had the same opportunity and that is the fairness in the system.

My son didn't expect to get in sitting an exam that 600 other kids went to and only 110 places.

I would have been pleased either way ( getting him in or not ) as I accept how the system works. The comp where we live is also very good and I am sure he would have done very well - just not quite as well that's all.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			It used to be that at 13 later developers could move to a grammar if they wanted
		
Click to expand...

Do we really think that there'll be spaces at a Grammar school for late developers? Only if they move the lesser performing pupils out. Times have changed. Parents push to get their kids into the "right" schools. I'm sure there'll be a waiting list that precludes even the best performing students from changing.


----------



## Ross61 (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Do we really think that there'll be spaces at a Grammar school for late developers? Only if they move the lesser performing pupils out. Times have changed. Parents push to get their kids into the "right" schools. I'm sure there'll be a waiting list that precludes even the best performing students from changing.
		
Click to expand...

It was no different 40 odd years ago. I remember a girl in my village that her school said she should be in a Grammar but try as hard as her parents did there were no places offered by any school.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Do we really think that there'll be spaces at a Grammar school for late developers? Only if they move the lesser performing pupils out. Times have changed. Parents push to get their kids into the "right" schools. I'm sure there'll be a waiting list that precludes even the best performing students from changing.
		
Click to expand...


Most kids wouldn't leave their friends to change schools as far as I recall but there was the chance if they wanted it


----------



## pendodave (Sep 10, 2016)

I think that the downside of this for the majority will be worse than the benefits that accrue to the kids that are selected.

In an ideal world, the schools which are not grammar will have excellent technical teaching facilities and really provide opportunities for those who are not academically inclined to make the most of their skills.

In reality, they will most likely be dreadful sink institutions with the least able teachers, most disruptive pupils etc etc etc. Nothing that has ever happened in our education system over that last 50 years suggests anything else.

Surely the best compromise is to provide extra funding to enable existing comps to provide a better academic teaching environment for their brightest kids. 

It'll all end in tears. And the rich and most able will be fine. Those who are poor and disadvantaged will be even more screwed over than at present.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 10, 2016)

My issue with the Grammar school system is that the 11+ ( or 12+ as it was when k took it) doesn't take into account the pupils suitability to the school.
It takes a score that you get in an exam and extrapolates where you would be best suited.
Well it failed with me
I waltzed through the 12+, one of only 2 in my school that did.
I went to RGS High Wycombe - then one of the best in the country.
But I simply wasn't intellectually suited to it and floundered badly.
I came out with exactly the same number of O levels that Fragger got from the local Comprehensive...
There were other schools in the area that would have suited me better but I went to RGS and hated almost every minute.
Most of my peers went to top Universities and are probably involved with intellectual think tanks or similar.
Ask them to change a light bulb, car wheel or similar and they wouldn't have a clue.
There is a place for Grammar schools and theres a certain type who will succeed if they go to one.
But just because you get a particular score in a test doesn't mean it's you.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Most kids wouldn't leave their friends to change schools as far as I recall but there was the chance if they wanted it
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there won't be in the future. 

I'm an ex Grammar school kid. I still remember the stigma attached to being a pupil at the "wrong" school. 

We've moved on. Why is there such a fascination with looking back with rose tinted glasses at the moment. It seems to be all we do recently. Are things really that bad now that we look to the 50's - 80's for inspiration? Maybe I just remember it differently.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 10, 2016)

Shouldn't everyone have the chance to be taught by the "best teachers" as opposed to a select view ? 

Why narrow everything down ?

Everyone imo should go to the same type schools and then be taught by the same teachers - adding selectivity into imo just widens already gaps within our society. 

Kids develop at different ages - some of the smartest kids could easily develop later in their years

For me always have the better teachers available to as many as possible to give everyone the same education 

Right now I'm struggling to see what problem the suggestion is trying to solve


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			I'm pretty sure there won't be in the future. 

I'm an ex Grammar school kid. I still remember the stigma attached to being a pupil at the "wrong" school. 

We've moved on. Why is there such a fascination with looking back with rose tinted glasses at the moment. It seems to be all we do recently. Are things really that bad now that we look to the 50's - 80's for inspiration? Maybe I just remember it differently.
		
Click to expand...

We have grammar schools where I live now and imo they really do work still


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Right now I'm struggling to see what problem the suggestion is trying to solve
		
Click to expand...

Just what I was thinking. I can't see what problem we are hoping to fix. It smells more like social engineering than educational evolution.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			We have grammar schools where I live now and imo they really do work still
		
Click to expand...

I've no doubt they do, but in isolation. The Conps still have access to good teachers. If you segregate the system nationwide, there'll be a short term tidal wave of teacher relocation. The best teachers will gravitate to the Grammar schools.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			I've no doubt they do, but in isolation. The Conps still have access to good teachers. If you segregate the system nationwide, there'll be a short term tidal wave of teacher relocation. The best teachers will gravitate to the Grammar schools.
		
Click to expand...

All teachers should be good, and if the grammer's cream off the best there still should be a real drive to ensure the rest of the teachers should be excellent


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 10, 2016)

I think going back to the old 11+ system is a joke. As people have already touched on, all that is going to happen is parents that can afford it are going to get coaches that will teach their children how to pass the 11+ to get in to Grammer school. 

I do think the system needs to be changed though. When kids turn up to do the last 2 years and get their GCSE's they need to get streamed then. Some kids are academically skilled and others aren't. Those kids need to drop most of the GCSE's that they have to do like, art, history, etc etc. Make them still do English and Maths, but then teach them a trade that they can go on and use. 

I think a lot of the problem nowadays is that kids who aren't academically skilled loose interest at school and then go on to get poor grades and have no real future. But you take a kid that is good with their hands and not with their brain, then they will be doing something that they can achieve in. My nephew was never very good academically, but by the age of 10 he could carry out a brake job on my brothers Sierra Cosworth. Not the brightest of kids and was never going to go onto great academic achievement, but show him something once and he can repeat it and understand what he is doing.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			All teachers should be good, and if the grammer's cream off the best there still should be a real drive to ensure the rest of the teachers should be excellent
		
Click to expand...

But they're not. You can't justify a policy of social segregation by claiming that it'll drive improvement in the provider. It's a gamble that's never worked. It doesn't drive improvement, it reintroduces a recognisable class system.


----------



## Ross61 (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			All teachers should be good, and if the grammer's cream off the best there still should be a real drive to ensure the rest of the teachers should be excellent
		
Click to expand...

Nice in theory, but the reality sucks.


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			But they're not. You can't justify a policy of social segregation by claiming that it'll drive improvement in the provider. It's a gamble that's never worked. It doesn't drive improvement, it reintroduces a recognisable class system.
		
Click to expand...

It's not about class it's about ability.

The brightest (rich or poor) should not be held back. They can kick on and achieve greater things.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			It's not about class it's about ability.

The brightest (rich or poor) should not be held back. They can kick on and achieve greater things.
		
Click to expand...

Are they being held back right now ?

More and more opportunities for kids to go to university than ever before - if the teachers are there then I can't see how a comp school holds kids back regardless of how smart they are 

And it does come down to class - richer people can afford private tuition so help their child pass the 11+


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			It's not about class it's about ability.

The brightest (rich or poor) should not be held back. They can kick on and achieve greater things.
		
Click to expand...

What exactly is holding them back currently? Do we not produce World renowned Engineers, Architects, Software developers, Business people, Doctors, Lawyers, Thinkers, Artists, Philosophers, Sports people, Designers, Philanthropists etc etc. 

Just what is currently holding us back, because I'm not seeing the evidence that some are seeing.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 10, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			I do think the system needs to be changed though. When kids turn up to do the last 2 years and get their GCSE's they need to get streamed then. Some kids are academically skilled and others aren't. Those kids need to drop most of the GCSE's that they have to do like, art, history, etc etc. Make them still do English and Maths, but then teach them a trade that they can go on and use.
		
Click to expand...

That pretty much happens now at 16. Everyone has to stay on and do some form of further education but the chance to do more practical skills kicks in at this stage. Kids can choose to go to a college that offers the courses you suggest. It can make the last year or two of GCSE's quite tough for some but at least they know that they can leave academic subjects behind at the end of those exams. I agree with you, academic subjects are not for everyone, pretty obvious really.


----------



## Ross61 (Sep 10, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			What exactly is holding them back currently? Do we not produce World renowned Engineers, Architects, Software developers, Business people, Doctors, Lawyers, Thinkers, Artists, Philosophers, Sports people, Designers, Philanthropists etc etc. 

Just what is currently holding us back, because I'm not seeing the evidence that some are seeing.
		
Click to expand...

Dont let me stop you as I agree with everything you are saying, but what happened to your " this is my one and only post" declaration 6 posts ago?


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 10, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			That pretty much happens now at 16. Everyone has to stay on and do some form of further education but the chance to do more practical skills kicks in at this stage. Kids can choose to go to a college that offers the courses you suggest. It can make the last year or two of GCSE's quite tough for some but at least they know that they can leave academic subjects behind at the end of those exams. I agree with you, academic subjects are not for everyone, pretty obvious really.
		
Click to expand...

I think 16 can be too late for some though. By that time they have spent 2 years failing subjects and ending up with nothing of any use to them. But if you let a kid do some kind of basic engineering course for 2 years, they might come out at 16 with something useful.  Then they can either go and try get an apprenticeship or go onto college to take it further with a view to maybe going onto to get a degree.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 10, 2016)

Ross61 said:



			Dont let me stop you as I agree with everything you are saying, but what happened to your " this is my one and only post" declaration 6 posts ago?  

Click to expand...

I know mate. I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in these type of discussions again. Once you start posting, it's hard to stop


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And it does come down to class - richer people can afford private tuition so help their child pass the 11+
		
Click to expand...

It's interesting that no one ever produces stats to show how many achieve an 11+ pass who otherwise wouldn't without private tuition


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 10, 2016)

"Why do the left..." They, quite rightly, want equal opportunities for all. Unfortunately, the damage is already done long before the 11+ is anywhere on the horizon. 

Daughter #3 teaches in a very poor, inner city area. The poor state many kids arrive at school would make your heart bleed. Some kids even hate Christmas because they won't get properly fed till they return to school in January.

How can a child take advantage of the opportunities if they haven't even taken onboard the right fuel for the day?

It doesn't matter whether there's grammar schools or not, most disadvantaged children won't succeed without intervention long before the 11+.


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Are they being held back right now ?

More and more opportunities for kids to go to university than ever before - if the teachers are there then I can't see how a comp school holds kids back regardless of how smart they are 

And it does come down to class - richer people can afford private tuition so help their child pass the 11+
		
Click to expand...

Disagree. We didn't private tutor our son.

He never went to a prep school either.

We are good examples where class does not come into it. 

Hard work and determination doesn't cost anything. 

BTW our daughter goes to a comprehensive and I'm OK with that too. I just accept that she is not as academic as my son. 

A boy that was neck and neck with my son at primary school also sat the exam but did not go through. His grades at GCSE are now worlds apart. If he had got into grammar I am sure that he too would have A's across the board. The grammar has high standards and the teachers , parents, pupils try to be as successful as possible. 

Not saying that there aren't bright talented kids in comprehensives of course there are. It's just that the culture is different and it has to cater for all abilities. Therefore there is bound to be some holding back of the brightest pupils. 

Rightly or wrongly some grammar schools are have academy status as well so they are funded differently. Better facilities and equipment does help too.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			Disagree. We didn't private tutor our son.

He never went to a prep school either.

We are good examples where class does not come into it. 

Hard work and determination doesn't cost anything. 

BTW our daughter goes to a comprehensive and I'm OK with that too. I just accept that she is not as academic as my son. 

A boy that was neck and neck with my son at primary school also sat the exam but did not go through. His grades at GCSE are now worlds apart. If he had got into grammar I am sure that he too would have A's across the board. The grammar has high standards and the teachers , parents, pupils try to be as successful as possible. 

Not saying that there aren't bright talented kids in comprehensives of course there are. It's just that the culture is different and it has to cater for all abilities. Therefore there is bound to be some holding back of the brightest pupils. 

Rightly or wrongly some grammar schools are have academy status as well so they are funded differently. Better facilities and equipment does help too.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know if that other kid hasn't got issues at home or something affecting him or his family that you are unaware of? Saying that getting into grammar school would of ensured he'd of got A's across the board is no more than speculation.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			Disagree. We didn't private tutor our son.

He never went to a prep school either.

We are good examples where class does not come into it. 

Hard work and determination doesn't cost anything. 

BTW our daughter goes to a comprehensive and I'm OK with that too. I just accept that she is not as academic as my son. 

A boy that was neck and neck with my son at primary school also sat the exam but did not go through. His grades at GCSE are now worlds apart. If he had got into grammar I am sure that he too would have A's across the board. The grammar has high standards and the teachers , parents, pupils try to be as successful as possible. 

Not saying that there aren't bright talented kids in comprehensives of course there are. It's just that the culture is different and it has to cater for all abilities. Therefore there is bound to be some holding back of the brightest pupils. 

Rightly or wrongly some grammar schools are have academy status as well so they are funded differently. Better facilities and equipment does help too.
		
Click to expand...

What exactly are you disagreeing with ?

If the selection to a better school is determined by passing one exam don't you think that people will more money will spend as much as possible to prepare their child to pass that exam ? 

You are one exam - that majority won't be based on your one example 

If kids are being held back by comps why are we producing more people with degrees right now than before ?

Why should only certain people get the best teachers teaching them ? All that does is create further them and us divides.

Do you not believe in equal opportunities ? Do you not think that every child should get the chance to be taught by the very best - or should that very best teacher be saved for the bright kids only ? 

I'm still struggling to see what the problem is that grammar schools solve ?


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 10, 2016)

Got to admit, I know nothing about comprehensives, grammar schools, or academies. Baffles me what the difference is. I'm in favour of streaming, and not in favour of faith schools, but other than that?


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			"Why do the left..." They, quite rightly, want equal opportunities for all. Unfortunately, the damage is already done long before the 11+ is anywhere on the horizon. 

Daughter #3 teaches in a very poor, inner city area. The poor state many kids arrive at school would make your heart bleed. Some kids even hate Christmas because they won't get properly fed till they return to school in January.

How can a child take advantage of the opportunities if they haven't even taken onboard the right fuel for the day?

It doesn't matter whether there's grammar schools or not, most disadvantaged children won't succeed without intervention long before the 11+.
		
Click to expand...

Very fair comment, my wife works in a Primary school and says the same things, kids born of abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics etc - mostly they Stan little chance in this world and it does make your heart bleed. I still don't see the most academic kids being denied a grammar education as fair equal opportunity, but I'm sure you were not suggesting that Brian


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What exactly are you disagreeing with ?

If the selection to a better school is determined by passing one exam don't you think that people will more money will spend as much as possible to prepare their child to pass that exam ? 

You are one exam - that majority won't be based on your one example 

If kids are being held back by comps why are we producing more people with degrees right now than before ?

Why should only certain people get the best teachers teaching them ? All that does is create further them and us divides.

Do you not believe in equal opportunities ? Do you not think that every child should get the chance to be taught by the very best - or should that very best teacher be saved for the bright kids only ? 

I'm still struggling to see what the problem is that grammar schools solve ?
		
Click to expand...

Disagree that it comes down to class and money. If the pupil is bright enough they will go to a grammar it's as simple as that.

Surely we want more kids from working class backgrounds to get into good schools and universities? If they don't have the money for private education then state funded grammar schools is the best option for them.  

Once in a grammar there is very little distinction between those with money and those that don't. And the kids from normal backgrounds can compete with the rich kids for places at the best universities.  I don't think that you can say the same about most comprehensives.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If kids are being held back by comps why are we producing more people with degrees right now than before ?

Why should only certain people get the best teachers teaching them ? All that does is create further them and us divides.

Do you not believe in equal opportunities ? Do you not think that every child should get the chance to be taught by the very best - or should that very best teacher be saved for the bright kids only ?
		
Click to expand...

More people with degrees is the result of more university places being available.

As for "best teachers"; how do we define who they are and if we can  how do we (society) dictate where those teachers should teach?

If grammar schools are to be the answer then it is essential that the selection process does not favour those with the greatest financial resources, this was not the case in the past when many children from financially poor families were able to pass the 11-plus and enter grammar schools. The education that they then received often led to them advancing and broke that chain of relative poverty.

If, however, we are to remain with the current system then there needs to be an increase in subject streaming and a final ditching of the teaching methods promoted by some academics who were, themselves, products of the so called "revolution in teaching" of the 60's and 70's.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 10, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			More people with degrees is the result of more university places being available.

As for "best teachers"; how do we define who they are and if we can  how do we (society) dictate where those teachers should teach?

If grammar schools are to be the answer then it is essential that the selection process does not favour those with the greatest financial resources, this was not the case in the past when many children from financially poor families were able to pass the 11-plus and enter grammar schools. The education that they then received often led to them advancing and broke that chain of relative poverty.

If, however, we are to remain with the current system then there needs to be an increase in subject streaming and a final ditching of the teaching methods promoted by some academics who were, themselves, products of the so called "revolution in teaching" of the 60's and 70's.
		
Click to expand...

Not quite correct about the past, there were also kids from poor families who passed the 11+ but couldn't go to Grammar School because their family couldn't afford the uniform or bus fares as the school was not in walking distance.


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 10, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			Disagree that it comes down to class and money. If the pupil is bright enough they will go to a grammar it's as simple as that.

Surely we want more kids from working class backgrounds to get into good schools and universities? If they don't have the money for private education then state funded grammar schools is the best option for them.  

Once in a grammar there is very little distinction between those with money and those that don't. And the kids from normal backgrounds can compete with the rich kids for places at the best universities.  I don't think that you can say the same about most comprehensives.
		
Click to expand...

It will come down to money. Parents will not want the stigma that their child didn't get into Grammar school. So what will be the answer........ spend money on private tuition and exam coaching to make sure their child gets a grammar school place. Kids from council estates and working class families will not get these opportunities so it will come down to hard work and being bright enough.

But these grammar schools will only have so many places. I'm not sure how these 11+ exams will be graded, but say for instance it is on a percentage. The grammar school say has only 100 places, that means they will only take the top 100 students. Now the pass mark for that top 100 might be at a 92% pass mark. So any kid under 92% is out of luck. 

But if parents that have the financial ability start getting their kids private tuition to pass this exam, then all of a sudden they pick up an extra 5-10%. This then takes that pass mark up to 95% and so the kids that would have got in now do not. But it is not their fault that someone could afford to get tuition for their kid to up it's 11+ result. They have now been punished because of their parents financial situation............... how is this fair?

If I was in that situation I would move hell and high water to make sure my kid got into the Grammar school and if that meant spending money on private tuition and exam coaching, then so be it.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Not quite correct about the past, there were also kids from poor families who passed the 11+ but couldn't go to Grammar School because their family couldn't afford the uniform or bus fares as the school was not in walking distance.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly true Paul but I never had the full school uniform, often had holes in my shoes and had 3 bus rides to my school but I passed the 11+ and nothing was going to stop me going to my school. These days the benefit system is still far more generous than it was then and there are also free school meals now as well. I also worked from the age of 10 and usually bought my lunch myself (but I realise that can't be done now)


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 10, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Not quite correct about the past, there were also kids from poor families who passed the 11+ but couldn't go to Grammar School because their family couldn't afford the uniform or bus fares as the school was not in walking distance.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe so but there were plenty of parents who, despite the hardship, managed to send their children to grammar school. My father and mother in law somehow found the necessary funds for my wife to attend a grammar school despite him only ever holding a low paying job.

Hopefully, nowadays society would be sufficiently enlightened to ensure that this barrier would be lowered even further.

In any event I am not necessarily in favour of grammar schools. I am, however, convinced that the _status quo  _&#8203;is not the answer.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 10, 2016)

Chris/Mickie, I don't have the answers either, but for every exception there's always someone who did manage it, any future state education system needs to be fair for all and not based on the parents finances.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 10, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If kids are being held back by comps why are we producing more people with degrees right now than before ?
		
Click to expand...

Apologies for chopping your post. On the issue of more people getting degrees; there's a doc available from the DoE that shows what today's degrees are worth compared to yester years degrees. It actually compares all adult education, inc C&G, HNC, HND etc. The classic degrees in things like math, science are comparable with those of 20 years ago but many of the 'modern' degrees would struggle to be compared with HND.

Ideal for a recruiting manager, and you'd be amazed how poorly educated some young people are. Not there fault but, for example, you'd be gobsmacked how many technicians can't wire up a mains plug. Bring back apprenticeships!

BTW, I agree with the rest of your post.



chrisd said:



			Very fair comment, my wife works in a Primary school and says the same things, kids born of abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics etc - mostly they Stan little chance in this world and it does make your heart bleed. I still don't see the most academic kids being denied a grammar education as fair equal opportunity, but I'm sure you were not suggesting that Brian
		
Click to expand...

Chris, there are vast (educational) areas of the U.K. where grammar schools don't exist. That's the unfairness for me. Most Labour heartlands dumped grammar schools 40 years ago.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 10, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Chris/Mickie, I don't have the answers either, but for every exception there's always someone who did manage it, any future state education system needs to be fair for all and not based on the parents finances.
		
Click to expand...


And I would completely agree with that sentiment.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Chris/Mickie, I don't have the answers either, but for every exception there's always someone who did manage it, any future state education system needs to be fair for all and not based on the parents finances.
		
Click to expand...

I agree Paul, but grammar schools used to cream off the top, say, 25% of children so realistically how far up the ladder could say the 35% child climb ? I remember the borderline kids often preferred to go to the local secondary school so they would be top of the class there and to not feel under so much pressure being, theoretically, the worst in the year group at the grammar. 

I paid for my son to have a small amount of maths tuition just before his 11+ but realistically we were pretty sure he'd get there anyway


----------



## MadAdey (Sep 10, 2016)

I think what this thread is showing is the concern that people have about going back to the 11+ system with Grammar schools, where certain kids will get access to better education and it could be swayed by financial situation, rather than the intelligence of a kid. There are obviously people on here that would be in the position to spend money on giving hteir kid a better chance of getting into one of these schools, but even they are concerned about it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I agree Paul, but grammar schools used to cream off the top, say, 25% of children so realistically how far up the ladder could say the 35% child climb ? I remember the borderline kids often preferred to go to the local secondary school so they would be top of the class there and to not feel under so much pressure being, theoretically, the worst in the year group at the grammar. 

I paid for my son to have a small amount of maths tuition just before his 11+ but realistically we were pretty sure he'd get there anyway
		
Click to expand...

It's not the cream that's the issue to me though, unless we get the non-grammar schools correct then we'll have a broken system, let's improve all schools, as someone put before I'm not sure what it is that's broken that Grammar schools alone will fix.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 10, 2016)

Michael Gove went to Aberdeen Grammar Skool [I believe].
As education minister he said that he wanted 'all of our schools to be above average'.

He must have been off the day they did math.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 10, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			It's not the cream that's the issue to me though, unless we get the non-grammar schools correct then we'll have a broken system, let's improve all schools, as someone put before I'm not sure what it is that's broken that Grammar schools alone will fix.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the need to improve comprehensive schools but I don't like the idea of the best kids having to be mixed with the worst, the disruptive and wasters. 

It's not broken here in Kent, we do have grammar schools and they work really well


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 10, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I agree with you about the need to improve comprehensive schools but I don't like the idea of the best kids having to be mixed with the worst, the disruptive and wasters. 

It's not broken here in Kent, we do have grammar schools and they work really well
		
Click to expand...

I agree Chris....if it ain't broke.....


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 10, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			I think 16 can be too late for some though. By that time they have spent 2 years failing subjects and ending up with nothing of any use to them. But if you let a kid do some kind of basic engineering course for 2 years, they might come out at 16 with something useful.  Then they can either go and try get an apprenticeship or go onto college to take it further with a view to maybe going onto to get a degree.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree. I thought it was a mistake by the gov't, can't remember which one it was, when they brought in the extension to the school leavers age. School is not for everyone.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 10, 2016)

I also have my views on grammar schools (ex-pupil myself) in the one of the last intakes after the 11+.

But were the hell does the OP think all these apprenticeships are available.........


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 11, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			Hacker Khan has raised the subject of *'the pushy middle classes' the trouble with that term is that it is out of date.. *The middle classes now do not have a unearned income or stuff like the 50s, they are the sons and daughters of the working class a generation ago. They know what it is to work hard to get where they want to be and they know what it takes to stay there so they want the same for their children. What I dont understand is how anybody could possibly not be a pushy parent!!  Its the pushy parents taking their offspring to the swimming baths at 5 in the morning or spending the whole weekend taking their kids to football games 2 hours drive away etc etc.. If you dont want the best for your children and am not willing to bust a gut to give it then that is far far worse than being pushy!
		
Click to expand...

Yea right,  You do know that the majority of pupils that get into the existing grammars, especially in places like Kent, are offspring of parents who can afford to privately tutor their kids but can't afford private education.  Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kid, but kids being pushed constantly by parents to the determent of their right to basically be a kid and also their mental health, which is an increasing issue in schools catering to pupils of all ages, is not a good thing really IMHO.  Yes challenge them, but lets not get into a dog eat dog competition to basically define their life chances at the age of 11.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 11, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Yea right,  You do know that the majority of pupils that get into the existing grammars, especially in places like Kent, are offspring of parents who can afford to privately tutor their kids but can't afford private education.  Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kid, but kids being pushed constantly by parents to the determent of their right to basically be a kid and also their mental health, which is an increasing issue in schools catering to pupils of all ages, is not a good thing really IMHO.  Yes challenge them, but lets not get into a dog eat dog competition to basically define their life chances at the age of 11.
		
Click to expand...

Does the right to be 'basically be a kid' mean they should be left to decide for themselves whether or not they need to work hard to maximise their potential.  I hope not.


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 11, 2016)

sawtooth said:



			Disagree. We didn't private tutor our son.

He never went to a prep school either.

We are good examples where class does not come into it. 

Hard work and determination doesn't cost anything. 

BTW our daughter goes to a comprehensive and I'm OK with that too. I just accept that she is not as academic as my son. 

A boy that was neck and neck with my son at primary school also sat the exam but did not go through. His grades at GCSE are now worlds apart. If he had got into grammar I am sure that he too would have A's across the board. The grammar has high standards and the teachers , parents, pupils try to be as successful as possible. 

Not saying that there aren't bright talented kids in comprehensives of course there are. It's just that the culture is different and it has to cater for all abilities. Therefore there is bound to be some holding back of the brightest pupils. 

Rightly or wrongly some grammar schools are have academy status as well so they are funded differently. Better facilities and equipment does help too.
		
Click to expand...

This is what is wrong with Grammars.
It's not the success of the few who get into them, it's the lessened opportunity for those who don't.
I understand why parents want individual success for their kids.
But the system should offer the very best opportunity for EVERY child to fulfill their talents, not just the select minority.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 11, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			"Why do the left..." They, quite rightly, want equal opportunities for all. Unfortunately, the damage is already done long before the 11+ is anywhere on the horizon. 

Daughter #3 teaches in a very poor, inner city area. The poor state many kids arrive at school would make your heart bleed. Some kids even hate Christmas because they won't get properly fed till they return to school in January.

How can a child take advantage of the opportunities if they haven't even taken onboard the right fuel for the day?

It doesn't matter whether there's grammar schools or not, most disadvantaged children won't succeed without intervention long before the 11+.
		
Click to expand...

Replying purely to the question the thread title posed....
I agree with everything Hobbit posts here except for the presence of the word 'opportunities' - and therefore the 'quite rightly' description! Read/recall 'Animal Farm' for how this approach is doomed to failure!

Grammar schools are symbols of what 'the left' detest!

There is no real solution to the political issues involved - even though huge amounts of taxpayer money is being spent on ideologically based approaches! 

Better leadership (and) allowing better teachers to actually teach is the best way forward imo!


----------



## Farmergeddon (Sep 11, 2016)

OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said  'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future.


----------



## Ross61 (Sep 11, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said  'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', *so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future*.
		
Click to expand...

How do you get that statement from what foxholer said?


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 11, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said  'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future.
		
Click to expand...

You will need to explain what sort of 'problems' are being stored!

Oh.. And you misquoted Aristotle!


----------



## GG26 (Sep 11, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Yea right,  You do know that the majority of pupils that get into the existing grammars, especially in places like Kent, are offspring of parents who can afford to privately tutor their kids but can't afford private education.  Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kid, but kids being pushed constantly by parents to the determent of their right to basically be a kid and also their mental health, which is an increasing issue in schools catering to pupils of all ages, is not a good thing really IMHO.  Yes challenge them, but lets not get into a dog eat dog competition to basically define their life chances at the age of 11.
		
Click to expand...

I went to a grammar school in Kent, was I privately tutored by my parents? No!  Did my parents put any pressure on me? No!  Did I do better because I went to the grammar, yes I did.

My daughter is in year 8 at her school (no grammars where we currently live).  They have been put in sets according to their performance in year 7.  She is moaning to me that in the top science set she has been put in a group of four, where she was graded 4- and the others are all 2+.  She is so far ahead of them that they don't get some of the basic concepts, so she feels that she is being held back.  I feel for her as she is not getting the same opportunity that I did.  Before you ask, she has not been given any private tuition or any extra tuition from me.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 11, 2016)

GG26 - speak to your daughter's teacher. Ask them to push her more. My daughter is a smart cookie and her teachers identified that in her early days and gave her extra and more advanced work to stretch her. If your daughter's teacher has not picked up on this then you need to intervene. If they don't up the work then see the head.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 11, 2016)

The suggestion seems to be that most children have extra, home funded, tuition to get to grammar school - I've never seen any stats to prove that this is true


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 11, 2016)

GG26 said:



			I* went to a grammar school in Kent, was I privately tutored by my parents? No!  Did my parents put any pressure on me? No!  Did I do better because I went to the grammar, yes I did.*

My daughter is in year 8 at her school (no grammars where we currently live).  They have been put in sets according to their performance in year 7.  She is moaning to me that in the top science set she has been put in a group of four, where she was graded 4- and the others are all 2+.  She is so far ahead of them that they don't get some of the basic concepts, so she feels that she is being held back.  I feel for her as she is not getting the same opportunity that I did.  Before you ask, she has not been given any private tuition or any extra tuition from me.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but that was then and nowadays there are many private primary schools that have sprung up in Kent and many private tutors specifically there to ensure that the kids whose parents can afford such things get into the grammars. Yes it would be great of these extra grammars would give opportunities to all, but in reality they will not. In todays educational society people can mostly but their way to a good education, it is bad enough as it is, no need to introduce yet another way of doing it. Why not concentrate on getting all schools better?  If I was being cynical I would say it is a ploy to get their forced academy program through. Before this grammar nonsense this it was very controversial, now when people rightly say this grammar is will just lead to a more divided educational landscape then they will go back to forcing through academisation instead.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 11, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			GG26 - speak to your daughter's teacher. Ask them to push her more. My daughter is a smart cookie and her teachers identified that in her early days and gave her extra and more advanced work to stretch her. If your daughter's teacher has not picked up on this then you need to intervene. If they don't up the work then see the head.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!!!

And if the Head doesn't do something about it - Physics is actually a 'difficult' subject to resource - then (threaten to) complain to the Local Authority - who pay his salary!

While I have every sympathy for the teacher/Head, stretching, within reason, talented kids is something that needs to be done!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 11, 2016)

chrisd said:



			The suggestion seems to be that most children have extra, home funded, tuition to get to grammar school - I've never seen any stats to prove that this is true
		
Click to expand...

Because it is not an official stat that any grammar will collect.  But plenty of anecdotal evidence.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/516066/Parents-pay-private-tutor-thousands-kids-into-grammar-school

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/children-extra-lessons-grammar-schools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...mmar-school-tests-to-be-made-tutor-proof.html


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 11, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			Because it is not an official stat that any grammar will collect.  But plenty of anecdotal evidence.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/516066/Parents-pay-private-tutor-thousands-kids-into-grammar-school

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/children-extra-lessons-grammar-schools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...mmar-school-tests-to-be-made-tutor-proof.html

Click to expand...

So completely to the usual prejudices from 'the usual suspects'!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 11, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			So completely to the usual prejudices from 'the usual suspects'!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the Express and Torygraph, as well as Micky Morgan and Sir Michael Wilshaw.  Bunch of liberal lefties the lot of them....


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 11, 2016)

I honestly can't understand why we can't have more grammars!

More grammars means more places for more children. It means more children who won't get to Etonian or Harrow at least get something better than they might currently get.

We already have streaming in schools. What's wrong with having different schools based on ability? Or are people too brainwashed by the Corbynites, many of which had the very education they now decry.

I agree with Labour of the 90's/00's. It's about time bad teachers were sacked. It's about time Heads took ownership of their schools and bit the bullet of driving teaching abilities up. Buildings don't teach children, although a leaking roof doesn't help, teachers do, or should.

At least the Tories are doing what Labour didn't have the balls to do, even though it was often discussed. They are intent on driving up standards for more children, and it means putting some of the in grammar schools.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 11, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			I honestly can't understand why we can't have more grammars!

More grammars means more places for more children. It means more children who won't get to Etonian or Harrow at least get something better than they might currently get.

We already have streaming in schools. What's wrong with having different schools based on ability? Or are people too brainwashed by the Corbynites, many of which had the very education they now decry.

I agree with Labour of the 90's/00's. It's about time bad teachers were sacked. It's about time Heads took ownership of their schools and bit the bullet of driving teaching abilities up. Buildings don't teach children, although a leaking roof doesn't help, teachers do, or should.

At least the Tories are doing what Labour didn't have the balls to do, even though it was often discussed. They are intent on driving up standards for more children, and it means putting some of the in grammar schools.
		
Click to expand...

TBH it may be simply what they're called which causes the issue, calling them Grammar Schools gives rise to hopes and fears to different people, some see it as a future and some as a backward step, divisions in society and gaps between the haves and the have nots, whether any of this is right is again open to interpretation.
But I would hope that all would want what's best for all children in an equal and fair education system


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 11, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			TBH it may be simply what they're called which causes the issue, calling them Grammar Schools gives rise to hopes and fears to different people, some see it as a future and some as a backward step, divisions in society and gaps between the haves and the have nots, whether any of this is right is again open to interpretation.
But I would hope that all would want what's best for all children in an equal and fair education system
		
Click to expand...

I think you've nailed it Paul. Too many people hung up on what the grammar schools of the 60's were, that led to their downfall.

I'm in the middle of a book on UK politics from 1990 to 2010. Interesting to read of Labour's problems with the NUT during the late 90's and early 00's. Labour had some fantastic ideas, some of which could be argued that they were grammar under another name. Education stalled under David Blunkett because of the NUT, and Labour eventually resurrected Tory policies.


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 12, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			I honestly can't understand why we can't have more grammars!

More grammars means more places for more children. It means more children who won't get to Etonian or Harrow at least get something better than they might currently get.

We already have streaming in schools. What's wrong with having different schools based on ability? Or are people too brainwashed by the Corbynites, many of which had the very education they now decry.

I agree with Labour of the 90's/00's. It's about time bad teachers were sacked. It's about time Heads took ownership of their schools and bit the bullet of driving teaching abilities up. Buildings don't teach children, although a leaking roof doesn't help, teachers do, or should.

At least the Tories are doing what Labour didn't have the balls to do, even though it was often discussed. They are intent on driving up standards for more children, and it means putting some of the in grammar schools.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously we could have more Grammars. But we shouldn't.

It will cost fortunes to set up each Grammar - money which cannot be spend on the majority of pupils stuck on the lower tier of education.

Unfair elitist education.

Forget all this "Life isn't fair" argument. There's no way I could ever support a system set up to benefit one child to the detriment of 3 or 4 less privileged kids just because they pass an exam at 11.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 12, 2016)

Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:



			Obviously we could have more Grammars. But we shouldn't.

It will cost fortunes to set up each Grammar - money which cannot be spend on the majority of pupils stuck on the lower tier of education.

Unfair elitist education.

Forget all this "Life isn't fair" argument. There's no way I could ever support a system set up to benefit one child to the detriment of 3 or 4 less privileged kids just because they pass an exam at 11.
		
Click to expand...

Although, as Theresa May says, you've already got it now in that the richer middle classes can afford, and do, just buy a house nearer the best schools to ensure their children get into the school of their choice. That choice is not open to the poor!


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 12, 2016)

chrisd said:



			Although, as Theresa May says, you've already got it now in that the richer middle classes can afford, and do, just buy a house nearer the best schools to ensure their children get into the school of their choice. That choice is not open to the poor!
		
Click to expand...

But at least money isn't being taken away from the poorer schools in a deliberate scheme to stop them improving.

At the moment my job is putting me in touch with several of the underperforming local schools and the one thing they have in common is a desire and plan to get better.

In fact, one of the considerations when looking at the lesser achieving schools' results is the proportion of "lower" quality (for the terms of this discussion only) students.

The "top" students are still doing as well as those in independent schools. The difference is the "better" schools only take students they know will pass so their numbers obviously look better.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 12, 2016)

Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:



			But at least money isn't being taken away from the poorer schools in a deliberate scheme to stop them improving.

At the moment my job is putting me in touch with several of the underperforming local schools and the one thing they have in common is a desire and plan to get better.

In fact, one of the considerations when looking at the lesser achieving schools' results is the proportion of "lower" quality (for the terms of this discussion only) students.

The "top" students are still doing as well as those in independent schools. The difference is the "better" schools only take students they know will pass so their numbers obviously look better.
		
Click to expand...

I've said several times here that ALL schools should be improving and that standards of teaching should mean that there are NO bad teachers but it is indisputable for me that grammar schools work and the best kids should be given the best chance to excel. If comprehensive schools graded and streamed their kids so that the best didn't have to be educated alongside the worst in school, maybe I'd feel different.  However, life during, and after school, is about selection and social standing does play a part. 

Build the Grammar school in socially poor areas and pick the intake on an 11+ and add teachers knowledge of the child's underlying ability to recommend placement which could level the playing field where parents can't afford extra tuition for bright children


----------



## User20205 (Sep 12, 2016)

I've have no issue with grammar schools in theory, though the thought of pigeon holing a child @ 11 doesn't really sit well. 

Some kids are academic, some vocational this should be recognised. I just don't have any confidence in the vocational options. Apprenticeships need to become a viable educational choice vs university again & I suppose the difference between now & 40 years ago is that the manufacturing industry that supported this isn't as large. 
If my kids showed more application vocationally I would rather this was recognised and developed rather than them being pushed towards unsuitable academic programmes. 

So grammar schools could be OK, if the alternative is funded, resourced and not just a dumping ground for 11+ failures.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 12, 2016)

Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:



			Obviously we could have more Grammars. But we shouldn't.

It will cost fortunes to set up each Grammar - money which cannot be spend on the majority of pupils stuck on the lower tier of education.

Unfair elitist education.

Forget all this "Life isn't fair" argument. There's no way I could ever support a system set up to benefit one child to the detriment of 3 or 4 less privileged kids just because they pass an exam at 11.
		
Click to expand...

You appear to be mixing intelligence with privilege. Streaming already exists, and on so many levels. Rich parents pay for private schools, middle class families move catchment areas or employ private tutors. And comps already stream based on intelligence.

Even working class children pass their 11+. "Unfair elitist..." I seem to remember that there was no elitism in the area I grew up in but there was grammar schools.

Do you really want to hold back intelligent children? Is it really intelligent to not stretch bright children, but to have them in a class that runs at half their speed, doing stuff they picked up weeks before?


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			You appear to be mixing intelligence with privilege. Streaming already exists, and on so many levels. Rich parents pay for private schools, middle class families move catchment areas or employ private tutors. And comps already stream based on intelligence.

Even working class children pass their 11+. "Unfair elitist..." I seem to remember that there was no elitism in the area I grew up in but there was grammar schools.

Do you really want to hold back intelligent children? Is it really intelligent to not stretch bright children, but to have them in a class that runs at half their speed, doing stuff they picked up weeks before?
		
Click to expand...

Firstly, I don't "hate" Grammar schools.. I tend not to "hate" very much in life...

Secondly, I don't disagree with offering a more challenging curriculum to brighter kids, in fact I actively encourage it.. However, I would prefer a system which allowed for later developers to be swept into the faster learning group should they deserve it.. I fundamentally disagree with allocation of education based on how a student performs at 11 years old.. 

As I stated earlier in the thread, there can be as much as 11 months difference between classmates. At 11 years old this is almost 1/6th of their total school time.. By the time the younger pupils reach 12 they could be just as bright, but they've already been designated as "vocational" by the system..


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 12, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Firstly, I don't "hate" Grammar schools.. I tend not to "hate" very much in life...

Secondly, I don't disagree with offering a more challenging curriculum to brighter kids, in fact I actively encourage it.. However, I would prefer a system which allowed for later developers to be swept into the faster learning group should they deserve it.. I fundamentally disagree with allocation of education based on how a student performs at 11 years old.. 

As I stated earlier in the thread, there can be as much as 11 months difference between classmates. At 11 years old this is almost 1/6th of their total school time.. By the time the younger pupils reach 12 they could be just as bright, but they've already been designated as "vocational" by the system..
		
Click to expand...

Er, I've not quoted you as hating anything... Not even sure I've quoted you in the thread at all.

Totally agree with what you've posted. 

I seem to remember that there was also a further sifting at 13. 

Also, there wasn't a pigeon holing of pupils into vocational courses, although if you go back further there used to be. The father in law didn't go to the grammar but did go to the tech as it was back in the 30's. He, like a number of his peers, did very well in his career.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Er, I've not quoted you as hating anything... Not even sure I've quoted you in the thread at all.

Totally agree with what you've posted. 

I seem to remember that there was also a further sifting at 13. 

Also, there wasn't a pigeon holing of pupils into vocational courses, although if you go back further there used to be. The father in law didn't go to the grammar but did go to the tech as it was back in the 30's. He, like a number of his peers, did very well in his career.
		
Click to expand...

The "hate" quote was more of a clarification of the OP's thread title really :thup:

I do recall a further sift at 13, but I don't think they could do that now.. We can already see the pressure on school places at better performing schools. Can you imagine that there will be places available at Grammar School once the places have been allocated? Maybe 1 or 2 if pupils move area, but without dropping the students who are performing poorly, then how are places going to open up?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 12, 2016)

therod said:



			I've have no issue with grammar schools in theory, though the thought of pigeon holing a child @ 11 doesn't really sit well. 

Some kids are academic, some vocational this should be recognised. I just don't have any confidence in the vocational options. Apprenticeships need to become a viable educational choice vs university again & I suppose the difference between now & 40 years ago is that the manufacturing industry that supported this isn't as large. 
If my kids showed more application vocationally I would rather this was recognised and developed rather than them being pushed towards unsuitable academic programmes. 

So grammar schools could be OK, if the alternative is funded, resourced and not just a dumping ground for 11+ failures.
		
Click to expand...


I agree with this.

I appreciate that there would be major practical difficulties to overcome if grammar schools are to be reintroduced.

But, in theory at least, there is no reason why both types of school cannot happily co-exist and provide appropriate education for all children's needs.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 12, 2016)

If we are changing standard schools to Grammar schools then clearly you need other schools for those who fail the exam. Are those going to be built or will pupils have to commute long distances? This is a practical question. In my part of the world each town has a single high school. There are decent distance between each town and so each school. Does each town need a new school each, not going to happen due to finances, or will there be huge numbers of buses moving pupils back and forth?

If we forget the idealogical debate the practicalities also have to be overcome.


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 12, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			You appear to be mixing intelligence with privilege. Streaming already exists, and on so many levels. Rich parents pay for private schools, middle class families move catchment areas or employ private tutors. And comps already stream based on intelligence.

Even working class children pass their 11+. "Unfair elitist..." I seem to remember that there was no elitism in the area I grew up in but there was grammar schools.

Do you really want to hold back intelligent children? Is it really intelligent to not stretch bright children, but to have them in a class that runs at half their speed, doing stuff they picked up weeks before?
		
Click to expand...

As well as doubting my personal intelligence you are ignoring my argument. 
Any new Grammar system will cost a lot of money.
That money will be spent to the detriment of existing schools.
Therefore the few will benefit at the cost of many.
IE elitism.

If you take all the money the new system would cost and plough that into the current system more children across the board, of all academic levels, will benefit.

By putting academic children above others you are, by definition, putting the latter below their peers.

I'm not talking about holding children back. I'm suggesting that there are plenty of youngsters in the current system have have managed top grades. Let's help ALL of them.


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 12, 2016)

chrisd said:



			I've said several times here that ALL schools should be improving and that standards of teaching should mean that there are NO bad teachers but it is indisputable for me that grammar schools work and the best kids should be given the best chance to excel. If comprehensive schools graded and streamed their kids so that the best didn't have to be educated alongside the worst in school, maybe I'd feel different.  However, life during, and after school, is about selection and social standing does play a part. 

Build the Grammar school in socially poor areas and pick the intake on an 11+ and add teachers knowledge of the child's underlying ability to recommend placement which could level the playing field where parents can't afford extra tuition for bright children
		
Click to expand...

I understand your situation and your belief. Because I agree that those in Grammar schools will be seen to succeed in all comparisons.
But to I don't think it's ever going to be that simple.
Purely because there won't ever be enough funding to allow it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 12, 2016)

I thought the idea of Comprehensive schools was for them to provide comprehensive education whereby the brightest were placed in the higher streams in classes with other children of similar abilities, the graded streams are 'A' 'B' 'C' 'D' for example and children get placed in these streams to suit their abilities in each subject.   This gives them a chance to excel in subjects they have ability for and the possibility to move up the grades if they improve. It sounds the perfect system on paper.   I think it often fails due to the standard/attitude of teachers and the education system.

We shouldn't need Grammar Schools if the Comprehensive system worked as it should do but this is Britain 2016 where problems are always someone Else's responsibility and we are all entitled to the best Education/Medical care/State Welfare/Nice Life as long as someone else provides it for us.  If the only way responsible parents can get their kids a good start in life is through Grammar Schools then fair dues to them.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

I've still to be convinced there's a problem that needs fixing.... Are we failing on the World stage? Are we not educating enough world class professionals? Just exactly where are we failing??


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 12, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			I've still to be convinced there's a problem that needs fixing.... Are we failing on the World stage? Are we not educating enough world class professionals? Just exactly where are we failing??
		
Click to expand...

I understand that when compared with many of our trading competitors our average standard of educational attainment does not compare favourably.

It appears that at the higher educational levels our base is too narrow. This does seem to offer some support to those who argue that the current system sometimes seems to be based upon the Lowest Common Denominator.

Mind you I remain unconvinced that grammar schools will provide the answer rather than improvements to the comprehensive system.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			I understand that when compared with many of our trading competitors our average standard of educational attainment does not compare favourably.

It appears that at the higher educational levels our base is too narrow. This does seem to offer some support to those who argue that the current system sometimes seems to be based upon the Lowest Common Denominator.

Mind you I remain unconvinced that grammar schools will provide the answer rather than improvements to the comprehensive system.
		
Click to expand...

Without seeing this information, would it be possible that one of our problems is that we have too wide a curriculum at the University level, which means that there just aren't enough places on the traditional Professional qualifications? In essence, why are we importing Doctors and Engineers from abroad, but at the same time, not having enough places at University to admit all those who pass the qualifying criteria?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 12, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			Without seeing this information, would it be possible that one of our problems is that we have too wide a curriculum at the University level, which means that there just aren't enough places on the traditional Professional qualifications? In essence, why are we importing Doctors and Engineers from abroad, but at the same time, not having enough places at University to admit all those who pass the qualifying criteria?
		
Click to expand...

Purely judging it on the number of places available via "clearing" I am not certain that there is a shortage of available university places.

It does, however, seem that there are not sufficient school-leavers who wish to study for and enter some of the professions, preferring instead to study non-vocational subjects.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Sep 12, 2016)

Farmergeddon said:



			OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said  'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future.
		
Click to expand...

Thats if you believe that everything that Aristotle opined is a 100% fact.

Have you answered were all these apprenticeships are yet?


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Purely judging it on the number of places available via "clearing" I am not certain that there is a shortage of available university places.

It does, however, seem that there are not sufficient school-leavers who wish to study for and enter some of the professions, preferring instead to study non-vocational subjects.
		
Click to expand...

According to the Telegraph, in 2012 there were 10.6 applications to study Medicine for every available place. Yet we are importing record amounts of Doctors from abroad. Maybe, if we really wanted to, we could free up a few more places and import less. You'd think the Centre Right would be all over this like a rash. I wonder why they're not?


----------



## Snelly (Sep 12, 2016)

Why? 

Because they are terminally bitter.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

Snelly said:



			Why? 

Because they are terminally bitter.
		
Click to expand...

Shame. Was a relatively good natured discussion until this. Not sure why some think that throwing insults is a worthwhile debating strategy. Poor form.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 12, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			According to the Telegraph, in 2012 there were 10.6 applications to study Medicine for every available place. Yet we are importing record amounts of Doctors from abroad. Maybe, if we really wanted to, we could free up a few more places and import less. You'd think the Centre Right would be all over this like a rash. I wonder why they're not?
		
Click to expand...

It is that sort of figure that makes one think of "the economics of the mad-house".

Although, I suppose, the over subscribed British universities might claim that many of those applicants that they decline are not up to the standard necessary for reading Medicine. This could, therefore, be where the existing system is failing the country.

Or is it the case that the applicants are of a  sufficiently high standard but the universities are not making enough places available.

Whichever it is some "joined up" thinking is needed by all parties; Government, Universities and Schools.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			It is that sort of figure that makes one think of "the economics of the mad-house".

Although, I suppose, the over subscribed British universities might claim that many of those applicants that they decline are not up to the standard necessary for reading Medicine. This could, therefore, be where the existing system is failing the country.

Or is it the case that the applicants are of a  sufficiently high standard but the universities are not making enough places available.

Whichever it is some "joined up" thinking is needed by all parties; Government, Universities and Schools.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. A more holistic approach to educating the future workforce is required. The problem is that Politics (and politicians) is relentlessly short term. A long view of the issues we face might prompt a very different discussion.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 12, 2016)

Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:



			As well as doubting my personal intelligence you are ignoring my argument. 
Any new Grammar system will cost a lot of money.
That money will be spent to the detriment of existing schools.
Therefore the few will benefit at the cost of many.
IE elitism.

If you take all the money the new system would cost and plough that into the current system more children across the board, of all academic levels, will benefit.

By putting academic children above others you are, by definition, putting the latter below their peers.

I'm not talking about holding children back. I'm suggesting that there are plenty of youngsters in the current system have have managed top grades. Let's help ALL of them.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting your personal intelligence at all, but I am questioning your rationale. However, I do agree with the wish to drive up the standards of all children. It's at the fundamental level of the how where we disagree - that doesn't mean I see your argument as shallow or simplistic.

As to cost; if there are, currently, 4 comps in one area would it really cost a fortune to change one of them to a grammar? No doubt there would be some start up costs, but by taking the top 25, already streamed, out of each school...


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 12, 2016)

Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:



			...
By putting academic children above others you are, by definition, putting the latter below their *peers*.
...
		
Click to expand...

Eh! What? A Leonard Nimoy quote immediately springs to mind!

Do you also object to the extra funding that is provided for 'disadvantaged' children? If not (I certainly don't), then you should examine your own attitude to your own arguments!


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 13, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Eh! What? A Leonard Nimoy quote immediately springs to mind!

Do you also object to the extra funding that is provided for 'disadvantaged' children? If not (I certainly don't), then you should examine your own attitude to your own arguments!
		
Click to expand...

Are you comparing the desire to provide an extra tier of education which is, at best, desirable to some with the needs (yes needs) of disadvantaged children?


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Sep 13, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			I'm not doubting your personal intelligence at all, but I am questioning your rationale. However, I do agree with the wish to drive up the standards of all children. It's at the fundamental level of the how where we disagree - that doesn't mean I see your argument as shallow or simplistic.

As to cost; if there are, currently, 4 comps in one area would it really cost a fortune to change one of them to a grammar? No doubt there would be some start up costs, but by taking the top 25, already streamed, out of each school...
		
Click to expand...

Good man, I see where you're coming from.

I'm going to need to give this some Deep Thought.

It may take a while.....


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 13, 2016)

Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:



			Are you comparing the desire to provide an extra tier of education which is, at best, desirable to some with the needs (yes needs) of disadvantaged children?
		
Click to expand...


Your comment would seem to suggest that you are quite happy to cap the resources made available to the "gifted" child but conversely not for the "disadavantaged",

This would seem as unfair as if the roles were reversed since surely it is just as great a social injustice to not fully develop the brightest children as it is to condemn the disadvantaged by not trying to bring them to an attainable level.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 13, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Your comment would seem to suggest that you are quite happy to cap the resources made available to the "gifted" child but conversely not for the "disadavantaged",

This would seem as unfair as if the roles were reversed since surely it is just as great a social injustice to not fully develop the brightest children as it is to condemn the disadvantaged by not trying to bring them to an attainable level.
		
Click to expand...

My point exactly! :thup:

Along with the (perhaps even more important concept in this discussion) that he seems to have a strange (illogical!) concept of 'peers'! And that is with no consideration as to why/how they happen to score differently in the 11+ exam!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2016)

Not just the Left.  Cunning plan by our new PM - first new policy under her watch and she creates an almighty stushie and division within her own party - maybe as a diversion and smokescreen to hide the confusion her party is in over working our what Brexit actually means.

Brilliant!  In PMQs our PM reminds us all how much children's secondary school performance has improved over the period of coalition and Tory gov - in support of a policy that will negatively impact the performance of 75% of children.  Brilliant!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not just the Left.  Cunning plan by our new PM - first new policy under her watch and she creates an almighty stushie and division within her own party - maybe as a diversion and smokescreen to hide the confusion her party is in over working our what Brexit actually means.

Brilliant!  In PMQs our PM reminds us all how much children's secondary school performance has improved over the period of coalition and Tory gov - in support of a policy that will negatively impact the performance of 75% of children.  Brilliant!
		
Click to expand...

As per usual rhetoric rather than substance.

At this stage we none of us know if this policy will negatively impact upon the performance of the majority of children, and you certainly don't know that it will be 75%.

So far  this has been a sensible debate please try not to spoil it with your usual one-eyed views.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			As per usual rhetoric rather than substance.

At this stage we none of us know if this policy will negatively impact upon the performance of the majority of children, and you certainly don't know that it will be 75%.

So far  this has been a sensible debate please try not to spoil it with your usual one-eyed views.
		
Click to expand...

Did you listen to PMQs just finished? Any debate with the PM that JC wins - when the debate is on the PMs first new policy initiative - suggests that the policy is very flawed.

And you cream 25% off each school when setting up a local grammar school and the 75% will suffer - that does not meran that all 75% will do less well - but even the best that are 'left  behind' will have issues to overcome to do as well as they otherwise would have.

I speak from experience of being through a Scottish system where the 'top' pupils (aged 13) at the end of 2nd year in four 'feeder' secondary schools 'went up' to a senior secondary school that had only 3rd to 5th years (or 6th year if you stayed on for 6th Yr Studies).  

I 'went up' - my younger brother did not.  I recall the upset that that caused with my brother and parents as it implied my brother was not as bright as me and he would be in with the less able, the trouble-makers and those from families whose parents didn't care - and he knew he would lose touch with a lot of friends he had made in 1st and 2nd year.  

As I 'went up' I was deemed the clever of the two of us (though not by our parents) when in fact he is just as bright as me - if not brighter - and he went on to get a good degree and successful career.  But his success was down to the support my parent gave him. Without that support who knows.  The system back then worked for me - the senior secondary was great.  It was not so great for those who didn't.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Did you listen to PMQs just finished? Any debate with the PM that JC wins - when the debate is on the PMs first new policy initiative - suggests that the policy is very flawed.

And you cream 25% off each school when setting up a local grammar school and the 75% will suffer - that does not meran that all 75% will do less well - but even the best that are 'left  behind' will have issues to overcome to do as well as they otherwise would have.

I speak from experience of being through a Scottish system where the 'top' pupils (aged 13) at the end of 2nd year in four 'feeder' secondary schools 'went up' to a senior secondary school that had only 3rd to 5th years (or 6th year if you stayed on for 6th Yr Studies).  

I 'went up' - my younger brother did not.  I recall the upset that that caused with my brother and parents as it implied my brother was not as bright as me and he would be in with the less able, the trouble-makers and those from families whose parents didn't care - and he knew he would lose touch with a lot of friends he had made in 1st and 2nd year.  

As I 'went up' I was deemed the clever of the two of us (though not by our parents) when in fact he is just as bright as me - if not brighter - and he went on to get a good degree and successful career.  But his success was down to the support my parent gave him. Without that support who knows.  The system back then worked for me - the senior secondary was great.  It was not so great for those who didn't.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds as though the system also worked for your brother which is rather counter intuitive to your argument.

I have previously stated that I remain unconvinced by the argument for grammar schools and feel that we need far more detail. However, I am convinced that the current system is not working as it should and that is not entirely due to resources.

The difference between you and I is that I do not make my judgement of policies purely based upon which political party presents it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Sounds as though the system also worked for your brother which is rather counter intuitive to your argument.

I have previously stated that I remain unconvinced by the argument for grammar schools and feel that we need far more detail. However, I am convinced that the current system is not working as it should and that is not entirely due to resources.

The difference between you and I is that I do not make my judgement of policies purely based upon which political party presents it.
		
Click to expand...

It didn't really work for my brother - he did well in the end _despite_ the system.  His Highers should have been better than they were so he didn't get into Glasgow or Strathclyde Uni as he had hoped. And he did not have a great time in his 3rd-5th years at school - and certainly at the outset it was very unsettling and upsetting.  He only did OK through school through the support he got from my parents.

But he got a good degree and has built a good career.

In fact on reflection it didn't really work that well for me - as by 'going up' (note the language suggests 'staying down' for those who didn't) I thought I was the bees-knees and as a result I didn't work as hard as I might have had there not been this division at 13.  Certainly the secondary schools in my home area today at the top of the tree in Scotland - the division to get the best out of the best - was never necessary


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It didn't really work for my brother - he did well in the end _despite_ the system.  His Highers should have been better than they were so he didn't get into Glasgow or Strathclyde Uni as he had hoped. And he did not have a great time in his 3rd-5th years at school - and certainly at the outset it was very unsettling and upsetting.  He only did OK through school through the support he got from my parents.

But he got a good degree and has built a good career.
		
Click to expand...

How convenient to your theory.

Success was due solely to your parents and, no doubt, if he had failed it would be entirely attributable to the school.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			How convenient to your theory.

Success was due solely to your parents and, no doubt, if he had failed it would be entirely attributable to the school.
		
Click to expand...

I added
_
In fact on reflection it didn't really work that well for me - as by 'going up' (note the language suggests 'staying down' for those who didn't) I thought I was the bees-knees and as a result I didn't work as hard as I might have had there not been this division at 13.  Certainly the secondary schools in my home area today at the top of the tree in Scotland - the division to get the best out of the best was never necessary_


----------



## hors limite (Sep 14, 2016)

Must say that i am pulled in all sorts of directons with this one.
I went to a Grammar School in industrial South Yorkshire in the 60's and a lot of the pupils came from very working class households, some the sons and daughters of miners and steelworkers. I was one of them. My father was determined that I would get a good education and made his own investment of time and effort in helping me learn to read at a young age. He himself was an inspiration - he started his working life as a labourer in a blast furnace operation and finished as a shift manager. When I was doing O levels, he was studying for a City and Guilds "steel" qualification with a class of much younger students and he came out on top. 

I suppose that I am in favour of the re- introduction of Grammar Schools. However, I think it is probably even more important to"rescue" the children who are being brought up by parents who are incapable, inadequate or unwilling to help and support. It surely makes sense to make an extra investment at a young age with the long term saving that must accrue from the avoidance of the problems that inevitably will mar the adult lives of such children.
I have always been attracted by the idea of paying the best teachers more in exchange for working in the most difficult environments - don't think the teaching unions would buy it.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I added
_
In fact on reflection it didn't really work that well for me - as by 'going up' (note the language suggests 'staying down' for those who didn't) I thought I was the bees-knees and as a result I didn't work as hard as I might have had there not been this division at 13.  Certainly the secondary schools in my home area today at the top of the tree in Scotland - the division to get the best out of the best was never necessary_

Click to expand...

You are still not addressing your difficulties in basing your judgements on something other than pre-conceived political prejudice.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			You are still not addressing your difficulties in basing your judgements on something other than pre-conceived political prejudice.
		
Click to expand...

I am basing it on my own experience, and a belief that we should, in all things, look beyond what _might _simply appear to be the best for me and my family.   Blinkered political prejudice does not come into it - such accusations are easy one for those who do not care to admit that they are only really bothered about themselves and their own.  You may or may not be that bothered about wider society - that I do not know.  I would hope that you - and all here as we are amongst the more fortunate in society - would be.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 14, 2016)

hors limite said:



			Must say that i am pulled in all sorts of directons with this one.
I went to a Grammar School in industrial South Yorkshire in the 60's and a lot of the pupils came from very working class households, some the sons and daughters of miners and steelworkers. I was one of them. My father was determined that I would get a good education and made his own investment of time and effort in helping me learn to read at a young age. He himself was an inspiration - he started his working life as a labourer in a blast furnace operation and finished as a shift manager. When I was doing O levels, he was studying for a City and Guilds "steel" qualification with a class of much younger students and he came out on top. 

I suppose that I am in favour of the re- introduction of Grammar Schools. However, I think it is probably even more important to"rescue" the children who are being brought up by parents who are incapable, inadequate or unwilling to help and support. It surely makes sense to make an extra investment at a young age with the long term saving that must accrue from the avoidance of the problems that inevitably will mar the adult lives of such children.
I have always been attracted by the idea of paying the best teachers more in exchange for working in the most difficult environments - don't think the teaching unions would buy it.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I would agree with the vast majority of what you say I am still concerned by the idea of emphasising resources at *either *end of the scale of educational needs.

Failure to fully develop the talents of the "gifted" will, in the long term, only be as costly to society as failing to support the "disadvantaged" as the former can possibly be disproportionate in their ultimate contribution to the economy and the latter (through no fault of their own) may be a cost.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am basing it on my own experience, and a belief that we should, in all things, look beyond what _might _simply appear to be the best for me and my family.   Blinkered political prejudice does not come into it - such accusations are easy one for those who do not care to admit that they are only really bothered about themselves and their own.  You may or may not be that bothered about wider society - that I do not know.  I would hope that you - and all here as we are amongst the more fortunate in society - would be.
		
Click to expand...

I most certainly am concerned but I fear that society's ills will not be helped by maintaining the current system which, far too often, seems to be geared towards catering for the needs of the LCD.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I am basing it on my own experience, and a belief that we should, in all things, look beyond what _might _simply appear to be the best for me and my family.   Blinkered political prejudice does not come into it - such accusations are easy one for those who do not care to admit that they are only really bothered about themselves and their own.  You may or may not be that bothered about wider society - that I do not know.  I would hope that you - and all here as we are amongst the more fortunate in society - would be.
		
Click to expand...

The danger of "own experiences" is its anecdotal and not evidenced based.

For my part, as my parents moved around the UK, I had grammar first, then comprehensive, then Higher(Leaving cert).

The grammar was a typical grammar. Well structured and staffed. A great place to Learn. The comp was a brand new complex, including squash courts, language labs etc, but lacked discipline. The last one was very similar to the first.

There were two major differences between the three. Quality of the staff and the discipline.

The comp, for all its facilities and forward thinking Head was an unmitigated disaster on so many levels. No streaming till 13 meant the bright children were held back by kids that just wanted to party. The nerdy kids and wimpy teachers had no place in that environment, where learning came second to survival.

Its the staff that make the difference.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 14, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			No streaming till 13 meant the bright children were held back by kids that just wanted to party. The nerdy kids and wimpy teachers had no place in that environment, where learning came second to survival.
		
Click to expand...

Where the hell did you go to school? South Central LA???


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			..
And you cream 25% off each school when setting up a local grammar school and the 75% will suffer - that does not meran that all 75% will do less well - but even the best that are 'left  behind' will have issues to overcome to do as well as they otherwise would have.
...
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is the case!

Streaming (almost equivalent) works to the benefit of all streams! Though that doesn't mean there's not 'issues' with it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 15, 2016)

My observation is based upon my clear recollections about how 'going up' to the selective secondary school was viewed by pupils and parents in general of the 'feeder' secondary schools.  If you didn't 'go up' implied that you were at best a bit of a failure and would be 'missing out' on everything that the selective school had to offer - and that included an almost guaranteed place at any of Scotland's universities (there were only 7 or 8 back then) - other than maybe St Andrews - which tended to have a lot of 'foreign' (i.e. English  ) students.

And those of us who 'went up' did tend to 'look down' on those who didn't.  We thought we were superior in all things - the only thing the other schools could occasionally 'best' us at was football.


----------

