Why do the Left hate Grammar schools so much..

[bluewolf]

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?

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]

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..

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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??

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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

Have you answered were all these apprenticeships are yet?

 

[bluewolf]

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.

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]

Why?

Because they are terminally bitter.

 

[bluewolf]

Why?

Because they are terminally bitter.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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!