| Grammar Schools 22:17 - Sep 8 with 19553 views | texasranger |
I can't help feeling that much of the currently fashionable condemnation of grammar schools is based on two false premises; that they are socially divisive, and that kids who failed the old 11-plus were branded as 'failures'. I'm an old geezer now who went to a boys only grammar school in the early 1950's but we had all sorts there, bright academics through to some right tearaways. I was just a boy from a working class family but I enjoyed and benefited from grammar school though not enough to go to university, doing two years National service instead, but my mates outside school were a mixture of Secondary Modern, Technical and Grammar school boys. We got along fine and theTech and S/Modern boys went on to become printers, plumbers, builders and engineers, all of whom I suspect made more money than I did. Surely any school regardless of type will grade kids by ability and attempting to force kids of different backgrounds to socialise will not work. Finally, condemning today's grammar schools on account of the number of kids getting free school meals seems totally irrelevant. I realise I may be the only surviving Rangers supporter who went to a grammar school so if I get any response I expect it to be unfavourable. No matter. Come on you RRRRRRRRRR's ! |  | | |  |
| Grammar Schools on 12:34 - Sep 9 with 2319 views | bob566 |
| Grammar Schools on 11:21 - Sep 9 by Northernr |
This 'equality' stuff winds me up a bit to be honest. If it meant everybody must be given the same excellent education then that's great. What it actually means in practice is everybody gets the same average/poor one. Kids that don't give a sht, from a long line of people who don't give a sht, treated the same and educated the same as bright kids who have ambition and want to do something with their life? Why, exactly?
There were kids at my school that didn't give a sht, about anything. Their parents didn't give a sht, they didn't give a sht, they just wanted to be as disruptive and evil as they possibly could and get out at the end of the day. And while it's absolutely lovely in theory that if given the same education as everybody else at secondary school they'll suddenly discover a world of university and opportunity, it's actually bolox. They wanted to leave school at 16 and work on the steel works or in Tesco like everybody else, stay in Scunthorpe like everybody else, have loads of kids like everybody else and that's exactly what they all did. And in the meantime they wanted to bully and beat any individuality or talent or passion out the other kids.
For those of us who wanted to get some sort of education and get the fck out of that town as quickly as possible, they made our lives hell to the point where going to school wasn't actually even that safe day to day.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
the equality stuff sounds awful.
why couldn't the classes be streamed Clive?
I'm based over in Ireland so not familiar with your education system.
But why couldn't they get the eager bright ones and put them in say 1A and the good ones in say 1A2 and the average ones in 1A3 and then the underperformers but still trying in say 1B and the just thick but not misbehaving in say 1B2 and then the out and outright messers who just want to disrupt in say 1C and then the nasty bullies etc in 1C2 etc
Is that again the law over there or something. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 12:35 - Sep 9 with 2319 views | stevec |
| Grammar Schools on 11:59 - Sep 9 by kropotkin41 |
There's two conversations going on here, both of which are very interesting. The first is about selective schools and non-selective schools and the effects of having such a system in place, and I don't see how a valid criticism of a northern, or any other comprehensive should lead to the conclusion that the solution is to have grammar schools. The problem with that is that selection at 11 or 12 doesn't mean you get schools full of kids who all want to play the academic game and not bully one another or those who want to study or be different. Bullying is rife at grammar schools, Clive, or at least it was at mine.
The second conversation is about education in general, a much bigger topic, and absolutely one that our society such as it is needs to address. I'm not going to get into it here, because I'm supposed to be doing something productive, but grammars or comprehensives in the UK, neither seem to deliver and Government after Government tinkers around with education without improving it very much. In my opinion we should be looking at the very best models, places like Finland for example, we should be asking fundamental questions about what education is for and whether it is actually the same as schooling, and above all we should be looking at making education available lifelong for everybody. |
The issue is those in the education system are not prepared to tackle the real problem, disruptive classes.
As much as I stand up for Grammar schools there would be no need for them if the overwhelming majority of kids were allowed to get on with their studies. If Governments had the gumption to set up what I described jokingly as 'Scrapheap' schools, somewhere to remove the disruptive and allow probably 90-95% of kids who want to learn to do so, not only would it benefit the masses but teachers might actually get the chance to prove they can teach. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 12:43 - Sep 9 with 2302 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Grammar Schools on 12:09 - Sep 9 by BostonR |
It should not come down to just money!
What price a fair education for all or should we just go on the basis that we test children at 5yrs and they do not make the grade we throw them in the poor-house and use the rest of the money to educate the ones who pass the test?
It is not about education anymore - it is all politics! |
I don't think anyone is advocating spending all the money on grammar schools and nothing for anyone else. Where did you get that impression from?
The fact that you describe any non-grammar/public school as the poor house shows you don't think the comprehensive system is working particularly well as it is. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 12:46 - Sep 9 with 2292 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Grammar Schools on 12:35 - Sep 9 by stevec |
The issue is those in the education system are not prepared to tackle the real problem, disruptive classes.
As much as I stand up for Grammar schools there would be no need for them if the overwhelming majority of kids were allowed to get on with their studies. If Governments had the gumption to set up what I described jokingly as 'Scrapheap' schools, somewhere to remove the disruptive and allow probably 90-95% of kids who want to learn to do so, not only would it benefit the masses but teachers might actually get the chance to prove they can teach. |
Some kids just don't suit classroom learning so they lean nothing and become disruptive. The solution these days seems to be to give them loads of drugs to make them sit still rather than face up to the fact they shouldn't be there in the first place. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 12:46 - Sep 9 with 2292 views | A40Bosh |
| Grammar Schools on 11:54 - Sep 9 by BostonR |
All Grammar schools do is encourage mildly rich, middle-class families, to move into an area that has one (consequently house prices go through the roof), pay for private tutoring and try to squeeze their way onto the governing body. They are elitist, they encourage the class divide and have nothing to do with education - it is all politics.
Whilst not being his biggest fan, Nick Clegg has started to spill the beans on his time as Deputy Prime Minister and some of the positions and rhetoric taken by Cameron and Osborne are outrageous. It just reinforces the Tory "nasty party" tag and confirms their absolute disdain for the working man.
It beggars belief that we still allow such elite institutions to flourish which only encourages the "Eton" ruling class to strut their stuff on our daily lives. Grammar schools are not the problem, especially when we openly allow the elite private schools in this country such as Eton, Harrow etc to hold charitable status! Yes, they avoid paying VAT and other taxes which you and I have to pay.
We need to dismantle the whole show, private, faith and the state system and take control away from politicians and the wealthy ruling class who by enlarge are fuking idiots. Give control, money and empowerment to a non-political body to chart a 50-100 yr plan to improve our education and make it work for all abilities and not just a chosen few. |
"All Grammar schools do is encourage mildly rich, middle-class families, to move into an area that has one (consequently house prices go through the roof), pay for private tutoring and try to squeeze their way onto the governing body. They are elitist, they encourage the class divide and have nothing to do with education - it is all politics. "
The start and sentiment of this paragraph is correct, but for me the thing is it is not the "mildly rich" "middle-class families", there is no real middle-class any more. You've either got money or you haven't. This is about the "aspiring" class basically having "free" education removed from them - albeit removed by parental preference or choice.
In theory from an educational perspective there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of Grammar Schools but what they have morphed in to is a semi-private school system where although the school aren't charging you annual fees, you are probably paying in excess of £25-£30 per hour once or twice a week during primary school starting in Yr 4 or Yr 5 to get you through the 11+. However, it then transpires that once your little darlings have been offered a place they are then in a class of 25-30 peers, some of whom are naturally bright and need no additional help and then you realize that to keep up with rest of the class you have to continue tutoring them throughout the secondary years so they end up getting the same number of GCSE A*-C grades as they probably would have done had they gone to a semi decent comprehensive instead.
Those parents who are aspiring to better themselves normally ensure that the same work ethic is instilled either by encouragement or by the whip and it is those pupils the comprehensive schools become more reliant on retaining on their books to ensure that their results are maintained.
Because here's the thing. Teaching in Grammar schools is not necessarily better in every Grammar school than every comprehensive. It doesn't have to be. In Grammar schools and the top state schools it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Your results are good, the aspiring parents want their kids to go there, they work their kids, and when they struggle often they booster it by private tuition. So through a combination of the raw material coming in who want to learn and those who are not the natural A* achievers but have parents who can either easily afford to or are willing to make sacrifices to afford to, the results are often better despite some woeful teachers and teaching - but they get away with it and it is masked by throwing money at private tuition.
So if the law changes and more Grammar schools open up, all the government will be doing is effectively putting in a system of 2nd rate free education for the can't affords or can't be bothered and a part-parental funded supposedly better level of education resulting in more social and economic upheaval in the areas where the Grammar schools are which pushes house prices up as parents try to move nearer to the "better schools"
The government are simply using the Grammar school system to appear to be improving education for all, but all they will be doing is widening the gap between those who have and those who have not, because if you want the best education for your children then either directly or indirectly you're gonna pay for it. |  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 12:48 - Sep 9 with 2283 views | hopphoops |
In the spirit of this fascinating thread. I'll own up that i went to private boarding school. There, I've said it now. It was affordable because I got a scholarship / bursary which made me part of a sort of lower-upper-middle-class subset whose (mainly teacher) parents had hothoused them through the exams.
There was lots that was good about the school I went to in terms of the possibilities in so many areas. Anyone with any inclination towards art, sport, theatre as well as academics got the chance to shine. Everything was streamed with promotion and relegation every year in every subject, but there wasn't undue academic pressure and there was a very open attitude to people's differences.
And whatever anyone says, it was great living away from home, who wouldn't want to live with people of their own age rather than their parents? And it does build social skills and self-confidence.
In never seemed like the real world to me, and it wasn't. But most of my more privileged schoolmates took the two theatres, multi-million art and design centre, golf course, swimming pool, gym, squash courts, two 400 metre running tracks, two shooting ranges, 30-odd playing fields etc etc for granted.
And many of them have gone on to hold public office without ever seeming to recognize that their experience was not typical. They probably have colleagues from grammar schools, which supports their notion that success comes just as easily to "poorer" people with the right attitude.
But the fact remains that these people are making policies, even if not overtly to protect the privilege they inherited, then at least on behalf of a majority of people they have nothing in common with. Investing more in the worst schools in Scunthorpe doesn't tend to come to their mind.
And, as mentioned above, my school was a charity - not a penny of tax going to support one other less lucky fukcers education, despite (in fact because of) its nominally religious role.
Should these schools be closed down? No, they should be places where every pupil in the country gets to go for one or two months for a school + something spell. The something could be swimming or sound engineering or English literature or whatever. There would be competition for places, particularly on more desirable courses. Everyone would get some time away from home, get out of their immediate environment and be incentivized to find at least one thing they're good at.
PS No-one tried to bugger me or give me so much as a cheeky wink throughout my schooling. I'm still coming to terms with the enduring sense of rejection... [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 12:55]
|  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 12:49 - Sep 9 with 2280 views | ElHoop |
Someone was banging on about property prices in grammar school areas. You mean Slough? Blimey.
I think that you'll find that property prices are just as expensive in the catchment areas for the better non-selective schools in non-selective areas.
When they abolished the grammar schools, or most of them, they did it for the best of intentions. But they didn't replace that system with something better - it was worse - in terms of output it's more unfair and so now there's more inequality than there was before they did it. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 12:51 - Sep 9 with 2270 views | simmo |
| Grammar Schools on 11:11 - Sep 9 by Konk |
Clive, your school sounds on a par with mine; although I spent five years largely fannying around and had a great time.
We had something like 200+ kids in my year, around a dozen did A-levels and 6 went to university/poly. I was in the top group for everything through school, and yet no-one ever mentioned A-levels, university etc, and because my parents weren’t from that sort of background, I just left school at 16 like all my mates, with the vague ambition of getting a job in an office. My old school still comes bottom of the local authorities league table, so it’s nice to know it’s still a centre of academic excellence.
My wife, by contrast, went to a Grammar school in Warwickshire, where 3 kids in the entire year didn’t go to university and kids knew from an early age that they needed get good grades to get on. I had plenty of bright friends at secondary school who left at 16 with 4-5 GCSEs and I can’t help but wonder how they’d have fared at a school where you were expected to succeed rather than expected to leave at the earliest opportunity, hopefully without having caused too much trouble during your five year stretch.
I’ve got no complaints about how my life’s panned out to date — I’ve always been a bit lazy, I’ve generally messed about rather than applying myself, so it’s going about as well as could be expected in terms of career/earnings etc, but if there’s one thing I envy a bit from my circle of friends, it’s the fact that when I was young it never occurred to me that I could do something more interesting as an adult if I applied myself and had a bit of direction. I could have been the first astronaut in my family, for fu ck’s sake.
The nearest “outstanding” comprehensive school to us now, has a catchment area that is overwhelmingly made up of £1.2m+ 3 bedroom houses and £700K 2 bedroom flats, so it’s effectively a private school anyway. At least if it was a grammar, working class kids a mile or two away would have a chance of getting in, although as nix says, the private tutor boom has really changed things in that regard. |
You've absolutely fckin nailed me in that thread, Konk. This is almost, to the letter, my own experience. When I first started in my school it was a relatively good CofE place, but by the time I got into 2nd/3rd year we were on special measures which meant we took all the kids expelled from every other school in north london. It was classed as one of the worst in the country by the time I left and closed down shortly after. But I quite liked it, it made all of us as mates there really close cos it was a bit of a jungle in there and we needed each other. It means that all my best mates now are the same people, which in my experience is not the case for most others.
The main thing though, and I am pleased that someone else managed to describe it where I couldn't, is the further education/university thing. Pretty much everybody I know now has a degree or went to uni, I am the only one in my office of 50 odd that hasn't. I didn't understand why until I thought about it quite recently and it was simply because nobody told me I could go if I wanted to. Nobody in my family had ever been before and it was an alien thing to me that was out of reach. Looking back I am gutted I wasn't afforded the opportunity because now I am 31 and know what I am good at, I am hamstrung by my lack of academics and the lack o direction early on in life.
"I’ve got no complaints about how my life’s panned out to date — I’ve always been a bit lazy, I’ve generally messed about rather than applying myself, so it’s going about as well as could be expected in terms of career/earnings etc, but if there’s one thing I envy a bit from my circle of friends, it’s the fact that when I was young it never occurred to me that I could do something more interesting as an adult if I applied myself and had a bit of direction". GET OUT OF MY HEAD YOU BASTARD. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Grammar Schools on 12:52 - Sep 9 with 2268 views | Discodroids |
I remember Sir Ian Mckellen visiting my school lister comp in plaistow, around 1981 to impart his memoirs in morning assembly of being Violently jacked off by Joe Orton as a youth into the cracked armitage shanks of a parks public toilet. I remember we all sung a hymn after as well.
looking back, it may have been more advantageous for me to have learned my logarithm tables or about Crop rotation in the 16th century.
still got the dartboard i made in 5th form though, so it wasn't all wasted. [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 13:08]
|  |
| "...The monkey is never dead, Dealer. The monkey never dies. When you kick him off, he just hides in a corner, waiting his turn." |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 12:55 - Sep 9 with 2259 views | A40Bosh |
| Grammar Schools on 12:49 - Sep 9 by ElHoop |
Someone was banging on about property prices in grammar school areas. You mean Slough? Blimey.
I think that you'll find that property prices are just as expensive in the catchment areas for the better non-selective schools in non-selective areas.
When they abolished the grammar schools, or most of them, they did it for the best of intentions. But they didn't replace that system with something better - it was worse - in terms of output it's more unfair and so now there's more inequality than there was before they did it. |
"Someone was banging on about property prices in grammar school areas. You mean Slough? Blimey."
However, Slough Grammar School and St Bernard Catholic Grammar school in Langley extend their catchment area beyond Slough Town Centre out into the expensive areas surrounding Slough and therefore every estate agent sat anywhere in those catchment areas will play on that when justifying stupid house prices.
First one I searched on
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Langley/3-bed-houses.html | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 12:58 - Sep 9 with 2246 views | Antti_Heinola |
It's a tough one, and I sympathise with Clive's viewpoint that makes a lot of sense.
I was at a secondary for two years before Grammar and didn't enjoy it (although it's a far better school now, I understand, than it was then). I liked Grammar better, but as I've got older I've gone more and more against them.
They simply are elitist. We were constantly told we were 'the cream'. We were given better opportunities because at 13 years old we achieved better grades than others. That simply can't be right. Clive makes a good point, but not *all* kids left behind were wasters who didn't care (which is a dangerous route to go down anyway - you can't just abandon kids because you feel like they don't care - what kind of society is that? Especially at that young age) - and suddenly they're even more disadvantaged.
Grammars make no sense to me. the one I was at was full of arrogant, sneery pupils that were a direct product of believing they were 'better' than kids who didn't make it to Grammar. That can't be healthy. I was a working class kid there, but one of the very few - the school heaped more privilege on the already privileged. I'd never end my kids to one. There has to be a better solution than this lazy look back to 1970s thinking. |  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 13:06 - Sep 9 with 2217 views | ElHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 12:55 - Sep 9 by A40Bosh |
"Someone was banging on about property prices in grammar school areas. You mean Slough? Blimey."
However, Slough Grammar School and St Bernard Catholic Grammar school in Langley extend their catchment area beyond Slough Town Centre out into the expensive areas surrounding Slough and therefore every estate agent sat anywhere in those catchment areas will play on that when justifying stupid house prices.
First one I searched on
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Langley/3-bed-houses.html |
Well there's more than two Grammars in Slough I'm sure and St Bernards being a Catholic School (which two of ours attended) would obviously have a wider catchment area as it's intended to be for Catholics rather than just Sloughites. Anyhow I'm not really getting the point as you could move to Slough and get in if you wanted your child to go there. Property prices wouldn't affect your right to apply anyway.
Better schools will always cause local property price pressure. It's a fact of life. The answer is to minimise these effects by making more schools attractive to parents. [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 13:14]
| | | |
| Grammar Schools on 13:06 - Sep 9 with 2216 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Grammar Schools on 12:58 - Sep 9 by Antti_Heinola |
It's a tough one, and I sympathise with Clive's viewpoint that makes a lot of sense.
I was at a secondary for two years before Grammar and didn't enjoy it (although it's a far better school now, I understand, than it was then). I liked Grammar better, but as I've got older I've gone more and more against them.
They simply are elitist. We were constantly told we were 'the cream'. We were given better opportunities because at 13 years old we achieved better grades than others. That simply can't be right. Clive makes a good point, but not *all* kids left behind were wasters who didn't care (which is a dangerous route to go down anyway - you can't just abandon kids because you feel like they don't care - what kind of society is that? Especially at that young age) - and suddenly they're even more disadvantaged.
Grammars make no sense to me. the one I was at was full of arrogant, sneery pupils that were a direct product of believing they were 'better' than kids who didn't make it to Grammar. That can't be healthy. I was a working class kid there, but one of the very few - the school heaped more privilege on the already privileged. I'd never end my kids to one. There has to be a better solution than this lazy look back to 1970s thinking. |
I really don't get this viewpoint. You admit being at a grammar is better than comprehensives, but is still bad because it leaves some people behind...but then the solution to that is to leave all pupils behind (except public school kids).
The idea of grammars is to give all kids that would benefit from them a chance to do so. If there are enough then there would be no kids "left behind" because they would be at a school better suited to them anyway.
Of course they are elitist, all education is that's the whole point of it. I don't think Oxford or Cambridge would have done as well without picking the best students. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 13:44 - Sep 9 with 2152 views | CamberleyR |
| Grammar Schools on 11:09 - Sep 9 by londonscottish |
I went to a decent primary and an average comp in Scotland and did OK in the end. I did waste the whole of the first year at secondary school waiting for the kids from the less-good primaries to catch up but from 2nd year on we were streamed and the more motivated kids thrived.
My boy in now in a London comp and is doing OK but the lack of streaming mystifies me. He's just gone into his second year there and is stuck with 7 or 8 kids who quite frankly don't give a fc*k and p*ss about for a solid 10 minutes of each of the lessons whenever they can.
I hope it all works out but the jury's out for now.
Having said that madly-academic schooling is also not the be all and end all either. Holland Park seems to have turned into an exam machine and a mate of mine has just pulled his kids out as they were narrowly missing the grade and were having their confidence well and truly ground out of them.
My solution? IMHO there's nothing wrong with state schools for keeping kids grounded and rounded but let's get the streaming back to reflect the different aspirations, abilities and attitude of the various kids.
Best of both worlds? |
"let's get the streaming back to reflect the different aspirations, abilities and attitude of the various kids"
Absolutely agree LS. The comp I went to in the late 70s had previously been a grammar school and turned comp about 4-5 years before I went there. There was still a lot of the ethos of the old grammar when I went there with the headmaster wearing a gown all the time (he scared the shit out of you) and the deputy heads doing the same at assemblies etc. The school uniform had remained the same as the grammar days too.
They also retained the streaming system so that like you from the second year onwards the brighter kids learned together without disruption and could flourish. If you weren't pulling your weight in a subject, the next term you would be demoted a set. This happened to me once and I know I worked doubly hard that next term to get back to the top set. I don't see anything wrong with this at all and this way of working should have been retained by the Comprehensive system. [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 13:45]
|  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 14:36 - Sep 9 with 2087 views | A40Bosh |
| Grammar Schools on 13:06 - Sep 9 by ElHoop |
Well there's more than two Grammars in Slough I'm sure and St Bernards being a Catholic School (which two of ours attended) would obviously have a wider catchment area as it's intended to be for Catholics rather than just Sloughites. Anyhow I'm not really getting the point as you could move to Slough and get in if you wanted your child to go there. Property prices wouldn't affect your right to apply anyway.
Better schools will always cause local property price pressure. It's a fact of life. The answer is to minimise these effects by making more schools attractive to parents. [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 13:14]
|
Better schools will always cause local property price pressure. It's a fact of life. The answer is to minimise these effects by making more schools attractive to parents.
Exactly mate - and that is my point - and as Grammar schools are generally considered the "better schools" then if you increase the number of new Grammar schools allowed to open or convert from secondary modern/comprehensive then you are faced with more areas being the new sought after areas around the location of the Grammar school and pushing up house prices and that again only helps the richer in society. The link I shared was purely to highlight that the first property I searched for a 3 bed semi in Slough area mentioned the proximity to a local grammar and it was £700K.
My whole argument on this subject echoes your last point in that the Government should be making more schools attractive to parents and improving education standards in all schools for the benefit of all pupils. However the problem is that the current Government in talking about reintroducing Grammar schools are not trying to solve the problems in secondary education, they are merely trying to mask it by allowing the aspiring classes to spend more of their hard earned on private tutoring for their kids from age 8-18 on the understanding that by getting in to a Grammar school they are going to a better school to get a better education when it is only actually better because they are supplementing the lack of natural ability or the sometimes average teaching with private tuition. This will just push down state comprehensives even further in the rankings as they lose more and more able and aspiring kids to the Grammars | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 14:41 - Sep 9 with 2079 views | Clive_Anderson |
| Grammar Schools on 14:36 - Sep 9 by A40Bosh |
Better schools will always cause local property price pressure. It's a fact of life. The answer is to minimise these effects by making more schools attractive to parents.
Exactly mate - and that is my point - and as Grammar schools are generally considered the "better schools" then if you increase the number of new Grammar schools allowed to open or convert from secondary modern/comprehensive then you are faced with more areas being the new sought after areas around the location of the Grammar school and pushing up house prices and that again only helps the richer in society. The link I shared was purely to highlight that the first property I searched for a 3 bed semi in Slough area mentioned the proximity to a local grammar and it was £700K.
My whole argument on this subject echoes your last point in that the Government should be making more schools attractive to parents and improving education standards in all schools for the benefit of all pupils. However the problem is that the current Government in talking about reintroducing Grammar schools are not trying to solve the problems in secondary education, they are merely trying to mask it by allowing the aspiring classes to spend more of their hard earned on private tutoring for their kids from age 8-18 on the understanding that by getting in to a Grammar school they are going to a better school to get a better education when it is only actually better because they are supplementing the lack of natural ability or the sometimes average teaching with private tuition. This will just push down state comprehensives even further in the rankings as they lose more and more able and aspiring kids to the Grammars |
If there are enough grammar schools for anyone who would benefit them, then why would it push up house prices?
Also not improving education because it might affect house prices seems a bit silly. How's about also tackling house prices anyway which are completely absurd. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 14:54 - Sep 9 with 2055 views | THEBUSH |
I failed my 11+ and ended up at Christopher Wren School for Building and Art.
So I suppose my future was set and did end up as a Carpenter and Joiner.
I was at Wrens in the middle 60´s so a long time ago and I found it a decent school.
If I´d gone to Eaton I for sure wouldn´t have been a C&J, so what I´m saying is, a lot depends on your Birthright.
In an ideal world we´d all have a similar eduction, but the rich and powerful wouldn´t
allow that . [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 14:55]
|  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:16 - Sep 9 with 2023 views | ElHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 14:36 - Sep 9 by A40Bosh |
Better schools will always cause local property price pressure. It's a fact of life. The answer is to minimise these effects by making more schools attractive to parents.
Exactly mate - and that is my point - and as Grammar schools are generally considered the "better schools" then if you increase the number of new Grammar schools allowed to open or convert from secondary modern/comprehensive then you are faced with more areas being the new sought after areas around the location of the Grammar school and pushing up house prices and that again only helps the richer in society. The link I shared was purely to highlight that the first property I searched for a 3 bed semi in Slough area mentioned the proximity to a local grammar and it was £700K.
My whole argument on this subject echoes your last point in that the Government should be making more schools attractive to parents and improving education standards in all schools for the benefit of all pupils. However the problem is that the current Government in talking about reintroducing Grammar schools are not trying to solve the problems in secondary education, they are merely trying to mask it by allowing the aspiring classes to spend more of their hard earned on private tutoring for their kids from age 8-18 on the understanding that by getting in to a Grammar school they are going to a better school to get a better education when it is only actually better because they are supplementing the lack of natural ability or the sometimes average teaching with private tuition. This will just push down state comprehensives even further in the rankings as they lose more and more able and aspiring kids to the Grammars |
'My whole argument on this subject echoes your last point in that the Government should be making more schools attractive to parents and improving education standards in all schools for the benefit of all pupils.'
I don't disagree with any of that, well I'm agreeing with myself i guess haha, but seriously I don't disagree with much of what you say, but on property prices you are getting a bit muddled as presumably every home would be in a catchment area for a grammar school if they were actually reintroduced across the country, so you wouldn't have to move. I guess as a parent you do the best for your own kids but as a country we should be doing the best for all of them. It's not necessary for those objectives to be much separated if at all, but in the absence of a working system, we each do what we can if we are that way motivated. Schools should be making up for less motivated parents but as you can see from some of the postings here, they are in fact demotivating well brought up kids in too many instances, so it's working the other way at the moment.
I agree that May's answer isn't ideal and more than likely it won't get through Parliament, but it'll solidify her support and she'll probably also whack Corbyn with it on the grounds that he seemed to give up one of his wives because she wanted to send their kid to a selective school, so it's an easy score all round from a political perspective, even if she can't get it through. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:17 - Sep 9 with 2022 views | wood_hoop |
One of those subjects I feel that could reach 50 pages and we would still be debating.
A few things that stand out head and shoulders for me is the attitude of parents and teachers more than anything, those fortunate to have the funds will as a rule pay for 'little jonny & jemima' to try and attain the best education possible, those less fortunate are starting three steps back from when their kids reach school age.
Went through the comprehensive system myself in the late 60's/70's and got buggar all from it, circumstances at the time went against me and through sheer hard work and no doubt a bit of luck ended up as the head of a department, so probably would be classed as 'a proffesional' by those who like to pidgeon hole anyone who has to work in a salaried position.
So come very very ordinary background and no history of attaining high educational standards anywhere in the family. The one thing when I started my family I was going to try to do was help my kids reach the highest point they could in their education , whether that was acedemicaly or with a 'trade'.
My daughter & son both went to local comp school ,all I can say is that the teachers were no doubt trying their best but were no inspiration at all as far as I was concerned, my daughter was set on being a clothes designer from early teens, done some research and found that the London School Of Fashion was in the 'Oxbridge' list of the fashion world, teachers tried to dissuade her strongly of setting her sights so high and aim for Uni/Colleges of a much lesser reputation.
Reached close to GCSE exams and looked like she was going to struggle to hit the C grade in maths she required to apply for a LCF place, so hand dipped into my pocket and a couple of hours per week private maths tutoring in the evenings for around 3 months did the trick and she got a B , much to the bewilderment of her maths tutor, did not have the heart to tell him we rated his tution skills as highly as Harry Rednapps coaching skills and a private tutor was really the one that should be getting the credit, also helped my son greatly with just ten minutes or so aded on each hour and he also went to onto uni gaining a First
She did go on to getting in LCF after her A levels gained a 2:1 degree, has since gone on to also get her Masters Degree at LCF and after a few years working for different firms was head hunted by a major fashion business and now doing what could be considered as reaching one of the goals of when she was setting off as a teen.
My son just finishing Masters Degree in some 'bean counting' thingy and seems is quite acedemic, my dismay at him watching the 'Bloomberg Channel' instead of 'Babestation' as a teen seems to have had a more educational value than I had imagined.
Sorry for such a long winded post but to get to point, certainly does give an advantage to send kids to higher graded education, whether fee paying or back door of 'Grammer' where we know those of a more priveleged background will be the main benificaries, but don't dismay if your kids do fail the 11 plus, put your hands in your pocket, forgo those Saturday nights out for a while, put the beer money in your kids education, a few private lessons at the right time in subjects which can help in their chosen career path is to me worth the investment.
All this mumbo jumbo from what ever party politician, does nothing but cloud reality, parents are the driving force behind the kids, money will always be the 'beast' until education right across the board is akin to Eton & Harrow there will never be an even playing field. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:18 - Sep 9 with 2018 views | hopphoops |
| Grammar Schools on 14:54 - Sep 9 by THEBUSH |
I failed my 11+ and ended up at Christopher Wren School for Building and Art.
So I suppose my future was set and did end up as a Carpenter and Joiner.
I was at Wrens in the middle 60´s so a long time ago and I found it a decent school.
If I´d gone to Eaton I for sure wouldn´t have been a C&J, so what I´m saying is, a lot depends on your Birthright.
In an ideal world we´d all have a similar eduction, but the rich and powerful wouldn´t
allow that . [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 14:55]
|
I'd rather be a carpenter than an investment banker (i'm not one of those btw...) A more level school system might mean more respect for different jobs and more people doing what they're good at. | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 15:21 - Sep 9 with 2017 views | Northernr |
Must say I'm enjoying the thread, even though there will be no agreement or conclusion to it. Well done everybody! |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:27 - Sep 9 with 2005 views | californiahoop |
| Grammar Schools on 15:21 - Sep 9 by Northernr |
Must say I'm enjoying the thread, even though there will be no agreement or conclusion to it. Well done everybody! |
Yes, I like this board.
I have no problem with grammar schools, the majority of the population will go to public schools, I don't expect them to churn out rocket scientist but just guys who can at least tie there own shoe laces. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:29 - Sep 9 with 1999 views | Northernr |
| Grammar Schools on 15:18 - Sep 9 by hopphoops |
I'd rather be a carpenter than an investment banker (i'm not one of those btw...) A more level school system might mean more respect for different jobs and more people doing what they're good at. |
This is (another) of my annoyances with the system.
There were kids at my sixth form who shouldn't have been there, and there were kids who were subsequently packed off to do nothing degrees at nothing universities, because it reflects well on the school's figures and league tables if all the students go to sixth form (whether it's suited to them or not) and well on the college if they all go to university, even if it's to study the life and times of Graeme Souness at the University of Dunstable.
There was never any suggestion, encouragement, opportunity or training offered to be a leccy, or a gas engineer, or a plumber, or a carpenter or anything like that, even though that was a much better option for loads of kids. Scraping together 5 A-Cs and a place on an irrelevant course at a poor university looks better on the league tables than qualifying in a trade where you could run your own business, earn great money, and provide a service the country actually needs!
We're too busy saying "oh everybody has to be absolutely equal" "everybody should have the opportunity to go to university" and too scared to say, "well actually that kid clearly would be suited to university so let's get her to a good one on a good course, whereas that kid would be much better suited to an apprenticeship or learning a trade so let's tailor his situation accordingly."
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 15:47 - Sep 9 with 1960 views | LadbrokeR |
| Grammar Schools on 15:29 - Sep 9 by Northernr |
This is (another) of my annoyances with the system.
There were kids at my sixth form who shouldn't have been there, and there were kids who were subsequently packed off to do nothing degrees at nothing universities, because it reflects well on the school's figures and league tables if all the students go to sixth form (whether it's suited to them or not) and well on the college if they all go to university, even if it's to study the life and times of Graeme Souness at the University of Dunstable.
There was never any suggestion, encouragement, opportunity or training offered to be a leccy, or a gas engineer, or a plumber, or a carpenter or anything like that, even though that was a much better option for loads of kids. Scraping together 5 A-Cs and a place on an irrelevant course at a poor university looks better on the league tables than qualifying in a trade where you could run your own business, earn great money, and provide a service the country actually needs!
We're too busy saying "oh everybody has to be absolutely equal" "everybody should have the opportunity to go to university" and too scared to say, "well actually that kid clearly would be suited to university so let's get her to a good one on a good course, whereas that kid would be much better suited to an apprenticeship or learning a trade so let's tailor his situation accordingly."
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I am not sure that people are saying that everybody should be equal it's more a case of people should be given a fairer chance. Having read your posts i would agree as i have seen people that quite frankly are completely disengaged and dont want to learn and want to sabotage things for others. I also think that you're right that ecomonic responsiveness dictates the role of the education system as not everyone can be a neuro surgeon because society needs factory fodder. But why should it be decided by birth. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 16:00 - Sep 9 with 1939 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Grammar Schools on 13:06 - Sep 9 by Clive_Anderson |
I really don't get this viewpoint. You admit being at a grammar is better than comprehensives, but is still bad because it leaves some people behind...but then the solution to that is to leave all pupils behind (except public school kids).
The idea of grammars is to give all kids that would benefit from them a chance to do so. If there are enough then there would be no kids "left behind" because they would be at a school better suited to them anyway.
Of course they are elitist, all education is that's the whole point of it. I don't think Oxford or Cambridge would have done as well without picking the best students. |
No, I said I liked being at the Grammar I went to was better than the comp I went to. That's not to say Grammars are better than Comps. Just that that Grammar was better than that comp.
Why not a 'Grammar' for the least successful pupils? Give them the best teachers, the best equipment etc? Wouldn't that be more equal?
The whole point of education is that it's elitist? Strange viewpoint. The whole point? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
