Not sure if this has been brought up but I can't find it if it has...

 

Where do we all stand on this??

 

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, when I went to school (1995-2000) we were split into different sets for subjects based on ability. I.e maths set 1-7 (1 being the best and 7 the worst) so that you didn't have someone really good being held back by being in the same class as someone poor at it (and visa versa)

 

Surely grammar schools are just the same but grouping by district as appose to just within a school?

 

Also, as it stands to get into the best high school in Chorley (St Micheals) you have to go to church every week ffs. Same with the best primary schools. It doesn't matter if your Catholic, Jewish, Muslim etc etc as long as you attend every week and get your stamps

 

They are only doing this as they know a parent willing to go to church every week will also put a shift in teaching at home

 

I'd rather have an 11+ system / Grammar schools than the current system of faith taking precedence

Edited September 9, 20169 yr by birch-chorley

My stats show me that Kent schools perform better in Oxbridge entry than do the schools in other parts of the country, in particular the industrial north.

 

My views have modified considerably since I was an undergraduate, when I was misled into believing that the comprehensive system would be an improvement. Of course in some ways it is, because 3 out of 5 sitting GCSE Maths get a pass grade. It is difficult to believe that at least half of the Sec Mod students would have done so well. Improvement in the lower end was needed (and still is), but not at the expense of the top end, which has happened.

So many goalposts have moved that comparisons are difficult. But we still have one PM, about 2 dozen cabinet ministers, 650 MPs, and a limited number of posts at the top of the civil service, etc.

My point is that whereas the march of grammar school pupils into those posts was continually increasing following Butler's Education Act, it suffered a massive massive setback following the widespread introduction of comprehensives. The bright have been suckered into setting their sights lower, happy to enter universities unworthy of that status, leaving the Russell Group generally (and not just Oxbridge) to take more from independent schools, who feed into the top posts.

 

Just as an example: leading actors of the GS era include Albert Finney (Salford GS), Robert Powell and Ben Kingsley (both Manchester GS), and Tom Courtenay (Kingston HS, which was a grammar).

Nowadays: Benedict Cumberbatch (Harrow), Eddie Redmayne and Tom Hiddleston (both Eton).

 

By the way, Roger Bannister passed his 11+, but his father, an Admiralty clerk, was evacuated to Bath. The local GS was full so Roger had to attend the old-style (pre-Butler) secondary, which became a modern under the new system. He passed the full range on GCE 'O' levels in 4 years, then moved back to London to do 'A' levels at UCS, and became a medical student at Oxford while still 17 (Cambridge had previously offered him a place but wanted him to wait a further year).

Sebastian Coe failed his 11+ against all expectations and attended a secondary modern, which converted to comprehensive while he was there. After 'O' levels he switched to sixth form at another comp, which had previously been a grammar school. That school has since been closed for poor performance.

Steve Cram went to a grammar school, since closed and demolished. Among other well known OBs are MPs, both Labour and Conservative, a well known musician, and a former secretary of the NUT before it lurched quite so far to the left.

 

 

I'd like to see those Malcom. Please post, it'd be good to see given my children are being educated in the county. The bright have been suckered into setting their sights lower? Any evidence? The march of the bright working class was not helped en masse by GS, hence why Thatcher oversaw their creation,and finally Baker drove the nail in Butler's coffin in 88.

 

I'm sorry but your second case doesn't stack up, neither does your last - you are using simplistic individual examples, and then saying that only leading actors now come from Eton? Again, that simply isn't true. Also, if you are using acting, one of the main problem of lack of working class acting is the death of the rep system, nothing to do with education, but cash.

 

As I say, I've presented some very simple findings on the myths around Grammar Schools, and tried to avoid individual examples, and when I have it's been with a caveat. I have yet to see any real examples that Grammar Schools gave a better chance to all, but seen many that were negatively, and wrongfully, had their chances harmed.

Is there some kind of cognitive milestone which occurs at eleven or is just an arbitrary line in the educational sand?

Its just arbitrary from a 'testing' point of view. Which again why testing at this age is unfair. Children develop at vastly different rates and to say one kid is brighter than the other at 11, is utterly pointless and moreover, incredibly harmful.

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by Not in Crawley

Its just arbitrary from a 'testing' point of view. Which again why testing at this age is unfair. Children develop at vastly different rates and to say one kid is brighter than the other at 11, is utterly pointless and moreover, incredibly harmful.

I reckon I hit my educational peak at around 12 - shortly before girls started developing busters.

I blame biff and kipper for all this nonsense

Politics of envy

 

 

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned

Politics of envy

 

 

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned

I know - stupid poor parents being envious of rich parents just because their already disadvantaged children are going to find it even more difficult to bridge the gap. They should just pipe down and learn their place.

I reckon its more important to instil a work ethic into kids...

 

My ethos in all my lessons is "it doesn't matter how able you are, as long as you work hard".. it works..

 

Parents need to do the same, parents need to back the school rather than blame it, The guy suing his sons school for poor results sums this up. 

 

My training target for this year is figuring how to close the gaps for middle ability boys, these are the ones that wouldn't get into grammar school, but still need some variant of help to get them up to speed with the harder working students, because in most cases they are engaged with the work. You can make a lesson as fun and exciting as you want, but you cant do that day in day out, and thats the problem..

 

You could argue that Kagan seating plans help to ease the differenciation but in reality if you stick an old A grade next to a B grade, they won't always work well, or bounce ideas of them. The C Grade kid is next to the D grade, but the D grade might be working hard and the C grade costing, which will eventually have a knock on effect.

 

Basically what i'm saying is introduce grammar schools all you want but it wont make kids work harder..  but it does separate those that are more likely to.

I reckon I hit my educational peak at around 12 - shortly before girls started developing busters.

I was a kid at Primary School and I couldn'the give a shiny shite about exams or lessons much either. It was only when I grew up that I knuckled down and then that was after the blip of my parents splitting up. Surely we should be testing kids a little later in life to get a better understanding of their intelligence and/or drive?

Who's winning?

I was a kid at Primary School and I couldn'the give a shiny shite about exams or lessons much either. It was only when I grew up that I knuckled down and then that was after the blip of my parents splitting up. Surely we should be testing kids a little later in life to get a better understanding of their intelligence and/or drive?

 

kids enjoy learning at 11, its certainly the best time..

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by only1swanny

Who's winning?

Certainly not our children - do you see what I've done there? Eh? Eh?

Politics of envy

 

 

Just in case it hasn't been mentioned

Isn't that a tacit admission they (grammar schools) are elitist?

 

Anyhow, why is it (nobbling the posh nobs) always assumed to be rooted in envy, anything from being against fox-hunting to bankers' bonuses is seen to be solely inspired by stopping the rich twats' fun...

 

If I sneer or make fun of say, private reg plates, it's not because I'm secretly covetous and would have one myself in a heartbeat, it's because I think they're twattish and a thoroughly uninspired and unimaginative way to waste money, nowt else.

 

Up the revolution, Jeremy Corbin and John Redmond forever.

Edited September 16, 20169 yr by Youri McAnespie

Isn't that a tacit admission they (grammar schools) are elitist?

 

Anyhow, why is it (nobbling the posh nobs) always assumed to be rooted in envy, anything from being against fox-hunting to bankers' bonuses is seen to be solely inspired by stopping the rich twats' fun...

 

If I sneer or make fun of say, private reg plates, it's not because I'm secretly covetous and would have one myself in a heartbeat, it's because I think they're twattish and a thoroughly uninspired and unimaginative way to waste money, nowt else.

 

Up the revolution, Jeremy Corbin and John Redmond forever.

 

 

Not really, it's just that some people just don't like to see others getting on in life

Explain Russell Brand then, despite possessing dubious talents, he could probably buy and sell most of these 'aspirational' types who'll be grubbing for the grammar places using underhand tactics for their unholy and usually thick spawn - at the expense of the poor background genius kids, depriving us of the next Albert Finneys and Melvyn Braggs of this world.

Explain Russell Brand then, despite possessing dubious talents, he could probably buy and sell most of these 'aspirational' types who'll be grubbing for the grammar places using underhand tactics for their unholy and usually thick spawn - at the expense of the poor background genius kids, depriving us of the next Albert Finneys and Melvyn Braggs of this world.

 

 

Only one word for Russell Brand!

A lovely?

Most importantly Grammar schools were either shit at footy or not even allowed to play

 

That sums it up

Quite, all schools should be better - separating at 11 doesn't and has never worked. And yes, secondary modern's failure was as a direct result of the existance of Grammar Schools. 

 

'Feral fuckwits' should not harm other kid's chances, but there are better ways to deal with this percentage of kids directly rather than ignore 50 years worth of educational learning on the matter and re-start the Grammar School programe. Also, by implication you are already making the assumption that those who don't get into Grammar School, are 'thick', when this again, was never, and has never, been the case.

That last paragraph doesn't do you justice. You usually Present a more reasoned argument than that- my posts have repeatedly agreed with the grammar system but at the same time suggested that academia isn't for everyone; indeed I have suggested that they should be provided with alternatives to allow them to achieve as much as possible. This ISN'T suggesting non grammar pupils are all "thick" and to for you to claim so demeans you. I've worked with world leaders in their field and blokes who couldn't read but been equaly impressed with their knowledge and character. Education should be about getting the best for the kids; not schools being judged purely by how many GCSEs their kids get.

We'll have to disagree on the merits of separating children to provide (I believe) a more suitable education, I'm not sure what you'd propose should happen to ferral fuckwits but personally i would rather they be excluded from either type of establishment and not put in a position to compromise the education of others.

Most importantly Grammar schools were either shit at footy or not even allowed to play

 

That sums it up

 

That is probably the biggest load of bollocks I have read on this thread! Nice one Jules, have a gold star.

Most importantly Grammar schools were either shit at footy or not even allowed to play

That sums it up

That is probably the biggest load of bollocks I have read on this thread! Nice one Jules, have a gold star.

 

Technically he may have a point, on the grounds of me scoring 2 own goals on my debut for a certain grammar school not far from The Rocket.

We did go on to win the game , the oiks from Smithills were not happy.

That is probably the biggest load of bollocks I have read on this thread! Nice one Jules, have a gold star.

From you that's an absolute feather in the cap

 

And it was very accurate from my school days

 

Grammar queers

Is there some kind of cognitive milestone which occurs at eleven or is just an arbitrary line in the educational sand?

 

Obvs a milestone, that's why the 11+ was invented.  Much like how the IQ test proved that Negros had smaller brain capacities than their European white counterparts so clearly showed that slavery was perfectly acceptable  Come on, Kent . . .

 

It is a tricky one though.  I think you need a certain element of educational tiers to create a healthy competitive edge; whether that be sets, sec moderns & grammars or something else.  Having a one off test that can't be repeated(?), which even a complete idiot must see is a flawed method, can't be the answer.  

 

Perhaps yearly tests combined with tutor testimonies?  Just a thought.  It would give kids the message that they can achieve but they have to work for it, continually, much like life itself (for most of us at least - yes, BD my envy shines through here   It would also put more responsibility back on parents to invest in their kids education.  I can understand why some parents have no time for it.  Their experiences and those of their peers were probably less than positive with no real motivation to succeed.  Both kids and parents need to see that with hard work and ability they have as much chance of success as anyone else.

 

That isn't the case at the moment and I don't see how grammar schools alone would improve that situation.

, I'm not sure what you'd propose should happen to ferral fuckwits but personally i would rather they be excluded from either type of establishment and not put in a position to compromise the education of others.

 

Another tough one:  In practice I reckon if I could have removed the 'feral fuckwits' from my classes, the rest who behaved, worked hard etc would have benefited significantly - the amount of time teachers waste on bad behaviour is totally unacceptable imo and something that, as a parent, I would be the first to complain about.  It's much harder to do that from a teaching position!

 

In my experience the problem usually rests with the parents either not caring or actively encouraging said bad behaviour.  (the last Labour Gov really didn't help with this imo with their policies of effectively rewarding bad behaviour)  Why teachers are solely responsible for kids behaviour in schools etc these days is beyond me - as a society it's basically saying to folk - you don't have to bother teaching manners, respect, hard work ethic etc  to your kids -and look at what we see as a result.  Mind you, you have and always will have, . . . hmmm . . . twats!

 

Thing is though if we excluded them all the cycle would just repeat and probably grow stronger/more negative in some areas with the resulting social issues that would cause further down the line.  This is why, for me, having a genuinely equal start is so important.  That way parents are more accountable if their children don't perform/behave (the excuse of 'what's the point?!' is null and void) so exclusions, punishments can be tough, yet fair, and teach kids what will happen in the 'real world' if they don't tow the line.  Rather than get the '+ve stigma' of being the bad boy/girl and all the attention that goes with it, whilst the good kids suffer as a result.

Edited September 17, 20169 yr by madthatter

 

 

In my experience the problem usually rests with the parents either not caring or actively encouraging said bad behaviour.  (the last Labour Gov really didn't help with this imo with their policies of effectively rewarding bad behaviour)  Why teachers are solely responsible for kids behaviour in schools etc these days is beyond me - as a society it's basically saying to folk - you don't have to bother teaching manners, respect, hard work ethic etc  to your kids -and look at what we see as a result.  Mind you, you have and always will have, . . . hmmm . . . twats!

 

 

I can only really go from experience, I've taught in Bolton, Trafford and Cheshire

 

I'm yet to have a unsupportive parent at my current school but normally the ones you have to speak top in those conditions are the ones that know their kids are trouble.At parents evening I had one parent break down because she was at wits end with her kid.

 

I'm quite fortunate though in that my subjects are popular and I work in a school which has spent years setting high standards. Its very over subscribed and due to increase its capacity to a Fleetwood town average attendance. 

Kids look forward to ICT, the other subjects are all optional so the kids have picked them. I tend to get messing around and being a tad silly but that's it, 9/10 easily sorted with a quick speaking to or sending a note home... I've given out only 2 detentions last year, normally the threat of detention on a Friday night acts like a bucket of water to silly antics. Non of my subjects have sets and I have lower ability mixed in with higher ability

 

The thing that (IMO) is stopping kids learning is "life happening", kids are growing up too soon, they're addicted to games, snap chat and glued to phones. They cant sit there for an hour without "checking" their phone. I have an A* grade student who cant manage 20 mins, I've pulled her up on it, and all she does is quickly look at the screen in her pocket, but i have to pull her up, if she does it twice, its taken off her and she's got detention.. Do that with 3/4 of them and your phone class dynamic turns from ' wanting to learn' to 'this guys a knob, I want my phone back'...  KId's attitudes have changed massively in the last decade, which is making teaching tougher, but the way of life now is incomparable to that of previous generations. 

 

That said I'm lucky that the major issue in my classroom is kids checking phones and chatting..I know a lot have to deal with a lot worse..and maybe that's why the grammar school option is popular, because they don't want their kids working alongside those that seem to want to mess about. Maybe they don't realise that bright kids can be just as disruptive as the slower ones..

Far point - it's not just kids with phones.  I've been teaching adults recently and they are just as bad with them!

 

My experience in schools has been in north and central Manchester which sounds like it's a very different culture to what you experience.  It's not all parents by a long shot; I would say most are supportive but there was certainly an attitude of 'nothing to do with me what happens in school' that seemed to prevail with the more 'challenging' children.

 

Agree also that ability doesn't necessarily equate to good behaviour.  If it weren't for some supportive and understanding teachers I may very well have ended up in not the best of places when I left school . . . (not saying I was bright or had ability, mind