|
Oct 2015
1:06pm, 15 Oct 2015
5,399 posts
|
Jambomo
It might just be because we didn't have the grammar/comprehensive school split when I was young but I'm not entirely sure I see the point of grammar schools.
Aren't classes generally split into ability at secondary anyway? If you are rubbish you are in the bottom class, in the middle, general and the great students are in the top class. So you are taught to your skill level without being held behind.
Te especially good as kids can be brilliant in one subject but awful in another What happens if they are brilliant at English or Languages and appalling at Maths? Which school do they go to? I don't see the need to discriminate between kids at such an early age.
Anyway, since when did being a daftie mean you don't deserve to get a good education? Why are we locking any children "out in the cold"?
|
|
Oct 2015
1:12pm, 15 Oct 2015
16,733 posts
|
DeeGee
It's not that you're not getting a good education if you're less academically able.
It's that you're getting the most appropriate education for your ability.
If all schools had the resources to offer all subjects to all students, then comprehensive would be fine.
Unfortunately, they don't. Therefore the finite resources need to be distributed in such a way that they do the most benefit.
If that means that some kids have access to three modern languages, while others can do a couple of different practical-based ICT courses, then that's surely better than making everyone do French and typing.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:13pm, 15 Oct 2015
6,769 posts
|
Binks
Don't really know anything about how grammar schools do/did work.
Don't really see a problem so long as one isn't at the expense of others.
Making things better for "brighter" kids is fine so long as it does not make things worse for the less bright.
I guess it's the same kind of thing as the inequality of income debate. I don't see a problem if a rich person gets 10% richer if a poor person gets 5% richer. They both get richer!
|
|
Oct 2015
1:20pm, 15 Oct 2015
7,324 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Jono, it's because we want to increase competition obviously. As we know, free market economics can be applied to absolutely anything and there is never any downside, even in places where it is quite obviously bollocks.
It's all about what best serves our economy, boosts our GDP.
Who cares about those left behind. If they can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they aren't important.
I may be playing up the ridiculousness of right-wing ideas in education a bit.
All children should be treated equally (as far as possible) - with allowances made to encourage excellence in the areas each individual excels in. Private schools should be abolished. Academies should be abolished. Free schools should be abolished. All schools should be under local government control, not central government or private firms. League tables should be abolished. Ofsted should not be about demonising teachers and being political, and instead should be used to objectively assess schools (if it is needed) and should be done on a local authority case, rather than a highly-politicised, central system.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:23pm, 15 Oct 2015
16,734 posts
|
DeeGee
I live on a county boundary. North of me is a former metropolitan county with a comprehensive system, the comprehensive Academy for the catchment in which I live barely scrapes 40% A*-C.
South of me is a large rural county with Grammar Schools, one of which produced one of this country's most internationally reputed former Prime Ministers. The closest grammar school to me producing, annually, 100% of students receiving SEVEN or more A*-C grades, 99% or students receiving five or more A*-A grades, and the secondary modern next door producing 75% A*-C.
I fully intend, when the time comes, allowing my son to try the 11+, and allowing him to be left out in the cold in the excellent school next door if he should fail.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:30pm, 15 Oct 2015
648 posts
|
Cheg
I like Grammar Schools because I see it as just the next step from setting.
I went to a decent comprehensive, didn't bother taking the Grammar test. My other 3 siblings all passed the test. One went to Grammar the other two to nice Catholic Schools.
I work with parents who are keen to get their kids into Grammar because they want the best for their kids and the other schools locally aren't very good. This can involve getting their kid tutored for the 12 months leading up to it.
My wife works at a Comprehensive and is told to differentiate for the weak, the strong and those in the middle. 3 lessons for every 1 she teaches.
Upsides of Grammars as I see it:
Stretches the gifted kids.
Helps them achieve more.
Downsides of Grammars:
Weaken the other schools surrounding them as brighter kids are cherry picked.
Parents tutor their kids to get in when they aren't really intellectual capable of it, so get found out later on down the track when the tutor is taken away.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:37pm, 15 Oct 2015
205 posts
|
Shadowless Formless Legs
I agree Cheg - but I don't think it weakens the surrounding schools. I think the kids who are at the surrounding schools do just as well as they would have otherwise. The overall school results may look worse on paper because the kids who would theoretically end up achieving the best exam results would be removed, but the kids themselves would actually suffer any detriment.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:41pm, 15 Oct 2015
5,258 posts
|
Too Much Water
A further data point - the comps in the borough I grew up in were all pretty good (70-80% A-C at GCSE for the best ones).
My former (grammar) school has long been in the top 5 nationally for state schools for both GCSEs and A Levels.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:45pm, 15 Oct 2015
649 posts
|
Cheg
It's an interesting one SFL, I don't know how easy it is measure the effects.
Remove the Grammar Schools, smart kids are spread round the area evenly.
Potential positive effects, they encourage/assist the less able kids and bring up their grades.
Potential cost of that, their own grades suffer.
Naughty kids bring down the smarter kids, class disruption, bad influences and grades go down.
Smart kids could be role models/inspirations to some of those middling kids and bring them up.
I'm open to other hypothetical consequences of removing grammars on a particular area.
|
|
Oct 2015
1:45pm, 15 Oct 2015
650 posts
|
Cheg
It's an interesting one SFL, I don't know how easy it is measure the effects.
Remove the Grammar Schools, smart kids are spread round the area evenly.
Potential positive effects, they encourage/assist the less able kids and bring up their grades.
Potential cost of that, their own grades suffer.
Naughty kids bring down the smarter kids, class disruption, bad influences and grades go down.
Smart kids could be role models/inspirations to some of those middling kids and bring them up.
I'm open to other hypothetical consequences of removing grammars on a particular area.
|
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
