Prescott back stabs Blair.

[RudolphsAuntMabel]

Hurrah for John Prescott!! (never thought I'd say that!).

Has told the telegraph that he will fight Tory Blair on the school reforms - the ones that will allow state schools to be selective - 2 tier class system.

I for one agree with John. I was lucky enough to go to a great state High School where the girls in my form were from all different backgrounds and I firmly believe that's a good thing. If you give state schools the option to be selective with the pupils they take and more control over their own finances in the way Tony wants a lot are going to take children from more prosperous back grounds so kids like I was will miss out on a fantastic education just because their parents aren't wealthy.

I love John Prescott!!

[colditz]

I went to a school with the son of a millionare, lot's of kids from the council estate down the road, a semi-genius, kids with learning difficulties... basically kids from all walks of life.

and it did make me more open minded. When I was 18 I visited a mate at university, she had mates who had never seen a council house, and were fascinated by "the working class".

i must admit I didn't come across many people like them at school, and was disgusted with some of their attitudes.... but mostly their attitudes were not malice, just ignorance.

[colditz]

So yes, hurray for John Prescott

[SenoraPostrophe]

hurrah indeed.

Blair has actually said that these reforms aren't about selection, but they will still create a two tier system and will make it easier to reintroduce selection later.

[Mistletoo]

my sister went to a grammar school in the 60's funnily enough there were kids there from all social backgrounds too.

what it did was, give those kids from deprived and less well off families, who had academic ability, to go the school that best served that ability. I've never been able to see the problem with that.

I didn't get to grammar school, I went to another great school, also with a good social mix, that best suited my abilities.

[SenoraPostrophe]

But mistletoo - there would have been some very bright kids from poor backgrounds, but grammar schools always have a disproportionate number of people from affluent backgrounds. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean the discrimination doesn't exist.

But also, and more fundamentally for me, the thing about comprehensive schools when they work properly is that kids can move up and down the sets AFTER the age of 11, and can be in, say, the top set for english but a lower set for maths (those kids wouldn't usually pass the 11 plus).

[roisin]

I haven't read all the reports, and I'm not quite sure what Tony Blair is proposing. But I work in a comprehensive school with very mixed intake, and I have to say I think many of our children are not being best served by the system. The children have widely different educational needs, which are not all being met - particularly when many subjects are taught completely mixed ability.

[SenoraPostrophe]

I do agree there's a problem with the way a lot of comp schools are run. But why do the government in the UK always have to go so far in the other direction when there are problems?

A better solution to what you describe, Roisin, is surely more streaming and more specialist teachers? not whole separate schools for the bright kids or quasi-independent status for some schools.

[DinosaurInAManger]

I can see the arguments in favour of allowing state schools in inner city areas to select a proportion of their intake on ability, though - to ensure that the school as a whole has a mix of abilities.

[tallulah]

RAM do you honestly believe that schools don't already select pupils? They certainly do here. We still have the 11+ and as far as I'm concerned it is a better system than the comprehensive one, which never seems to work in practice the way it should in theory. We also have a couple of comprehensives and their selection process is far more rigorous and selective than the 11+. They would rather take the bright pupils from 10 miles away than the slower ones next door to the school.

One of my children didn't take the 11+ and went to a superb High School slap bang in the middle of a very deprived area. The school suited him and he did very well. My other two boys went to the grammar at 11 and it's a school that suits them, being very academic. One is good at maths and hopeless at English and is set accordingly- the other is middle of the road across the board. DD went to an independent school which I suppose was truly comprehensive because it took pupils from all backgrounds and all abilities. (But she had to pass a test to get her assisted place.)

The grammar school I went to went comprehensive in my second year there and I ended up in a lot of mixed ability classes. They don't work. Either they work at the pace of the slowest and everyone gets held back, or they work somewhere in the middle so the slowest and the brightest give up and clown about.

I don't think we'll ever get a truly fair system but enabling children to go to a school that suits them instead of one-size-fits-all has got to be fairer.

[Mistletoo]

surely streaming is still grading by ability.

By your argument, that more affluent kids end up at grammar, then those same kids will end up in top stream

put simply - grammar = Set 1 and comprehensive = set 2

quite clearly the comprehensive system is not quite the shining beacon it was purported to be

[RudolphsAuntMabel]

tallulah - my argument is not with selecting children for their ability (11plus) but with seloecting children because of their background. My parents struggled to provide for us yet I passed my 11+ and attended a grammar school. If this bill had gone through back then I would've gone to the local secondary & not reached MY full potential - it was best suited for MY abilities. The 'thick' rich kid next door would've gone to the grammar and struggled therefore not reaching THEIR full potential.

[Mistletoo]

so are we agreeing grammar schools are a good thing?

[Epiffany]

at ds's grammar there are as wide a cross secion as in the high school. tbh results wise there is not much in it.
But I know we're very fortunate in our town to have 3 such fabulous schools.

[SenoraPostrophe]

tallulah, I refer you to my post earlier. I agree that mixed ability classes don't always work (though they do if the teacher is very good and has oodles of time to plan). But the answer is better streaming, not separate schools.

dinosaur - how would that work? there'd still be schools with very few able children because not all the schools could be selective.

and mistletoo - there's nothing wrong with grading by ability per se in academic subjects. And yes there probably there are proportionately more affluent kids in the top sets. But you don't need to stream in all subjects and with streaming, pupils can move up or down. That is not true of the grammar/secondary model. Grammar schools used to take 10% of kids (with results fixed to get more boys in - don't know if they still do that). What about the other kids in the top 30%? they may well catch up pretty quickly.

[Mistletoo]

but you're assuming that if you're passed over at 11+, that's it! you're done for, but that's simply not true.

There used to a 13+ iirc - not sure how useful it is though to move schools again once a child has settled.

[Epiffany]

I've gone from poor as fu** to being reasonably well off (right man)
Where we live it would not have affected his getting into the selective school.

[wessexgirl]

Don't really understand what the government is trying to do here. Have they given up on being able to make all state schools give a good education?

[SenoraPostrophe]

Aunt mabel - the bill isn't about selection by background. It isn't even about selection by ability (though the argument has arisen because it seems a logical next step). It's about letting some schools opt out of LEA control and answerable directly to government. Of course only the "successful" schools will be able to opt out, hence the talk of a two tier education system.

The reason I am against it is because it will create a two tier system - no matter how much they go on about parent choice, in reality not everyone gets a choice. the free market does not and should not apply to education. Furthermore, by cutting out the LEA we will cut out a whole layer of democratic accountability.

[SenoraPostrophe]

mistletoo - as you say, moving schools is not the same as moving sets. plus, what, did they make all of the grammar attendees retake the exam to see if they hadn't progressed? if not there wouldn't have been many places available would there?

[flutterbeedreaminofawhitexmas]

I am a staunch labour supporter and also like Tony Blair, however I am totally against the suggested school reforms so I will join in with the Hurrah for John Prescott

[Blandmum]

And all of this is a facny way of Labout saying that they are improving the education system by some slight of hand trickery which will do nothing to help the basic probelms of 1. lack of sufficient cash and 2. indicipline

TBH I don't realy think it matters that much if you have a grammer/ secondary mod system or a Comp. The kids in the bottom sets still know they are at the bottom and they don't get the help they need. The kids at the top know they are bright, but tend not to be stretched as they should be. My prefernce would be for the cpmp, since this takes into account late developers and those who excell in one or two areas.

What we need is funding and effective dicipline. At the moment I am teaching a 'bottom set' in y7. Of the 19 children in the class 10 are the the SN reg. Three are effectivly illiterate/innumerate. At the moment, because they are still little and want to please, they are working hard and are making some progress. But next year this will change and I will be effectvly keeping them off the streets. They will get switched off from learning because they are being set up the fail! I have a child who's targets are to learn the key words from years 1 and 2 and I have to teach her the word Chromatography. FFS! What are we playing at??????

THis child is adorable, and I am failing her since the law dictates that she must be included in things that are utterly beyond her. She needs a specialist teacher not me.

And once our school selects, children like her will go to ever worse schools, and she will become further and further behind her peers.

Let us please stop pretending that one size fits all children when it comes to schools, and free teachers to do what they do best, teach kids something they can cope with!

[Mistletoo]

sp the 13+ was for kids who hadn't got to grammar via 11+ but had made great strides since

[SenoraPostrophe]

well, put, mb.

[SenoraPostrophe]

I realised what you meant, mistletoo, but was just wondering how truly fair it was since there wouldn't have been many, if any, places left at the grammar.

[RudolphsAuntMabel]

I am for selection by ABILITY. That's probably not the right way to put it, but what I mean is there are kids that need a lot of help, some who need a bit, some who need no help - and they need to be grouped where they will get the appropriate assistance. Teachers cannot be expected to be able to help everyone stuck in the same classroom that may have a huge difference in ability. Some people just aren't academically minded, take my brother for instance, he is far from stupid and has done very well for himself but didn't do very well at school as he would rather be DOING something than sitting behind a desk. Surely these kids need more help than some 'really bright' ones and it'd be ridiculous to stick them in the same room in front of the same teacher day after day. It just won't work.

What my worry is that the next step along will be schools thinking "hmmm, that family have lots of cash, let's let their kids in, ahh, but that lot are delivery drivers (or whatever) not much cash, they can go elsewhere". That's just not fair. Selection by financial status. What sort of a society would that lead to?

My school was full of kids from different back grounds and for that reason I am open minded and would certainly NEVER think that just because someone doesn't come from an affluent family they will not make anything of themselves. That's like a crappy class system.