To think that condemming the grammar school system , because it cannot give 100% of pupils a brilliant education is wrong.

[sunshield]

I was watching the 'Secret life of the Grammar School' on BBC four last night and it occurred to me that the majority were successful because of a grammar school education. The debate on grammar schools is centred around the 75% or so who don't pass. The ideology expressed from many, is that if 100% of children can't get a highly academic education either though ability or resources than no one should have the chance. This is surely wrong and ultimately does not do the less academic any favours yet it significantly reduces the chances for bright children, who may need a structured and highly 'disciplined' environment to achieve.

I know many people on this site will disagree with this post and will cite the excellent 'comprehensives' their children attend. The truth is the best comprehensive schools are 'covert' grammar schools operating a more 'acceptable' form of selection .

The grammar school system needs to be applauded for its contribution to the United kingdom from politics , commerce to science and engineering . There is no part of life in the UK that has not been influenced or improved by grammar school educated people.

However, if you read the constant 'diatribes' of people on the left you would believe that grammar schools are worse than 'public schools' in their effect on society. Grammar schools have provided the backbone to society for over 70 years. I believe that it is morally wrong to prevent academic children from all sectors of society a 'grammar ' education just on the basis of it not being available to all.

Lurkedforever I don't think that PP for able students is a joke. I have seen it used for the following:
Buying ingredients so students can buy ingredients needed for GCSE Food Tech. Some of our students who have potential in this subject do not take it because they worry about buying the ingredients
It has paid for students to go on curriculum trips
materials for Art/ ceramics etc
Buying revision guides

All of the students had a yearly budget which they could spend that year or add together to fund a trip. We need to show that every PP student has benefitted from the money.

All of our PP premium students get a meeting with a senior member of staff at which they can discuss how the money can be spent.

i have children that would fail the grammar tests if they were to take it. Of course being working class we don't value education so we don't bother applying anyway.

Shame they've never repeated it camel, or at least some scheme so the child gets the change from any pp that hasn't been spent on them individually

I think that PP benefits often helps students with supportive homes more than those from chaotic homes and I do think that is the dividing line rather than ability. if the student is from a supportive home they will discuss how they want the money spent on the child and will make an informed decision. I have dealt with other students whose parents repeatedly loose the paperwork, the child does not have clear strengths of areas of interest and so the money is not spent as well.

philoslothy your experience is different to mine. Which I admit is based on parenting/ friends experience not a large group or professional knowledge. Far as I can see from published accounts help for trips and uniform is even across ability range but then a whole lot more is spent on educational support for the less able. And certainly there's no other evidence that any further help has been given to bright pp kids than they'd offer any bright child. And at primary they certainly aren't giving change or anything along the lines of books etc out if they can't find another use for that childs pp

At primary level there's never been a mention that parents get any say in it, either lea level or individual schools

My admittedly limited experience of primary schools makes me think that primary schools tend not to spend the PP money as well. I am sure that is not always the case. That may be down to staffing, we have a member of senior management whose sole responsibility ( other than teaching) is the progress of pupil premium students. He therefore is accountable and has some ownership. a primary school tends to have a smaller staff body and therefore workloads can be higher.

We did probably spend more money on the less able or disengaged but we try to make sure that every child has their own pot of money. it isn't always about academic achievement either, we have paid for sporting equipment and coaching.

I can sympathise with why it happens that way but they should be more transparent about it, think it's wrong a parent has to go off and research it themselves to even know what it's actually for.

I'd place money on those aptitudes being closely correlated. Which is the elephant in the room.

I disagree. The three people I know personally who have (measured and known to me) IQs of 160-185 have no particular strengths in Art or Music, for example.

Conversely some of the most creative people I have met, have struggled with academics.

All that IQ measures is the ability to do well in an IQ test. It is wrong to define a person as either gifted or dim by the result of one test. True intelligence is much harder to assess and a person's mindset makes a bigger difference than anything else.

I watched the film that inspired this thread. I think what caused social mobility was the opportunity for low income children to go to school after the age of 14 in the 1920s and later on universal free secondary education for everyone rather than the grammar school. Even a grotty secondary modern school is better than no school.

It's ironic that it was labour that introduced universal grammar/ secondary modern education in 1945 and Margaret thatcher who got rid of grammars.

But art or music as a stand alone genius level talent, combined with below average academic skills doesn't give many career choices if you can't combine it with anything else. Whereas even if you're only top few %, rather than a genius, at one stand alone academic subject and useless at anything creative there's plenty of career choices. I'm not saying one is more admirable than the other, but there'll always be more call for the latters skills in terms of paying jobs so it makes sense to base our education system more round that.

All that IQ measures is the ability to do well in an IQ test.

That's an exaggeration.

There are some issues with IQ testing, though, I quite agree, hence my qualifier "measured".

As a child, I knew several people from not particularly wealthy families, who owned a guitar, of one kind or another. But, it tended to be the children from the wealthier families who owned classical instruments, (or showed an interest in them.) I'm not sure about the amount of parental pressure. I never saw anyone being put upon to practise the guitar. But, it was common to be reminded to practise all the others.

The three people I know personally who have (measured and known to me) IQs of 160-185 have no particular strengths in Art or Music, for example.

Correlation does not mean that every sample will show the same tendency.

And "no particular strength" is relative. In the case of selection for schools, "could do GCSE and do reasonably" is about the requirement limit; at some super-electives, around 30% of the cohort do GCSE Music.

Really - it was Rab Butler, Conservative education minister, who introduced the Butler Education Act in 1944.

It was a huge improvement - several members of my family were unable to take up places at grammars for financial reasons. But totally different economy with the overwhelming majority in blue collar jobs. The push to a comprehensive system came when it was clear that there were many more than the original 25% who would benefit from a more academic education. I've a friend, aged 65 ish, who was one of the first sec mod pupils to take 'O' levels, the gateway to higher education.

It was a wonderful thing 71yrs ago.
The world is now very different and education needs to be fit for purpose.
We need to work out the actual purpose of education and then find a system that benefits all children.

I think it is a time to break from outdated legacies of educating boys to run the empire, running terms to suit the agricultural year or families spending time in their country estates etc.

A high IQ might just be a indication of someone's ability to pass tests. But considering our entire schooling system and benchmark for educational achievement is demonstrating you have passed lots of tests/exams well, then it's a rather useful ability to have

And having a higher than average IQ doesn't ban you from also being creative, musical or athletic. Far from it. At DDs grammar plenty of girls play sports at county and even national level. The house choirs are amazing as are their accompanying musicians.

DD is a decent mathematician but she'll never be set one for maths. She's very artistic though and very much wants to go to art school.

Getting into a grammar means you can be just as rounded a person as someone getting into a comprehensive.

I think that a high IQ might show that someone has potential. However its wrong to say that someone has no potential if they do badly in an IQ test. A child should not deemed uneducatable because they do badly in a test.

If you look up thread one of the posters claims to have an IQ of 68 yet she has good literacy skills.

I agree really tired. I also wonder if there's any connection between higher IQ and better memory? I'm sure that most of DD's 'ability' is just down to the fact that she remembers everything very clearly.

Really - it was Rab Butler, Conservative education minister, who introduced the Butler Education Act in 1944.

It's difficult to ascribe party motives to legislation in that era: there had been a "national government" since 1931 and the last general election was in 1935, so ministers were very reluctant to act in nakedly partisan ways. There was a substantial Labour presence in the cabinet, and education policy at the time was apolitical and very technocratic. It's like Labour's seizing of the NHS as their idea: again, the whole thing came pretty much from the wartime national government.

Free secondary school education was not universal and many children were forced to leave school at 14 because the parents could not afford to support them even if they had won a grammar school place. In the past many grammar schools were fee paying with a some places paid for by the council. There were a limited number of places and it made sense for the council to find a fair way of allocating the scholarships. Having an exam meant the council could determine which children would benefit most.

One of my great aunts won a scholarship to the grammar. It meant she had the chance later on to go to Oxford and train to be a primary school teacher. My granmother only got a half scholarship and her parents could only afford to send her for two years.

I have read quite a few posts of the poster who claims to have an IQ of 68 !.

This is clearly incorrect and "rubbish". Her posts are always clearly thought out, knowledgeable and literate.

The IQ tests of "30" years ago must be fundamentally flawed , to give such an incorrect representation of someone's intelligence.

Someone who suffers with Dyspraxia/Dyslexia ETC like the poster and myself is going to struggle with certain parts of Maths. I for instance struggle to calculate full size SQM of " Rooms" probably because i times the wrong parts together. However, mental maths figures and statistics i am very sharp with and usually dont need a calculator.

I also have "difficulties" with punctuation and grammar , this is why I have been awarded help via DSA for my Second year Open University social sciences Degree.

Difficulties with certain parts of Maths and English , have nothing to do with IQ .
The poster should stop talking herself down!