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.

I'm sure that a grade C is very good news for some children. But in purely academic terms it's nothing to write home about.

A grade C/D at Maths GCSE is the equivalent of a Level 6 in Maths at primary school. Plenty of 10 and 11 year old children get a Level 6.

Philoslothy. Up thread you questioned why non academic pupils should not have the option of boarding school if that option was available to academic ones.

The reason i would why they should not have the option of boarding school is because, how would a non academic child benefit in a academically driven boarding school.

The other reasons include why would you spend a lot of money getting a student C or D grades, mediocre results just because that would be an improvement from terrible results of say E or U grades.

State boarding schools should be for the purpose of enabling B/C pupils who are capable of attaining A/A* grades and in the correct environment would achieve those grades.

The schools mission should be to get the majority of their pupils to university and most of them on to competitive courses.

In the days of the full 11+, less than 20% of population even took O Levels. Nostalgics for the past handily forget that.

Quite so - at my grammar school, which took the 25% or so who passed the 11+, half, yes half, failed to get 5 O levels. Which was pretty pathetic really.

A couple of good secondary moderns nearby got their top sets getting 5 O levels. But then there were absolutely dire Secondary Moderns also locally, where O levels/CSEs weren't even offered.

"I'm sure that a grade C is very good news for some children. But in purely academic terms it's nothing to write home about.

A grade C/D at Maths GCSE is the equivalent of a Level 6 in Maths at primary school. Plenty of 10 and 11 year old children get a Level 6."

Not sure what your point is here........?

But for a child to get a C when at one time they would not even be entered for an exam (a system which Gove wanted to bring back) surely is an achievement and should be celebrated?

Think of sporting success - if you watch athletics, for example, the winners get the medals, but the results will quite often show PB i.e. personal best, by other competitors names.

I'm sure that a grade C is very good news for some children. But in purely academic terms it's nothing to write home about.

A former friend of ours kept on saying this, and how "anyone" could get an Astar these days, and how the qualifications were mostly worthless anyway.

Then their child got mostly Ds and Es, having slaved for them; the kid had all sort of problems at school, and deserved praise, not a parent being a complete arse.

She got very stroppy indeed when people openly criticised her to her face the contradiction was pointed out.

(a system which Gove wanted to bring back)

I'm not sure what you mean: Gove made no move whatsoever to a return to selection at 11, and the debate about single tier exams is a lot more nuanced than you imply. Multiple-tier exams are CSE/OLevel by another name, and the partial teaching of the syllabus to "C students" so that they have no chance whatsoever of getting an A is not progressive politics at work.

The reason i would why they should not have the option of boarding school is because, how would a non academic child benefit in a academically driven boarding school.

Not all state boarding schools are purely academically driven and there is not reason that they should be.

The other reasons include why would you spend a lot of money getting a student C or D grades, mediocre results just because that would be an improvement from terrible results of say E or U grades.
It is worth spending money to help a student get a C grade, particularly a vulnerable student because it will vastly improve their life chances. C grades open up some apprenticeships, A level courses and further study. It is worth spending money to help students get Ds rather than Cs because that will open up more advanced college courses so they are not going in at a level 1. This means less time in training and more time earning a wage. Going further down the scale it is far better for a student to get a mixture of D and E grades rather than Fs and Gs because this can also impact the courses that they can study.

sunshield
We already have state boarding schools and they are a good option for children whose homelife is challenging, but not quite bad enough to be taken into care.

I thought the present govement wanted children to continue to do resits in Maths and English until they have a good enough grade. My understanding was that they were getting rid of tiered papers.

A "c grade" child might need an extra year of teaching to achieve a better grade. In a subject like maths there is no point in teaching complex topics unless the child has mastered the basics.

Gove had a proposal to bring back O levels and the 'less gifted' should take a different exam DailyMailReport. Thankfully he got shuffled off to do damage elsewhere.

Yes, there are problems with multiple tier exams, but once your certificate says C, no one in the future will know what tier you took. Whereas with the old CSE/O level divide they did because the exam boards were different - even though a Grade 1 CSE was supposed to be the equivalent of an O level pass.

"The reason i would why they should not have the option of boarding school is because, how would a non academic child benefit in a academically driven boarding school."

I feel that the option of boarding should be offered to those who would benefit emotionally. State boarding schools do take such children, but I feel more use could be made of this option.

There is more to life than just exams. Boarding school is a cheap way for helping children whose homelife is bad, but not bad enough to justify care proceedings. Having a child a weekly boarding school means that the child's family is not torn apart and they do not lose contact with their birth parents.

In the past many MLD (moderate learning difficulties) or SEBD (severe emotional behavioural difficulties) schools offered boarding. Boarding did nothing to improve eam results, but it did mean that a child from a chaotic family was fed, went to bed at a suitable time and turned up to school.

mehitabel the comprehensives she could get into won't cater for her because with all the will in the world a cohort of 2/3 at most will never have their needs met in the way a larger group would. And we're lucky in that her choices are far from the worst. Educationally they might not do the job for the most able but certainly fine every other way. It's a comprehensive area, pretty much average representation of social groups/ wealth so only an average number in independents, out of catchment grammar places would realistically require a house move etc. So the only significant group being creamed off are those able to select by postcode. So if comprehensives being fair and best for all aren't working here then I have no reason to believe they are best everywhere else.

Spending excesses of money and input to pull a student up from E grades to C grades to allow them access to A Levels isn't necessarily a good idea. If the best a student can achieve is a handful of Cs at GCSE then I would argue that ALevels are going to be far too much of a stretch for them academically.

Yes, there are problems with multiple tier exams, but once your certificate says C, no one in the future will know what tier you took.

The debate about "O Levels" was nothing to do with the C/D boundary.

There is already a lower tier of exams taken by the less able: things like single-award Humanities, Health and Social Care, Hospitality and Preparation for Life and Work. Calling those GCSEs fools no-one. Only in the world of "all qualifications are equal! How can you dare says anything else!" is an A in Preparation for Life and Work equal to an A in Maths.

But for some people a diploma in Hospitality or Health and Social care could lead onto a much more rewarding career than ever an A in Maths would. This goes back to our lack of respect for vocational qualifications though.

Add message | Report | Message poster Whoregasm Wed 08-Jul-15 12:17:40
Spending excesses of money and input to pull a student up from E grades to C grades to allow them access to A Levels isn't necessarily a good idea. If the best a student can achieve is a handful of Cs at GCSE then I would argue that ALevels are going to be far too much of a stretch for them academically.

I agree that a student achieving E grades is probably going to be unsuitable for A Levels but I did not say that A levels were the only option. Even moving them from an E to a D will open up a much wider range of college courses which may have a vocational nature.

sunshield I wouldn't want just the academically able to have a choice of different schools, even taking those with unstable home lives out of it I'd like any gift (within reason that could lead to productive adulthood) to be catered for, whether that be music, dance, sport or whatever else. And in some cases whether it be due to home life or just sheer numbers with that gift state boarding might be the practical option.
I can think of 2 boys that for sheer talent could have a career as sportsmen. Not as common as football where you might have a chance at being spotted at very local affordable level, but not something like riding where you need a certain lifestyle to start. I bet one ends up a pro due to parental support and disposable income. The other will likely scrape some c's and keep it as a hobby. And his home life is good, just with neither time or money to help

"Spending excesses of money and input to pull a student up from E grades to C grades to allow them access to A Levels isn't necessarily a good idea."
But we're not talking about them doing a levels- we're talking about them getting on to college courses and apprenticeships and into jobs. It's not all about university you know!

And for some kids a g grade is the difference between a college course and nothing.

Add message | Report | Message poster BertrandRussell Wed 08-Jul-15 12:36:59
And for some kids a g grade is the difference between a college course and nothing.

I totally agree

But that's a spurious argument. If a student was actually capable of getting an A* in GCSE Maths then they might well look for something more rewarding than a diploma in Social Care.

Many students go down the vocational path not out of personal choice but because the other academic path isn't an option for them.

I am.not dissing vocational qualifications but you can't compare them as any kind of academic equivalent to traditional A Levels. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

But too many tried to insist they were one and the same with equally academically able students just choosing a different career path.

Vocational subjects need to be recognised for what they are and not keep being clumsily lashed to A Level equivalents.

One of things that makes me despair slightly with the English education system is all this focus on being "academic"

And it's such a narrow view of what "academic" is as well (witness this thread). So you're good at learning facts, does that make you one of life's "winners"? Should you have special treatment and special schools. Maybe you do.

But the whole system needs an overhaul, let's keep the grammars for those who like them so much, but could we please also have some schools for kids who are bright in a different way, and maybe a bit more creative? Truly creative? Or with good problem solving skills? Or with an ability to make (create) and do things rather than an amazing ability at rote learning and regurgitating facts?

I find the idea that life is all about academic success, and what this means a bit depressing.

I have one "academic" child, good grades, finds learning easy. I also have a child who does not fit the mould, he is dyslexic and finds most of school stuff boring. yet he can take anything apart and modify it (bikes, radio, nerd guns, anything he can get his hands on) and he can create new things too that work. I think he is more "clever" than my 'academic" child in many ways, but it's so sad this kind of ability counts for nothing in the current education system. There must be so many kids with amazing abilities that just don't "count". It saddens me.

I feel that so many people think there 2 kinds of kids, academic ones and non-academic ones. But I believe everyone is good at something, and a good education system would find what that is for every child, and encourage and nurture this ability.

pipe dream....

I'd like any gift (within reason that could lead to productive adulthood) to be catered for, whether that be music, dance, sport or whatever else.

One of the cruelest illusions presented to parents who don't know any better is the idea that a slight facility with the violin or a tennis racket makes for a career.

If you have decent A Levels in decent subjects and do a degree at a decent university, you still (even today) have a reasonable chance of a decent job. Your chances of making it in orchestral music, football, ballet are close to zero: you need talent, money and a massive amount of luck. Most of the people playing in the NYO go on to top universities, but few of them to study music; most of those that do won't end up in music anyway. And that's the NYO, 100 or so children per year. There just aren't the jobs to make it a realistic target unless you are exceptional.

Did anyone see that programme last year about a PRU? There was one particular child there who wanted to do a college course in animal husbandry (I think-something like that) and he was obviously well suited to it. He needed 2 Gs and it was a real struggle for him and the Unit to get them. A G can be as much an achievement, if different, than an A*.

"ut that's a spurious argument. If a student was actually capable of getting an A* in GCSE Maths then they might well look for something more rewarding than a diploma in Social Care."

I feel you are being a little snobby. A diploma in social care can open up several career paths. I know a girl who has passed her diploma in social care and in currently working in a nursing home. She wants to apply for a nursing degree. She has a reasonable set of GCSEs and her diploma is worth the same as two A levels.

We do not need an army of professors.