To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

unicornlovermother Sat 27-May-17 12:10:02

^ interesting post thank you .

yes funding is a massive issue but at the same time many schools seem to have been stuck in a mire for decades..through various government

Of course they don't award places to students with 'mediocre' exam results. But after two rounds of interview they often find that the students who look best on paper are not always the ones who can think for themselves and show initiative.It is more the difference between a student from a comp with an AAB and one from a high flying grammar/ private with all A*, for example.

There was an interview on R4 yesterday morning with the head of the NUT, Sir Michael Wilshaw and the leader of the Grammar School Heads association.

All of them said the government needed to stop wasting time and money on opening new grammars when there was a huge funding crisis in existing schools. The grammar school head wanted more money, not more grammars.

I'd have suited a grammar style education (bad seventies comp, failed but went on to do well at post grad level). I don't, though. I support good schools that have the ability to cope with all abilities. Segregation is a bad thing, children and young people learn compassion, gain empathy and widen their world view when they come into contact with others from different backgrounds.Many writers link EQ to long term success, and I don't believe that's easy to develop in restricted environments.

I'd back a campus approach, where schools have facillities for the brightest, average, academically struggling, and those with AN, but where they share communal spaces, and can move between streams as necessary. My third son's school runs something along those lines and it's a very calm environment that helps all children achieve and gain confidence.

For various reasons the three of my four sons who have reached comprehensive age (there are no grammars in my part of the UK), have attended different schools. They are fairly academic young people, the two with career plans set are aiming for animal behaviourist and psychologist.
I've seen different models in action but I'm not seeing kids left behind, a flexible system and gifted teaching helps prevent that. My eldest's best friend was too severely ASD for most grammars to consider, he ended up with 11 A* GCSEs and seems set for a good career in his sector (ecology).

Son2's school has a very naice, MN friendly intake but if anything has struggled the most- they also employ the least inclusive methods, keeping to a standard route of options at GCSE level and an academic path. The other two offered year 9 options randing from academic paths to BTEC engineering, drama and construction. My own son chose art and discovered a talent for surrealist painting that kept him engaged at such a crucial time.

Just because one system is struggling, it doesn't justify returning to a different system that failed many. It means looking at education nowadays and creating new, dynamic options. Nobody cared about those with SEN or brighter kids from very poor families (travel, uniform costs when no hand downs available- the factor that prevented my own 11+ passing dad from attending grammar), in the old system. I hope that we do now, and we recognise that kids have a lot to give in the ways that suit them, and that shouldn't be dependent on finance, disability status, or an exam at age 11.

Do you object to grammar schools or the 11+ bertrand? I'm not clear on the point you are making. I thought you were anti but now you are saying you can select yourself very easily so I'm wondering.

I am not keen on grammars and the 11+ mainly because it is too crude a cut. I am keen on selection. I'd like to see a lot more of it, ideally based on a wider range of abilities not just IQ stuff too.

If the people in charge truly thought preparation was irrelevant, they wouldn't have bothered banning it. They wanted to get rid of grammars but couldn't for political reasons, so they tried to break the system as much as possible instead. I honestly believe they screwed over the poor children who could have hacked it in at a grammar because they don't want the grammar system to be successful, for ideological reasons.

I wouldn't want to go back to the system where teachers chose who went to the grammar. You might think you can spot all the smart children but I don't want the decision made based on that.

My MIL is adamant that she only got into the grammar because they introduced the 11+. The teacher made it very clear that grammars weren't for girls like her with shit parents, dirt floors and no books in the house. She's anti-selection though because she thinks it stops people from understanding how thick/smart others in society truly are.

I don't object to grammar schools. I object to selective education. They are very different positions.

One of the reasons I object to selective education is precisely the fact that I can pick out the 11+ passers at 4 with, I guess, about 90% accuracy. That is not an indicator of a fair system,

What I object to is the apparent championing of the disadvantaged whilst not seemingly to care about the well being of those deemed to be more privileged.
It wasn't a money issue, more an attitude issue.

Teachers have to champion the disadvantaged because no other bugger will.

The more privileged, on the other hand, have plenty of people on their side looking out for them.

And that's the attitude that pushes me away from comps.
No one ever bothered to ask from the school how my daughter was after bringing her home.

It's a mistake to assume that apparently well to do children do indeed have lots of people looking out for them.

bertrand but if the point of the 11+ is to select the highest IQ children then surely you would expect to be able to spot 90% of them at age 4? You would already be able to see that some children are quicker thinkers?

In my mind it is only unfair if a higher IQ child is wrongly categorised as lower IQ because of some feature of the testing regime (and vice versa).

If the people in charge truly thought preparation was irrelevant, they wouldn't have bothered banning it. They wanted to get rid of grammars but couldn't for political reasons, so they tried to break thei system as much as possible instead.

No, sorry, this is wrong! The councils who have chosen to retain selective education are the very same ones who do not allow primary schools to tutor for the test. Why on earth would they choose to keep a system and break a system at the same time?

"bertrand but if the point of the 11+ is to select the highest IQ children then surely you would expect to be able to spot 90% of them at age 4? You would already be able to see that some children are quicker thinkers?"
If that particularly worrying opinion was true, what would be the point of your in school preparation.?

But anyway, I don't have to see their work. All I have to see is the label in their coats, the name on the register or the contents of their lunch boxes. Or their mother's shoes.

It's a mistake to assume that apparently well to do children do indeed have lots of people looking out for them.

It's a mistake to assume that 'championing the disadvantaged' is the same as 'not giving a shit about the advantaged'.

But when you see the comparatively poor educational outcomes for PP and FSM kids, it's hard to argue that they don't need a bit of championing in education.

if the point of the 11+ is to select the highest IQ children then surely you would expect to be able to spot 90% of them at age 4?

Why does the 11+ give different results about who those children are depending on which test they take?

"And that's the attitude that pushes me away from comps.
No one ever bothered to ask from the school how my daughter was after bringing her home"
But that was because it was a crap school, not because it was a comprehensive!

They have Secret Teacher articles, week after week, that deal with all sorts of marginal topics, but they never address behaviour..

I just googled 'Secret Teacher behaviour' and a bunch of articles came up.

IQ tests measure a mixture of fluid and crystallised intelligence. The crystallised version relates to how much you know, how large your vocabulary is, etc. So IQ tests measure more than just potential. Children can be bright in terms of fluid intelligence, but still really struggle with a demanding curriculum if they have serious deficits in their knowledge and vocabulary. That's one reason why many teachers are arguing for more direct instruction and teaching of knowledge at primary level, to try to compensate for the advantages that better off children will have gained in these areas from their backgrounds.

There's a good 2 part blog here that explains some of this:

www.learningspy.co.uk/psychology/teachers-need-know-intelligence-part-1-iq-matters/

I just googled 'Secret Teacher behaviour' and a bunch of articles came up.

There's one from 2016, one from 2014, one from 2012. The most recent one is about whether disruptive SEN children should be taught in mainstream, which I think is a separate issue, and the others only mention behaviour peripherally. So that's a hit rate of 1 out of 100. Not quite 'never', I admit, but hardly dealing seriously with such an important issue.

No it's the apparent mind set that we only care about those we have chosen to champion.
Also disadvantage takes lots of forms. It's not only about those who have fsm.

I'm not saying that the 11+ is a good idea, I'm not keen. I am certainly not saying it is a perfect test of IQ.

I was only pointing out that obviously clever children passing the 11+ isn't a sign that the test is unfair.

Also, it isn't particularly surprising that lots of clever children have well off parents, if you are smart enough to become a dentist then chances are you will manage to make some money in life, and it is pretty likely your children will be clever too. It's not a sign of definite unfairness.

Surely it is a sign of an unfair system if the poor or otherwise disadvantaged are always deemed low IQ and the rich always get deemed high IQ.

I think the concept of using a test to discover IQ is better than selecting by fees or knowledge of greek history or teacher's opinion or mother's shoes, especially if you are hoping that the grammar schools will improve the life chances of people who are disadvantaged and who are very clever.

Similarly the test should stop Tim Nice But Dim who will never ever be able to keep up in further maths in a grammar from ending up in a school that does not suit him just because his well heeled parents refuse to accept that he isn't as brainy as them and his posh accent makes him sound smarter than he is.

Kesstrel why have you only listed three when there are loads?

There was one only a couple of weeks ago, for example.

www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2017/may/06/secret-teacher-my-headteacher-has-handed-control-to-the-students

It's not only about those who have fsm.

Look at that graph and tell me that there isn't a major problem in education for PP and FSM kids.

Regarding behaviour: Here are the suggestions of the National union of Teachers for behaviour management:

Calm: You should always try to appear calm, even if you are not feeling calm. The first step in a difficult situation is to create thinking time, take a deep breath. Assertive: Have good eye contact, state your needs clearly and use ‘I’ statements, eg “I need”, “I want”.Status preservation: Pupils operate within a peer group. When correcting behaviour, always be aware of this and use private rather than public reprimands. Empathy: Show empathy. Avoid challenge questions such as: “What do you think you are doing?” Respect: Model appropriate behaviour to reinforce your expectations. Always show children and young people respect, even if they are disrespectful. Taking control You are the class teacher and to show that you are in control you should: • ensure that lessons are engaging and cater for different learning styles • be aware of different abilities to concentrate • build on pupil interests wherever possible within curriculum confines • establish a reward system that children and young people value • ensure that inappropriate behaviour is dealt with consistently and fairly • enlist the help of a senior staff member to advise on behaviour issues.

Nothing there about firm discipline and detentions. "Ensure your lessons are engaging", indeed. And a reference to 'learning styles', which have now been demonstrated to have no supporting evidence whatsoever, despite many teachers still being forced to 'differentiate' for visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learners....

All that said, I don't much care. I don't think grammars vs comprehensive makes a big difference one way or the other. The days of O-levels vs CSEs (or grammar vs staying on at primary school until 14 then getting a job) are long gone. Everyone does GCSEs.

I sometimes think that people get very het up about grammars because they are remembering how divisive secondary moderns were in the seventies. I had friends who didn't pass the 11+ and so they didn't have the option to do O-level physics, they were forced to do CSE maths which taught you nothing higher than the equivalent of a 'C' at O-level maths and mandatory CSE typing or CSE metal work, with no scope to do 'better'. Similarly some passed the 11+ but only scraped a few O-levels in easy subjects, yet the fact they were O-levels gave that child a life long advantage over the almost identical child who went to the secondary modern and got 8 CSE grade 1's.

It isn't like that now. So it doesn't matter so much which building the children go to school in imo. Which is why I don't mind that my children go to different schools, they will all do GCSEs. I was far more worried about the atmosphere, leadership and style of teaching in choosing schools.

But obviously many of you don't see it that way.

I think that's a worrying article nobel