Grammar schools - interesting article

[UnquietDad]

it be here

I know it's over a year old, but I'm new here, so apologies if people have seen it before!

As a former grammar school boy myself - whose parents could never have afforded to go private - I found it interesting. I find it a shame that my DD won't have the same opportunity.

its a difficult one!! fwiw i live in a 'well off' postcode with a very good high achieving comprehensive.
I chose to send my children out-of-area to selective grammar schools.
Here - they mix within the classrooom with kids from huge spectrum of social backgrounds from a vast geographical area.
Were they at the local comp - the spectrum in both social and geographical terms would be far more narrow.

Agree with the practical trade thing, xenia, although "not so clever" is perhaps an emotive phrase... Yes, I think this would benefit the economy enormously.

I think a country should have a literate, numerate populace, so some form of basic English and Maths exam at 14 or 15 should be compulsory for absolutely everyone. (I'd also like to make a foreign language compulsory, but I know this is a personal preference and won't meet with universal approval.) The jury's still out on I.T. But after that - ideal thing would be total flexibility. We waste a lot of time and effort putting non-academic people through academic exams . People should be able to leave school at 15 and start an apprenticeship in plumbing or motor maintenance if that's what they're good at. (Of course, it goes without saying that nobody should be forced to do this.)

Well indeed. In Germany I'd be Herr Ing. Connor.
In Britain, people think "engineer" is the man who fixes their washing machine.
That is of course why we have almost no manufacturing industry.

Thing is of course, now that we don't really make anything any more, why should we go ot the expense of teaching hard subjects ?
It is far cheaper to teach Media Studies, or French or RE than hard subjects, and you get better grades so much easier.

Whereas it is true that the signel most common degree for new millionaires in Britain is physics, those stats hide the fact that many aren't actually British, they merely work here.

Brits can make good maney as secrataries to important poeple, Russians particualry like them, though the US market is on it's way down.

'"some middle-class people sending their kids to rough schools", which is the situation we have at the moment.'

I don't even agree with this. Most kids in this country still go to comprehensive schools. In most comprehensive schools there are children from a range of backgrounds. The kids mix. This is a good thing.

'I still maintain that schools in the more affluent areas will be seen as "better"'

Yes, they're more likely to be higher up the league tables and may be seen as 'better' by those who care. And?? No education system is going to change the fact that their are more and less affluent areas. Don't really see how this is an argument for grammar schools.

'You're going to have to convince a lot more people before we have the kind of migration which would make the system truly comprehensive...'
The opposite. ATM we have a certain amount of 'migration' or 'white flight' or whatever you want to call it of middle-class parents away from schools in their cathcment areas I'm just arguing that all our kids would be better off if they stayed put and went to their local school (which would be a comprehensive).

'And surely if we can agree that a school shouldn't be judged purely on exam results, then why shouldn't we have a divergent system?'

Because, as has been proved countless times, and as you have agreed. 'Choice' means more choice for those who have choices anyway (the educated middle-classes) and less for those who don't. And 'divergence' means the most able (aka the most middle-class IMO) get the best education and qualifications and the rest get teh 2nd best.

'Why should those who come out of school with less "academic" results be stigmatised?'
Oh for goodness sake! Most employers expect a mimimum of GCSEs (incl Maths and English) these days. We use these qualifications partly as proof that kids can read, write, add up and know a bit about how the world works don't we. So if you come out of school without any or many GCSEs of course that's not going to leave you with a lot of choices.

'They might be better qualified for other things they would never have got the chance to do at a grammar school.'

Such as? And without qualifications (or without the same kind as gramamr school kids how can they be 'better qualified'? How incredibly patronising and offensive. Unviersity graduates can and do go on to become plumbers or whatever (I had a colleague who taught science who went on to start a plumbing business) but it doesn't work the other way around. You are the only person I have ever heard trying to argue that there are advantages to having a 2nd best/ non-academic call it waht you like education and 2nd best or no or no academic qualifications for some people. And who are these people? Oh yes, about 60% or more of the population who would not get in to grammar schools but who can be happy in the knowledge that they are 'better qualified' to become plumbers or hairdressers. And oh yes, I may well have been one of these people as would 100s of others who may have been hugely talented in certain areas, late developers or whatever but would have been denied an opportunity to pursue my goals. Fantastic! The rest of the world is actually arguing that employers need people who are well-qualified, highly literate and numerate etc etc and most parents are arguing that all our kids deserve a good education. By the way there are relatively few manual jobs now (compared to the days of the grammar school) so without qualifications you would really struggle to get a job at all.

'
'This is what I have been arguing since the beginning - that it's the senseless labelling, the division into "better" and "worse", which hobbles people's chances, not the actual opportunities they ARE given. It's not the fact that some people qualify as barristers and others qualify as welders which is wrong - what is wrong is a perception in society that barristers are "better" than welders because they have more academic qualifications.'

But it's you who is arguing for division. Welders need GCSEs (and good ones) just as much as barristers etc and have just as much ENTITLEMENT to them. ALso, my point earleir there just aren't that many manual jobs any more. Also, at what point in someone's life do they decide to become a barrister? An academic education the same as everyone else's keeps options open so you can CHOOSE to be a barrister or a welder or anything else rather than have these choices taken away from you at age 11 or 13 or whatever. I've taught a lot of kids who thought they didn't need an education because they were going to join their dad's business or whatever and some of these kids went on to get academic qualifications which opened doors to them and they chose a different route. Others thoght they didn't need qualifications and their dad's business went bust and they were stuck. Everybody should be encouraged to keep as many options as possible open to them. As I mentioned before EMA means I see kids at FE who would never have considered it before. While at college they learn about university (they may have been told it wasn't for them or have stereotypes or whatever beforehand), they learn about careers and many discover they're much brighter than they thought or were told they were. They go on to have successful careers (which you seem to want to deny them).

'None of this counters my criticism of the comprehensive system - parents with money, influence and empowerment will CHOOSE better schools, while those who live on an estate and have no choice but the failing school have NO WAY OUT of this'

But even a failing school can be a way out. If the majority of kids at a school are doing badly it's probably not the fault of the school itself. They'd be doing badly whatever the system. But if a kid wants to learn and has the support to learn s/he can do well anywhere. I know because I've seen it 100s of times. I've just taught a girl from a school on special measures on a borough wide G & T programme and she got mainly A grades. And I have just enrolled many other kids from the same school to my 6th form college. These kids would not have had these opportunities under a grammar school system BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOT IN Schools HAVE TO provide an education to suit their students needs or they can and have been sued. -

'Bank balance and ability are linked?'
Yep. In so far as 'ability' means academic success and so far as 'ability' was judged and continues to be judged by the 11+

'Giving bright kids from poor homes a chance of going to a good school IS going to improve social mobility. I don't see how it can't. (I suppose you're going to say their comprehensive should be the "good school".)'

Of course their comprehensive should be the 'good school' and in most cases it is. Bright kids from poor homes have this chance which most wouldn't have had under the old system (YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT LESS THAN 50% AND PROBABLY MUCH LESS I DON'T KNOW THE FIGURE WENT TO GRAMMAR SCHOOLS AND IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIUS TO WORK OUT HOW MANY KIDS FROM WORKING-CLASS HOMES WERE THEREFORE LEFT OUT) but also not so bright kids from poor and not so poor homes have this chance. In fact everyone now has this chance. And think how much better their chances would be if EVERY child went to their local comp so that ideas and aspirations and expertise were shared and kids from differnt backgrounds, religions and ethnicities mixed more than is possible with faith schools blah blah blah

"In most comprehensive schools there are children from a range of backgrounds. The kids mix."

Only up to a point. Take any urban comprehensive in the country and you can guarantee it'll be a microcosm, not of the city but of the postcode. These differ hugely. That's not "comprehensive".

"ATM we have a certain amount of 'migration' or 'white flight' or whatever you want to call it of middle-class parents away from schools in their cathcment areas I'm just arguing that all our kids would be better off if they stayed put and went to their local school (which would be a comprehensive)."

My point is not "white flight" - and I was trying not to use that rather emotive expression. If everyone "stayed put" - does this mean you would not allow people to move areas to get into better catchments? How would this be policed, then? You keep missing my point - more affluent parents, if denied the grammar or private route, will arrange to play the comprehensive system, as some already do.

"No education system is going to change the fact that their are more and less affluent areas. Don't really see how this is an argument for grammar schools."

Because grammar schools CAN - won't always, but CAN - give the chance to academically gifted people from less privileged backgrounds to shine in an environment suited to their abilities, rather than forcing them to go to their local sink comp. And yes, I know the sink comp should be good and should allow them to shine etc etc, but it may NOT.

The main "chance" most people seem to have under the comprehensive system is to be raised to the same level of mediocrity.

"You are the only person I have ever heard trying to argue that there are advantages to having a 2nd best/ non-academic call it waht you like education and 2nd best or no or no academic qualifications for some people."

I'm not, by any means. Some respondents on here agree with me, some agree with you. Please get some perspective.

"And who are these people? Oh yes, about 60% or more of the population who would not get in to grammar schools but who can be happy in the knowledge that they are 'better qualified' to become plumbers or hairdressers. And oh yes, I may well have been one of these people as would 100s of others who may have been hugely talented in certain areas, late developers or whatever but would have been denied an opportunity to pursue my goals. Fantastic!"

We live in a culture of Lifelong Learning. If selection of some sort were to be re-introduced, there would be no question of anybody having one chance, and one only, to decide the route they wanted to take in life. "Late developers" are recognised and encouraged these days - is it so odd to hear about someone who left school at 15 to be a hairdresser (or whatever) has decided that they've made a mistake and would actually like to do some A-Levels and go to university? In my ideal system (which is what I'm talking about, always, here, NOT the old 11+ bipartite system) there would be even more of this flexibility.

"But if a kid wants to learn and has the support to learn s/he can do well anywhere."
But may do BETTER in some places than in others.

uqd - agree, agree, agree

In our local very academic private schools there is more ethnic and religious mixing than the segregation parents have achieved locally through their manipulation of state school entries.
I just can't understand any middle class parent with a choice putting their child in a non selective school (if they have a reasonably bright child) when there is a choice not to.

Part of the reason for sacrificing smart kids in "comprehensive" schools was that they are needed to ensure this mixing.
If comps actually worked, then I'd see the point, They are the most common mode of secondary education and Britain has not only fallen to the bottom of the European leagues, but is now in danger of falling behind India and the Palestinian authority, it's hard to call what they doo "good". I accept there are good ones, but that is rather like saying there must be some competent managers in the rail system.

The ethics of the comprehensive system are to me repugnant.
I think it is the duty of those in loco parentis to do the best for the kids in their care.
Unfortunately, we get crap like religious education, and the whole grindingly bad comp system.
Apparently these are for the "good of society".
In this debate here and in other places, comp defenders talk more of society than the kids and vcice versa.

We picked the private school for DS because he's top percentile and we both had experience of being smart kids in comp schools and frankly it was not very nice.
Some of my school mates did time, others died. At one point I found it necessary to disarm one who had just stabbed a good friend of his during a fight over an apple. I doubt if any of us don't have some sort of criminal record.

I fail to see how this life experience would benefit DS. He's a gregarious chap, and has more charm than both of us put together, a bit judgemental, so is seen as a good influence. To be his friend you have to behave well (to a decent approximation).
So the defenders of the failed comp system see us as "depriving" their schools.
Guilty as charged.
By keeping him safe from knife fights, and removing the necessity for him to hit people hard enough that they require reconstructive surgery, I also ensure that the inevitable trouble he will get into is of the form of playing music too loudly, rather than anything very criminal.

Not all schools are as bad as mine, indeed it has improved since I left
But it's an interesting gap in the law.
If any other type of organisation knowingly exposed kids to drugs and knives and made no effort to do the thing you paid them to do, they'd be shut down very quickly.
You could also sue them big time.
Schools don't get sued 1% as much as they should.

Comp fans will be horrified by this, but financial penalties are the only thing these people understand.

But b&w cat you can be socialist and selfish then (according to your definition of selfish) as shown by the Blairs and lots of people I know.

Is it wrong for socialists to pick and choose a school for their child?

As we don't live in a totalitarian state (yet thank God) it's not compulsory to send their children to the nearest school.

You do have a muddled view of politics.

and class

I come back to the issue of selection. Anyone have any idea how it could be done fairly? My nephew was an incredibly gifted artist at the tender age of 3 and 4. Now that I have kids I truly appreciate how brilliant he was.

Going through a system that didn't nurture his talent he has never reached his true potential. If there was a system that identified all types of skills and offered an education that nurtured them then I could see it benefiting many. My fear is that it would focus purely on the academically talented and also on all rounders not those who exhibit excellence in one or two areas. I would love to know other people's ideas on fair way to select.

There's a couple of distinct questions here.

Fair selection is hard.
You can't do that cheaply, and of course kids vary radically over short times.
Changing schools is stressful, and a kid's ability can vary across subjects a lot.
The only "fair" solution is comprehensive, just not comps built, funded or staffed by Brits.

To allow for appropriate schooling for nearly all kids, you need the economy of scale of big schools. Big enough to have (different) specialists who can cope with drosophila's talented nephew, and me who was so bad at art, that one teacher actually cried.

That's 2 or more like 3K kids.
Then you simply send kid to nearest school.
No selection, simply adapt the resources applied to the child.

Of course, you could no more do this in this country than we could run a train system.
Our cheap education system is "designed" to turn out cheap kids, pander to various superstitions, and avoid annoying the teaching unions.

You'd need management, doubt if the entire resources available to this country could run one of these. Let's be honest we couldn't even build it without the damned thing turning into another Wembley stadium.

Even if we could, we're talking of big money.
There's plenty of money to spend on big US IT contractors to screw up government projects, heaps for Olympic athletes, centres of "sporting excellence", and the arts council ?
But education ?
Look at the average family's spending on (say) Sky Sports and books for their kids.
Has any educational book for kids ever made the best sellers ?
Wonder why not ?

British people simply aren't that keen on education, at least if it costs.

I come back to the issue of selection. Anyone have any idea how it could be done fairly? My nephew was an incredibly gifted artist at the tender age of 3 and 4. Now that I have kids I truly appreciate how brilliant he was.

Going through a system that didn't nurture his talent he has never reached his true potential. If there was a system that identified all types of skills and offered an education that nurtured them then I could see it benefiting many. My fear is that it would focus purely on the academically talented and also on all rounders not those who exhibit excellence in one or two areas. I would love to know other people's ideas on fair way to select.

I know an "Olympic" athlete who is having raffles and quiz nights to get some funding for her training.

No I don't like to pay for education - My husband and I (to coin a phrase!) have been paying in the form of taxation for a good few years so I don't see why I should pay more.

I am baffled by your comment that British schools shouldn't be staffed by British people. Usually countries staff their public services with the people who live in that country. I would be surprised if I went to live in the US and all the teachers were from Brazil.

Clearly you have a problem with British people(?) What has all this to do with grammar schools?

I never considered not paying as I and my siblings all went to fee paying schools from age 5. I'm glad I have paid and am stil paying for all 5 children and in a sense I picked a job and work the hours I need to work to pay for that. My choice.

drosophila - lots of private schools have great art departments and many are not very academic and have not so bright children in very small classes. For me private education is not about exam results, although those matter. It's about picking out the best in a child and nurturing it, teaching good values and behaviour, giving self confidence (I feel that is almost the best thing I've bought through the process).

If the Government tomorrow gave every parent by voucher the £5000 a year or whatever it costs to send a child to a state school to spend where they like, private or state with a right to top up that would immediately open access to many private schools and lead to new ones being set up even within that price band.

I'm not saying that British schools should not be staffed by Brits, but that any attempt to radically restructure the pathetic mess we refer to as an "education" system is tightly bounded by the lack of skills at at levels.
We don't do big infrastructure projects well either . One only has to look at the trains, the Scottish parliament, etc and now Wembley may not even be open by 2010. Does anyone outside of sports luvvies really think the Olympic buildings will be ready on time ? I'd give it 50/50 that at least one falls down.
So combine the low quality of the educational establishment with a known national incompetence in structures and you'll get an even worse mess.

But now you come to mention it, I would import teachers, indeed we already do so.