Grammar Schools (given green light by Theresa May part 3)

[sandyholme]

Part 3 ... Let the sparring continue..

Bert thinks posters are saying that other children have to suck up the fact that they [are not parented well, or perhaps at all, for any of a variety of reasons]. I don't think anyone's arguing that - it would be much better to have an education system that could somehow compensate for all that and give those children the excellent life chances they'd have if they'd been ideally parented. But... what education system could possibly do that? Does any country in the world have one that does? Can anyone imagine one? I can't, but I'll vote for it if it exists.

(What I won't vote for is a plan to make other children learn less than they could so that the disadvantaged children will be less far behind - that's not only morally wrong in my book but also pointless, because the opportunities will be taken by children from the independent sector or from home education or from other countries, even if you could stop the most advangated state educated children from the UK out-competing the least advantaged.)

Rubbish again to the super rich dominating those professions. Certain universities may well (do!) dominate but definitely the 'super rich' don't. Also, the schooling of those at the top of those professions can't usefully be compared to the chances of those recently schooled getting to the top. There seems to be a thing on this thread for referring to past performance as though it's current. Also, can we reel back a bit from all the emotion - good thing that those in charge are rather more rational.

advangated is a good word, isn't it? Advantaged.

Rubbish to the upper class dominating those professions. Yes, it's all in the past.

www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10914974/Too-many-top-male-actors-went-to-public-school-says-Arts-Council-chief.html

No problem here either. Nothing to see.

www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/23/qualifying-barrister-may-cost-new-students-127000

Bertrand. In your last post there are a number of issues relating to education that could relate to all types of Socio Economic and culturally groups .!

'Yeah' if it was not for the grammar school teachers (mum was head of English , i think its right i disclose this as this indicates a lack of impartiality perhaps.

Anyway the 'High School' had decided they could not teach me and that a 'mainstream ' environment was the wrong place for me!

Coming to my 'rescue' were three of my mums colleagues , who took it in turn to teach me at home taking me to 3 GCSE D grades in one year .

The 'High' school would not let me take the GCSEs on their premises its a good job the grammar let me take them...

Not bad considering that after 4 years of secondary education , i could not even hold a 'pen' .

However, my 'horrible' experience of education meant it would be 17 years before i would try education again via an O.U Degree and supported by DSA .

Although on paper ( and if you met me the fact i might come across as solidly middle class should not fool you that my journey through education has not been traumatic)

No problem with journalism either. Nothing to see here.

www.theguardian.com/media/2008/apr/07/pressandpublishing4

In Tomalin's day [1960s] some of the top newspaper positions were still occupied by people who had left school at 16 and worked their way up from reporting flower shows, darts matches and magistrates courts for local newspapers and agencies up and down the country. A few had even started as messengers. Though the rule was widely flouted - particularly on the posher papers - an agreement between the journalists' union and employers stated that nobody could work on Fleet Street without first serving a three-year apprenticeship in the provinces.

Despite what Tomalin wrote - and despite areas that were almost exclusively upper middle-class, such as most gossip columns - journalism could plausibly claim to be classless and meritocratic, at least by comparison with, say, law, banking or medicine. When I started on the Observer in 1968, my immediate boss was a non-graduate. So were at least two of my fellow reporters.

More recently, the Sutton Trust, an educational charity, found that of the country's 100 leading journalists - national newspaper and broadcast editors, columnists and news presenters - more than half had been to fee-charging schools and 45% to Oxford or Cambridge.

This was a few years ago, though I doubt access has been opened up more widely in the last 8 years.

"Doesn't seem to hold them back Bertrand,they are highly represented at grammars."

No. Children from the ethnic minorities are highly represented at grammar schools. A different matter altogether.

bert but the comprehensive system does that too.

Maple Totally agree with you. I'm exactly one of those parents you describe and I'm happy to forgo a mobile phone contract or holiday to help my child get the very best grades.

Here's the thing. Unless you live in an outstanding comp (and I mean really outstanding and whose GCSEs results are above 70% including English and Maths). The likes of Cherwell in Oxford or Bohunt in Hampshire. What we are seeing is that the top cohort in general are not getting the top grades compared to grammar. My local outstanding comp grade average is -A. Our bucks grammar is grade A. Yet the other good local comp is a B. The current comp system is failing for the top cohort who want to achieve those top grades. There is a whole grade difference a good comp and a good grammar. Unless all comps do away with mixed ability teaching, parents of the top cohort will want grammar schools. I'm not making up these stats. You can get them yourself from the government website for school performance.

And the very best comps stream in nearly all subjects. They offer grammar style education. Kids housed in same building but different classrooms.

If I was not in the vicinity of a local company I would definitely welcome grammar if I couldn't afford to move to be near a Bonhunt.

Outstanding comp not company sorry!

And the very best comps stream in nearly all subjects

There are comps that don't do this. Thornden in Hampshire, for example, barely sets until GCSE. (And I don't think Bohunt streams rather than sets, does it?)

On the other hand, Thornden, Bohunt, Kings in Winchester, are all examples of comps which look terrific on paper but still don't get as many A stars as one would expect given their demographics.

I think this article is worth reading it asks year 11 pupils two from grammar school two from high school their opinions about their education.

articles://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/21/children-secondary-school-pupils-five-years-teenagers-annual-gcse-kent is worth reading

Sorry when I said stream I mean the same as set (I may not have the terminology right). But agree with Haybott we are not seeing the very best grades in an outstanding comp given the demographics. Why is that?

//www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jul/21/children-secondary-school-pupils-five-years-teenagers-annual-gcse-kent

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jul/15/class-of-2010-how-do-they-feel-selective-schools

"Of those pupils who achieved Level 5 in both English and mathematics at the end of primary school, just 35% achieved an A* or A grade in both subjects at GCSE in 2012 while at non-selective secondary schools; 65% did not."

There is no comparison to selective schools... I keep hunting thru the link but I can't see it. So... 100% of the pupils at selective schools got A/A* in both subjects? Or was it 25%? Who knows?

I’m so glad I passed the 11-plus and came to grammar school because I’ve been pushed really hard. I’m predicted all As and A*s in my GCSEs. I’ll be gutted if I get any Bs. I think grammar schools are a good idea because academic people need to be in an environment where people aren’t messing about, so they can get on with their work.

Straight from the horses mouth !

Rubbish again to the super rich dominating those professions. Certain universities may well (do!) dominate but definitely the 'super rich' don't.

Hurrah to this. Ds (independent - name you would recognise ) is at University. His friends are from a range of schools which include private of all flavours , comps, grammars and 6th form colleges. (I have not specifically asked him about Sm schools . ) The super rich do not dominate those jobs - (why would they bother ? - it takes effort )

Oh, and it needs to be a like for like comparison, so kids who got L5 in both subjects the same calenar yrs of primary. Ideally would be in same towns, but we can waive that for now.

More recently, the Sutton Trust, an educational charity, found that of the country's 100 leading journalists - national newspaper and broadcast editors, columnists and news presenters - more than half had been to fee-charging schools and 45% to Oxford or Cambridge.

The claim is about one specific profession, one which is very much over-subscribed so networking is very important, and looking at one particular statistic. If you look at the 100 "leading" people in any field, many of them will be older and will not necessarily give a fair representation of those coming up in the ranks. Journalism may well still be unfairly dominated by certain groups, but one needs to look at more than the 100 "leading" journalists to determine this.

Amongst my colleagues (different field), those in their 50s who were educate in the UK are primarily grammar school or private school educated. This then automatically implies that almost all UK vice chancellors (who are in their 50s or older) are grammar or privately educated. But, if we look at people now being hired in their 20s and 30s, many are international and those educated in the UK come from a very diverse range of backgrounds and schools.

I also take issue with using "45% went to Oxford and Cambridge" as code for "unfair dominance". Oxford and Cambridge are highly over-subscribed universities. They select from a large pool the students who have the most ability and potential at 18. They then give these students a world leading education, with one on one time with world leading academics (which most other universities cannot afford to offer). It is not surprising nor is it unfair in itself that many Oxbridge graduates go on to be very high achievers in whatever field they enter.

It is unfair if an Oxbridge graduate is hired just because they come from Oxbridge. It is not unfair if the Oxbridge graduates are hired because they have very high ability and very strong skills. In some professions the first may well occur (I don't know) but in the areas I know Oxbridge graduates are hired for their abilities and, in particular, problem solving skills rather than because of networking. At the same time, the Oxbridge dominance is fading as other UK universities catch Oxbridge up: again looking specifically at my area it's not just Oxbridge graduates who do well, one could point to several other top UK courses which consistently produce highly desirable graduates.

See my university thread for discussion of quality of higher education and privilege.

The article states that the journalist profession has become dominated by the well-connected. There always used to be some of that but now it is much worse.

Maple my third daughter, grammar school educated, grandchild of a penniless refugee, not tutored for the entrance exam, Oxford educated admittedly, received combined funding of £23,000 from her Inn and provider for the BPTC, has just been graded Outstanding on that course and now has a pupillage award of £50,000. There is absolutely no way I could have paid for that myself and nor could she possibly have achieved that at either of the two local comps, on their recent past record of never getting students with a full hand of A* at GCSE and almost never getting a pupil to Oxbridge. I make no apologies whatsoever for wanting to work within the grammar school system to help far more students like my DD achieve that sort of thing and go on to do considerable good for society.