some questions from the grammar school argument

[Random89]

Read lots of post around the grammar school, I really have some questions. Why don't people dare to say that every child is different, I fully support that every child is equal, but they are different and have different need for education. Why we only need to think about the need for under achieving children. How about the bright children. To think this country as a whole, don't we need to get our bright children to release all their potentials, these children are going to be our country's top scienctist, doctors, economist, politicians etc. They are going to decide our country's future.

Some may query about the entry test, then improve the entry test, there aren't a test which is 100% fair, but if you test something that is taught in every primary school, then everyone will have a fair chance. Tutoring does improving the test result a bit, but for a really bright children, they would still pass without tutoring. At least, a poor bright child will have a chance. Not like now, if the child lives in a poor city, he won't have a chance.

And for the rest school, why can't these school still be improved without a few bright children. If the headmaster and SLT can be strong, have a good discipline in the school, deliver the message that education is important, get everyone studying hard. I can't see a school change just because a few bright students left. On the contrary, the teaching resource can be directed to the more demanding low achieving students.

However, I don't agree the current plan for schools to apply for selective, there should be a structure to make sure each town to have one, but not many.

A randomly picked example:

www.clrchs.co.uk/gcse-results-day/

School gets 58% GCSE but as you can see plenty of students have no trouble getting multiple As and A*s.

We have a large number of UK universities in the world top 100. UK higher education is very highly valued, worldwide. This whole grammar school debate seems to be framed around the premiss that there is something fundamentally wrong with our education system and that bright kids aren't getting a good deal. This just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny - the top UK universities outperform universities in Finland, many or most of the students at these universities come from non-selective state schools etc.

Students at UK universities are not all products of the UK secondary education system.

For instance, just looking at first degrees (graduate programmes have even more foreign students):

Cambridge = 20%
Imperial College =41% foreign
Oxford = 15%
LSE = 44%
Manchester = 25%
University College London = 36%
Warwick = 28%

www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/international/international-students-the-facts/by-university/

Once you account for foreign students, privately educated students and grammar school students, the comprehensive system in the UK isn't supplying students to these world beating institutions quite as much as we would like. It could be all down to class snobbery, but I really doubt it. I think the universities are simply picking the best prepared students who are most able to access the curriculum.

user1474361571,

I don't think as a whole city, we have a particular low achivement intake,especially we have a Russell University in the city. The neighbouring town did have a high intake though, as that is a famous rich area. What I mean is as our whole city doesn't have a outstanding school, our bright students don't have the same chance as some city which either have a grammar or outstanding comprehensive.

A few A* or A in GCSE is not enough for some working hard bright children. If these children, you give them chance, they learn their GCSE course very quickly, they have plenty ability to take more stuff, in a grammar like school, there will be more clubs or additional courses to challenge them. But in our local school, teachers have to cater for a wide arrange abilities students, I can't imagine their teaching time to offer more to the able students. Of course, I think they have done what they can. Not complain about our local school, as I think they deserve praise.

The OP is being very disingenuous in his/her initial post. She poses a number of questions, ostensibly neutrally, but has already decided the answers, ie that the only way to teach/stretch "clever" children is via grammar schools.

As others have pointed out, this has been done to death on numerous other threads.

I'll repeat what I have said on other threads: Scotland has had a fully comprehensive system for c.40 years and strangely enough still manages to produce many doctors, lawyers, vets, teachers from within the state system.

Bright kids can be and are stretched intellectually. Just as importantly, pupils can be weak in one area but strong in another and are not constrained. They can mix being good at Maths and/or English with doing Design and Manufacture and other practical subjects if they want to. They are not pigeonholed.

Students at UK universities are not all products of the UK secondary education system.

But, again, this is because world leading universities like to select the best available candidates from the largest possible pool.

If you look at the admissions statistics for Oxbridge you will find that non-selective state school candidates have a higher chance of admission than most foreign students. This is despite the fact that only extremely strong foreign students are likely to apply for Oxbridge in the first place.

Of course it is correct that some qualified (high grades) non-selective state school students don't apply to Oxbridge and that some non-selective schools don't do as well with their top students as one would hope - this is why top universities spend a lot of time on public engagement. But let's not over-exaggerate the problems. In general the UK education system is doing fine relative to the rest of the world.

BTW let's be under no illusions about the high percentages of foreign students at London universities - this is mostly about money and the systematic underfunding of universities in the UK. The foreign students are as qualified as the UK students on the courses, yes, but non-EU students are also paying extremely high fees which are necessary to pay the bills...

Graduate programmes have far more foreign students for financial reasons - there is not much financing for postgraduate courses available for UK students (the new 10k loans don't go far) and no culture of parents paying, hence little culture of UK students doing taught postgraduate courses. It has very little to do with UK students ability - the taught postgraduate courses are cash cows and on most of them anyone with a 2:i would be accepted.

Random89 Tue 20-Sep-16 10:35:39 these children are going to be our country's top scienctist, doctors, economist, politicians etc. They are going to decide our country's future.

Do you think you can predict a persons life choices at the age of 10/11?

I think at a place like Imperial for instance, there simply are not enough DC educated to a high enough level in STEM subjects to keep up with the course work. Departments would collapse without foreign students. Yes, I agree that money is a big part of this, but you must admit that many top flight maths, science and engineering departments would collapse without foreign students' brains (rather than dosh.)

I don't think there is anything inherently second rate about UK students themselves, but secondary education is letting us down. I think it is less the structure of secondary education (comp, academy, grammar, etc.) that is the problem and more the fact that we won't pay what it takes to get teachers with proper subject knowledge into the positions.

Random89 Tue 20-Sep-16 10:35:39 However, I don't agree the current plan for schools to apply for selective, there should be a structure to make sure each town to have one, but not many.

How many towns do you think need fully selective faith schools?

Random89 Tue 20-Sep-16 13:37:12 user1474361571, I think bright kids don't have a good deal in the city like we live,there are no grammar school, the best school in our city only has a GCSE rate 50-60%(that's after massive improvement),

Are you really sure that's the best school in the city? Which city would this be?

you must admit that many top flight maths, science and engineering departments would collapse without foreign students' brains

No, this is utter rubbish. Foreign undergraduate students are not better than home students.

It is true that relatively few UK students choose subjects such as physics and engineering, but this is as true for private and selective schools as non-selective state schools.

I don't believe the problem with students not choosing STEM lies primarily with teacher pay or teacher recruitment. The issue lies very deep in UK society - for decades we have not valued STEM as highly as we should. Bringing back grammars is not going to solve the problem when parents aspire for their children to be lawyers, medics or bankers rather than work in science and engineering.

OP
Read this
epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Grammar-schools-and-social-mobility_.pdf
Grammar schools are a waste of scarce resources

you must admit that many top flight maths, science and engineering departments would collapse without foreign students' brains

What a stupid statement. I do so hope that such narrow minded, negative thinking is not indicative of a grammar school education

Just as well my ds, who has an excellent Maths teacher at his comprehensive school, is planning on doing Maths, Physics and Chemistry at Uni then, with a view to doing a Physical Chemistry degree (but being Scotland, he can be a bit flexible in what he starts off doing).

I love the fact that he (and the whole class) is being stretched in Maths; they are well ahead in their Higher Maths curriculum (will be starting on Advanced Higher coursework soon, well in advance of their Higher Prelim) There is one boy in his class who sat his Nat 5 last year, a year in advance, his Higher in May and will be sitting his Advanced Higher this (academic) year.

Other former pupils are currently studying Chemical Engineering, Physics, Medicine, Engineering (amongst others) at "top flight" Unis.

Comprehensive education in an inner city school is soooo bad for encouraging science

The issue lies very deep in UK society - for decades we have not valued STEM as highly as we should.

Yes, it's still perfectly acceptable for people to say they are no good at maths. They wouldn't dream of saying that they found reading difficult.

Bringing back grammars is not going to solve the problem when parents aspire for their children to be lawyers, medics or bankers rather than work in science and engineering.

Yes, to this too, when the pay for lawyers and bankers is so much greater than that for teaching. (Less so with medics, I would say, but we have an increasing problem there too.)

When DH is interviewed by telly people who start the conversation with
"I hated science at school, what do you do differently"
I am always amazed at his patience.
Some of the clips are on iplayer
they make me seethe

MumTryingHerBest said "Do you think you can predict a persons life choices at the age of 10/11?"

I bloody well hope so, that's why I pushed hard for my kids to attend a superselective grammar school. They are pushed hard from day 1; it's just that the likelihood of top grade GCSE and a level success is pretty much guaranteed at a superselective gramnar

portico what exactly do you think life choices means? I do hope your DCs make choices beyond what they do at Grammar school or will you be making all their choices for them.

that's why I pushed hard for my kids to attend a superselective grammar school

I wasn't talking about your choices, I was talking about the choices your DCs make.

What a stupid statement. I do so hope that such narrow minded, negative thinking is not indicative of a grammar school education hmm

No prettybird, I did not attend grammar school.

I am delighted that your son is doing well and that you are pleased with his progress. However, a single, personal anecdote, does not change the broad statistics.

However, a single, personal anecdote, does not change the broad statistics.

The statistics indicate that home undergraduates do at least as well as foreign undergraduates on STEM courses, in contradiction to what is claimed above.

MumTryingHerBest said

"portico what exactly do you think life choices means? I do hope your DCs make choices beyond what they do at Grammar school or will you be making all their choices for them.

that's why I pushed hard for my kids to attend a superselective grammar school

I wasn't talking about your choices, I was talking about the choices your DCs make."

They have made their life choices, all I have done is lead them to grammar school. They know what career they want, what degree to aim for, and yes the school has a pedigree in getting students onto such degree courses

portico - They have made their life choices Interesting, so what job did they accept?

user I am talking about who and how many are on the courses. I am looking at the university "filter." Not how those who do get through the filter go on to do.

No, a single personal anecdote does not change the broad statistics - but it does act as a counter to all the anecdotes about why grammar schools were the right choice for their child

I'd therefore be interested to see the links to the "broad statistics" that prove that - grammar school system would be better for STEM subjects than the comprehensive system.

Scotland has been fully comprehensive for over 40 years. While there may still be work to be done on reducing the attainment gap, there is no talk of re-introducing selection as a means to doing so. with the solitary exception of our single UKIP MEP who is generally seen as a laughing stock

I think there would be problems for many departments in our universities if they did not recruit from abroad - Stem subject or not. Grammar schools do not promote stem subjects above all others so why would there be a greater number of uk students studying these subjects if there were more grammar schools? Personal choice and ability in a subject comes into play whatever the school? What maths graduate wishes they had done history or MFL? Or vice Versa. They require different skills.

Bringing back grammars is not going to solve the problem when parents aspire for their children to be lawyers, medics or bankers rather than work in science and engineering.

Grammars do science and tech subjects too you know!

At our son's grammar school, 3/4 of the pupils are taking design/tech subjects at GCSE such as resistant materials or systems control as they heavily push the science and technology careers and have lots of state of the art tech equipment such as laser cutters, 3d printers, and two cad/cam computer suites. All three separate sciences are compulsory to GCSE. Looking at their leaver list, plenty of sixth formers have gone to study science/tech at unis.

I know a lot of people who: went to university, studied engineering, and now work in banking. The banks don't necessarily want everyone to have an accounting degree, and they seem to see engineering degrees as a signal of numeracy, intellectual aptitude and rigour.

Not that everyone should aspire to work in a bank!

But just to show that there are a lot of people trained as engineers doing other, highly paid jobs.