If '59% of people favour selective education'- are there more socialists out there or more deluded parents?

[miljee]

ASSUMING this means 'academically selective' education.... This statistic, apparently from a YouGov poll makes ME think there are an awful lot of parents out there who genuinely believe their child would fall into the academically selected camp whereas, in some areas (I'm thinking 11+), only 5-10% of children actually do! OR am I being a cynic and not recognising those parents who genuinely want a Secondary Modern education for their own DCs? Could it be the 11+ was abolished so long ago in many areas that many of today's parents actually have no experience of the great Grammar/S.M divide?

Ooo interesting!

I think you are right in that the 59% think that their children would be those to get into the academically selective schools but the reality would be different. There would be alot of disappointed and ranting parents.

It seems to me that it has all gone a bit wrong. Before I am shot down I would like to make it clear that I believe that every person who has the ability to study to degree level should have the chance but, and here I stick my neck out, not all people are cut out for academic higher education. It puzzles me that the current govt keep saying that they want everyone to have the chance to go to university but that is unrealistic. Not everyone is cut out for it. This is why it is a tragedy that the Poly's and Colleges of Higher Educations have been changed into University's.

And I can clarify that I did not go to University but an Institute of Higher Education.

I think that parents are often in favour of selective education as they think their child is sure to be in the Grammar sector. I think that they are less in favour if their child doesn't 'pass' the 11+

If SM schools were properly funded, with challenging and appropriate courses, with the possibility of doing vocational and traditional courses, with easy movement between the two, I would have no problem with my children attending a SM, if that were the right school for them.

But SM schools only ever had a fraction of the funding that Grammar schools did.

But I'm a raging hypocrite anyway as I pay for mine to go to a private school. So I should hush my mouth!

I think there is no benefit to forcing less academically able children to continue the same educational pathway as those who aremore able. Why should one education system suit everyone- everyone is different.
As for assuming that everyone would want to go through a comprehensive system that allows the less academically able to fail to achieve even the most basic levels of maths and english - why would it be the ones who are most able who would care the most?
Currently if you are academically able you have a chance of succeeding in the comprehensive system, if you are not so able you don't. many children have 14 years of schooling and come through without a GCSE maths qualification, and worse yet are unable to achieve the Basic Level required to get any kind of job.
If my DCs ,currently too young to tell, were to turn out less able, I would rather they had proper and appropriate schooling in the basic skills 'for life' and then the opportunity to learn sometihng useful than have to go thriugh 14 years of failing subjects they have no interest in.
I know the old system created a divide but that was because they removed the funding from secondary moderns which subsequently became 'dumping grounds', no one would suggest the old system was good but if it is done properly selective education should benefit everyone.
Right off my soap box and go off and collect DC now.......

Probably a high percentage of parents believe that if a child is academically capable they'll get a place in that selective school.

I currently live in an area where there's an 11 + system and will be moving before we get to that stage. There's a couple of great grammar schools (all with huge catchment areas) then all the comps get awful results. I want to move to an area where the system is different and state none selective schools provide a good education.

Strangly there are many independant schools at primary level around here also and not so many at secondary . Similar to the area I grew up in, my friends went to private primary and they started practice tests 2 years before the actual tests .

Local grammar schools are great for those children who want and get a place. But what about the child who may be as intelligent and acadmically able but doesn't get a place? Take two children with the same result, one may get a place the other not.

Children aren't dividied neatly into the academically able and not able. There's also children who scored 11 or 13 % and children who don't test well.

All children deserve access to a great education, afterall a high percentage of so called "average children" go on to have interesting and demanding jobs They're not all out there wanting to clean the shoes of the so called top 10% with their tongues.

I would have a comprehensive for the top 80% and a range of special schools with substantial funding for the bottom 20%. I would also make sure that every comprehensive had reasonable social and academic mix of children.

What is needed is removal of children with serious behavioural problems or major learning difficulties from mainstream schools.

It is unreasonable to send a child to a mainsteam secondary school without a statement if they cannot read. However nationally 20% of eleven year olds cannot read to a standard to access the curriculum. Its no wonder that many of these children are bored and disaffected. It is not good enough to provide 2 hours a week of basic literacy classes when reading and writing skills are needed in every lesson.

There are a lot of bright dyslexic children who could get a good job if they had small classes and teachers who had better training. If there reading skills were improved then they could reintegrated back into mainsteam classes.

It amuses me that there are always campaigns to 'save grammar schools', I have never heard of one saying 'save our secondary moderns'!

I am in favour of different types of schools for different kids.

My DD was considered a dead cert for Grammar - and she didn't get in. I was upset (for her) but luckily she goes to a fab comprehensive where she has thrived and aced her GCSE's. Didn't put me off though as DS tried 4 years later and got in - and he too is happy.

I don't think I would have made the Grammar if they were around in my area, I was always in top set, but never top of the top, but the Grammars tend to be smaller which I why I think a lot of parent feel their kids would do better - not being labelled the Boffin a a huge school.

You all talk sense!

My ideal school? Well, consider this: I visited my DH's school on the occasion of a 25 year reunion. It's a state high in rural Australia. DH is quite academic, so we toured properly equipped chemistry labs, physics labs, bio rooms, the library. We looked at the performing arts block, the performance space, the lighting lofts. Then we went out the back to see the 'practical' classrooms, such as the woodwork room. Where were the wobbly benches with a couple of blunt hacksaws? The handful of bent nails? Oh no. Damn great shed with industrial, gantry mounted professional bandsaws! Professional lathes! Drills you could kill yourself with! Racks of real tools! Thence on the the Home Economics rooms- proper industrial kitchens, teaching catering on a commercial scale. Then to the FARM (remember we are talking rural Australia here). A proper, working full scale farm, arable and herds of cows, complete with all the trophies won by students at the agricultural shows for animal husbandry, sheds to teach motor mechanics, machines to lay fencing in straight lines. To me, the epitome of a 'proper' school that got kids into university to study science AND kids into trade apprenticeships with a good working knowledge of their chosen 'trade'. I know! Let's call it a Comprehensive!

To raise a couple of points, I don't think you can call the non-grammars in an area WITH grammars 'comprehensive'. They're not, they're secondary moderns.

Can I ask, blueblob, are you in Salisbury? Move towards Winchester!

My cards on the table: I went to a girls grammar (in Salisbury!). I had an excellent academic education, though I didn't take as much advantage of it as I should have. As for the secondary moderns in the area? My brother went to one, and it was rubbish in every sense of the word. He was disgracefully short changed and I so don't think doing that to 85-90% of DCs is morally acceptable, then or now.

I'd love to be able to send MY 2 x DSs to grammar (but they're not GS material esp as I can't afford to Prep them)... Why? Only because grammars support a strong learning ethos and ill discipline can be dealt with by the threat of being chucked out - to a secondary modern- sort of like reallytired says! Actually I don't WANT my DSs to go to a school where you're so up yourself you have poo in your hair (WE did at my school)- and isn't it funny how we all 'want' academia for our DCs but in reality what we want is for our DCs to be taught in ability appropriate groups in a supportive and disciplined environment? And sadly other than in 'critical-mass middle class' areas (such as Winchester) you only get the discipline part in grammars and private schools!

We do jnow a lot of not very bright children at private schools. There's a pecking order of schools around here and obviously they have no chance and don't even sit for the better ones but there are lots for the less able children many of whom do tremendously well. It is possible to segregate children by IQ and then educate the bright and the not so bright ones well. It's just the state has never done too well with the less bright ones or parents think it hasn't. What you get at the private schools which take all comers or suit the not so bright is you have generally well behaved children and no trouble makers etc - in other words the ones people mention above aren't there. Often for these less clever children (or thick ones even) you have small classes. I see Bedales school in today's telegraph education supplement is writing about it now limits GCSEs to 5 or 6 only and has children doing tings not even particularly related to school, practical crafts etc.

I am a great supporter of the comprehensive system, where it goes wrong is treating all children the same and getting them to jump through the same educational hoops as if one size fits all.
The Australian school you described, miljee, sounds my ideal. Disaffected teenagers would be no trouble if they could strip car engines, fit a kitchen etc.and I daresay they would be willing to do some basic English and Maths around it if they could see the point.
It is possible-I went to a secondary modern, it didn't treat us all the same. I did O'levels and went onto 6th form, there was a secretarial form, it was rural and a lot of the boys were going to work on the land and the school had it's own farm. Those in the farm bit didn't do academic work-just the basics, I never set foot in the farm part. Everyone felt valued-it worked well.I don't know why we set such store by academic success and none on practical subjects. Even woodwork has been given an academic slant by all the written work that has to go with it, rather than just being shown how to make something.

Our comprehensive doesn't have a farm or an industrial-quality woodwork department, but it does allow/enable non-academic pupils from Yr10 and above to do courses at several local colleges and training organisations.

There are the 'usual' suspects, such as catering, hairdressing, childcare, engineering, mechanics, but also a few less common ones.

These courses are in tandem with work at school, so children hopefully still get the basics right, maths and English and bits of the rest of the curriculum, but half or more of their timetable is spent outside the school on vocational courses. Seemingly good vocational courses too.

This seems to work for most. The school is well-known for its academic success and high-achievers, and discipline is hot - many people say it is more akin to grammar schools in that respect. Most subjects are set, so pupils work with others of a similar ability. But those who are less academic can either do vocational courses or take the options stream which is a half-way house, still some GCSEs (perhaps only 5 rather than the 9-11 most do), but also a greater focus on vocational subjects including IT, business studies etc.

It's not perfect but it's a pretty good example of how a comprehensive can meet the needs of all groups of children within one school. Comprehensives can work, but they have to be comprehensive, it's no good creaming off the most academic and/or middle class for grammar schools and then calling the remaining schools 'comprehensive'.

Agree AbbeyA. I went to a comprehensive (though not a true comp as there were still grammar schools in the area. I 'passed' the 11 plus but went to the comp as my brothers were there). Your school sounds mosre straightforward in that it had different classes for different types of provision. Mine was very mixed ability - I sat O Levels in classes alongside those doing CSE. It can work (I got my O and A levels, degree, higher degree) but I think it puts more pressure on the teacher. In some ways that can be good - the teacher has to be inspiring and dynamic and able to teach to all levels, whereas if the job is easy I'm afraid some teachers become complacent. But overall I think it's better to have setting, particularly with the type of syllabus these days.But yes, the comprehensive system in a workable form is definitely the best educational provision. The old grammar school system was ludicrous, taking no account of children's rates of development and using a very narrow judgement. I 'passed' the 11 Plus, my siblings 'failed' and we all ended up at University!

Kids who want to be builders have to have good maths and an understanding of physics, as it happens. I'm sure other trades probably need a grounding in other academic subjects. I think it's probably important to show them how these subjects apply to the real world.

My parents were lucky, both went to grammar schools (my mother got into a direct grant school). But I know people of their age who went to secondary moderns and it had a life-long effect. They were labelled as dim at an early age. Some of them went on to get professional qualifications or degrees later on so they were obviously able - maybe late developers or maybe they were just in years where there were a lot of bright kids hence more competition for grammar places.

Thing is, selection at 11 only shows how you are doing at that age.

There are often campaigns in this area (Kent) to get rid of the grammars. There's an organisation called Stop the Eleven Plus (or STEP for short ). They start campaigns which forces primaries to supply them with lists of all those parents whose children are likely to be affected by the issue (at a cost of £millions), but they then never get enough support to actually trigger a vote. So, far from ensuring that all the education gets spent on education for all at an equal level, they are actually wasting huge sums of money just to pursue a personal vendetta. If there were enough parents in the area who supported them, all well and good, but there aren't. But that doesn't stop them trying again and again. The leader of the organisation is a complete hypocrite as he is the head of a comprehensive school which sets its own selection criteria - yet he wastes millions of pounds of taxpayers' money trying to abolish selective education. Sorry, a bit off the point there, but it does make me cross .

I am of the same opinion as martianbishop. There should be an education to suit all types of children. Academic for those with that ability, vocational for the more practical and a general traditional education for those who don't fit the other criteria. I too believe this drive to get X% of students to university is ridiculous. Even out of those who choose to go to uni, there is a huge drop-out rate. If others are persuaded to go just to get the figures up, this rate will increase and it will be a massive waste of money. I think they should scrap all tuition fees at uni, but, if you drop out, you should have to pay your fees to that date.

We have grammar schools in my borough. I think most of the places go to children outside the borough. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of local children going to these schools was as low as 2%, however, parents still like having a local grammar school.

However, the two grammar schools are a bit of a red herring - a huge number of parents send their children to private schools. The state is trusted to provide a good education up to the end of primary then there is a mass exodus. Funnily enough though, a not small number of bright children eventually leave these highly selective private schools to go to local 6th form colleges (wider range of subjects, more freedom).

I don't think we really have a thought out educational system. We just have whatever looks good to voters at the time. Anyway, I think that to really have proper comprehensives you would have to get rid of private schools too, which I don't think is going to happen.

You can have it all in the same school. My secondary modern had all doing all subjects for 3 years, but streamed, and then a decision as to O'levels, GCSE ,farming etc in year 10.Looking on Friends Reunited shows how wrong it is to select at 11, my old school has produced lots of interesting careers and lifestyles, people who live all over the World, have university educations, career changes etc.
In contrast there were those who took up a Grammar School place and left at 16.

Agree MadamePlatypus - our education system is a series of knee jerk reactions rather than a well thought out strategy.And yes, to have truly comprehensive system, private schools would need to lose their charitable status which would effectively put them out of business. Interesting what you say about bright children leaving the private schools to go to 6th form college - similar thing happening here. I also wonder whether the private school thing is beginning to be a disadvantage when applying for University.

deluded
I once heard someone on a radio phone in talking about the benefits of grammar schools for his daughter, who would otherwise be dragged down by the others in her class.
turned out she was three!
but she was "very bright"

MP - my mother used to teach at the FE college nearest to you. Her classes were full of kids who had been kicked out of local grammars/private schools because it was feared that they would get bad A-levels and would bring the average grade down. My mother took particular pride in guiding them to A or B grades, just to prove the schools wrong.

Hi PW!

My dad lived in an area where there were technical schools, where you went at 11 if you didn't quite make it to the grammar school. They excelled in the engineering, secretarial and business/accounting areas and were fairly good academically. Most kids left at 16 or 17 (the school leaving age then was 15).
I do feel many parents in grammar school areas would be happy if these half way schools were still around

Re technical schools - a friend of mine 'failed' the eleven plus, went to a technical school, excelled at technical things, went to Silicon Valley and started a company and is now waaaay richer (and no less happy!) than me who went to a grammar. Never mind about grammars, bring back the techs!

The grammar that DS1 and DS2 attend now used to be the tech that DH attended over 30 years ago.

I'm amazed by the 59% - must have a look at that poll.

yes but 97% of statistics made up on spur of the moment