I went to Grammar School, my 3 sisters all went to secondary moderns. None of the got any qualifications, I got 3 A levels and went on to do a degree. The whole of our lives was shaped by a test taken whatever the developmental readiness of the child. We didn't understand its importance other than the sense of anxiety transmitted by our parents. My sisters were given to understand that they were failures and had that reinforced for the remainder of their school lives during which nothing was expected of them and they expected less. That's what Grammar Schools mean.
That's the most depressing thing I've read for a long time and how I'm feeling having just gone through all this with my son.
My sisters were given to understand that they were failures and had that reinforced for the remainder of their school lives during which nothing was expected of them and they expected less. That's what Grammar Schools mean.
So what did your parents do about? Support, encourage, mentor, advice and encourage or just reinforce the 'failure' tag.
Education doesn't just happen at school. Any decent parent would help in the educational process, from simple encouragement to investing time in their Child's development to become a rounded individual.
So went to Dartford Grammar mum a claener my dad all his life on the dust. Lived in tin town council house Halcot Avenue elitist my arse cant be arsed to read the thread as will be normal banging on Grammars are wrong. Spelling if wrong dont give a tinkers so dont bother
So went to Dartford Grammar mum a claener my dad all his life on the dust. Lived in tin town council house Halcot Avenue elitist my arse cant be arsed to read the thread as will be normal banging on Grammars are wrong. Spelling if wrong dont give a tinkers so dont bother
If you could be arsed to read the thread you might be surprised.
This is a hugely philosophically significant issue. For a start, maybe we ought to revisit what we think of as successful and high achieving in Education. (We can leave the overall purpose of Education for a little while longer). Already on the wireless today I hear talk of the newly created grammar schools helping out the other schools nearby, presumably to buy into the grammar schools vision of 'success' and 'achievement'. So even at the re-birth of this debate, the assumption is that so called academic success is of a more desirable nature than sporting success for example. Yet more fecking around with education to come then, and even more laughable as there has been a constituency of enthusiasts that have promoted 'academies' as quasi grammar. And selection? Worms can of.
This is a hugely philosophically significant issue. For a start, maybe we ought to revisit what we think of as successful and high achieving in Education. (We can leave the overall purpose of Education for a little while longer). Already on the wireless today I hear talk of the newly created grammar schools helping out the other schools nearby, presumably to buy into the grammar schools vision of 'success' and 'achievement'. So even at the re-birth of this debate, the assumption is that so called academic success is of a more desirable nature than sporting success for example. Yet more fecking around with education to come then, and even more laughable as there has been a constituency of enthusiasts that have promoted 'academies' as quasi grammar. And selection? Worms can of.
I used to think so when I was younger - but hugely philosophically significant? No it isn't - it's about kids reaching their full academic or technical or vocational potential and parents wanting the best for their kids.
I went to Brockley County Grammar School for Boys, and it influenced me to hate racists, bullies and Tories...oh and corporal punishment. It was a vile place with no redeeming features, and looking back I would have been much better off at a mixed comprehensive school with a more stimulating curriculum, and teachers who went a little bit beyond chalk and talk.
This is a hugely philosophically significant issue. For a start, maybe we ought to revisit what we think of as successful and high achieving in Education. (We can leave the overall purpose of Education for a little while longer). Already on the wireless today I hear talk of the newly created grammar schools helping out the other schools nearby, presumably to buy into the grammar schools vision of 'success' and 'achievement'. So even at the re-birth of this debate, the assumption is that so called academic success is of a more desirable nature than sporting success for example. Yet more fecking around with education to come then, and even more laughable as there has been a constituency of enthusiasts that have promoted 'academies' as quasi grammar. And selection? Worms can of.
I used to think so when I was younger - but hugely philosophically significant? No it isn't - it's about kids reaching their full academic or technical or vocational potential and parents wanting the best for their kids.
I am afraid I disagree. Very politely disagree. I have heard the notion of reaching potential many times, and it is meaningless. If you look at a baby or toddler for example you could argue that for every one of them their potential is limitless, they could all be brain surgeons and play for West Ham, how would you know what their potential actually is? How would you know whether or not it had been reached? Also what do we mean by the 'best' for our children? Wealth? Health? Happiness? Fulfilment? Intellectual greatness? ability to form good relationships with others? All of those things? Usually when it comes to discussions about education people often want everything for everybody even if they're mutually conflicting concepts like being ruthlessly competitive yet a good super generous co-operator or team worker. In my view people shy away from considering the philosophical aspects of education because it is pretty damn difficult stuff, well it is to me anyway. P.S. You missed out creative potential amongst other things.
This is a hugely philosophically significant issue. For a start, maybe we ought to revisit what we think of as successful and high achieving in Education. (We can leave the overall purpose of Education for a little while longer). Already on the wireless today I hear talk of the newly created grammar schools helping out the other schools nearby, presumably to buy into the grammar schools vision of 'success' and 'achievement'. So even at the re-birth of this debate, the assumption is that so called academic success is of a more desirable nature than sporting success for example. Yet more fecking around with education to come then, and even more laughable as there has been a constituency of enthusiasts that have promoted 'academies' as quasi grammar. And selection? Worms can of.
I used to think so when I was younger - but hugely philosophically significant? No it isn't - it's about kids reaching their full academic or technical or vocational potential and parents wanting the best for their kids.
I am afraid I disagree. Very politely disagree. I have heard the notion of reaching potential many times, and it is meaningless. If you look at a baby or toddler for example you could argue that for every one of them their potential is limitless, they could all be brain surgeons and play for West Ham, how would you know what their potential actually is? How would you know whether or not it had been reached? Also what do we mean by the 'best' for our children? Wealth? Health? Happiness? Fulfilment? Intellectual greatness? ability to form good relationships with others? All of those things? Usually when it comes to discussions about education people often want everything for everybody even if they're mutually conflicting concepts like being ruthlessly competitive yet a good super generous co-operator or team worker. In my view people shy away from considering the philosophical aspects of education because it is pretty damn difficult stuff, well it is to me anyway. P.S. You missed out creative potential amongst other things.
Health, happiness, fulfillment, ability to form good relationships with others - do you think they are all accomplished at school? Do the parents not have any input?
I'm afraid I disagree with your disagreement, politely of course
P.S. creativity applies to all the three areas I listed.
Creativity can be a stand alone accomplishment, or a combined activity. then there is physical potential, and practical potential. i don't disagree with you but maintain that this is not a simple and straightforward area of debate. Take your use of 'vocational'. If you mean that in terms of a job, or a way of life should that be the purpose of education, do the parents not have any input? If there are children with no parents what happens then anyway?
Selective education happens within any non-selective school, that's a fact. Kids that are earmarked for high grades at GCSE will be prepared for that and told that they are the brightest. Those who are unlikely to achieve much at 16 are put into glorified babysitting.
Selection clearly isn't the issue since this is accepted up and down the country. Grammar schools and selection in general have become a bugbear of Labour and the left due to the fact that it is the children of the middle class and wealthy who predominantly "benefit" from the system (if, by benefit, you mean 'taught at a level that is suitable for their intelligence, potential and ability'). But as it has already been established, the children of middle class and wealthy parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to get better results at KS1 and KS2 due to the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary. So the problem isn't selection or grammars, it is that the school system is already biased towards the children of intelligent, and usually wealthier, parents in the first place and offers very little in the way of a meaningful and holistic development for those who are not destined for success in academics.
If moderns/comprehensives/state schools were properly funded and given support then there would be no issue. The pursuit of academia is also something that should not be seen as the 'holy grail', since it is not possible for every child to get dozens of high grades and to go on to further and higher education. Instead, we need to drop the idea that academics are the only way forward up until 16 and more emphasis needs to be placed on practical and vocational skills, especially between 10 and 14. There is still snobbery surrounding such subjects yet if they were presented and funded properly instead of being portrayed as a 'soft option' then there could be ample opportunities for all children to follow a path of success.
Classes move at the speed of the least intelligent person. Why should bright children be held back by stupid kids who have no interest in learning?
I agree to an extent.
I went to DGS and have done ok for myself. I was surrounded by kids who wanted to learn and had a supportive but competitive environment in which to do so.
My sister just missed out, went to a comprehensive and was unfortunately surrounded by kids less keen to learn and this impacted her learning.
Whilst I don't believe grammar / comp dictates whether someone will have a successful career, I do believe it helps which is why I'll do all I can to support my kids in the hope they'll get into a good local grammar.
I went to Grammar School, my 3 sisters all went to secondary moderns. None of the got any qualifications, I got 3 A levels and went on to do a degree. The whole of our lives was shaped by a test taken whatever the developmental readiness of the child. We didn't understand its importance other than the sense of anxiety transmitted by our parents. My sisters were given to understand that they were failures and had that reinforced for the remainder of their school lives during which nothing was expected of them and they expected less. That's what Grammar Schools mean.
The grammar school system fails those who miss out on the 11+. When I was at University, two of the four students in my chemistry class, who got "firsts" had failed the 11+ and had come through the comprehensive school system. I think the education system was more robust in those days ( late 60's) and did a better job in catering for the late developers.
My sisters were given to understand that they were failures and had that reinforced for the remainder of their school lives during which nothing was expected of them and they expected less. That's what Grammar Schools mean.
So what did your parents do about? Support, encourage, mentor, advice and encourage or just reinforce the 'failure' tag.
Education doesn't just happen at school. Any decent parent would help in the educational process, from simple encouragement to investing time in their Child's development to become a rounded individual.
Incredible.
Yeh, my parents were uncaring bastards. Good point.
Why should parents have to fight against a system that defines their children as failures. How many working parents have the education themselves to make up for the shortfall in a system they are paying for with their taxes.
Classes move at the speed of the least intelligent person. Why should bright children be held back by stupid kids who have no interest in learning?
This depends a lot on what is meant by intelligence and stupidity. You may come up with a definition, but it won't take into account everything. People use the phrase 'emotional intelligence' for example, and i don't think that is what you're getting at.
This is a hugely philosophically significant issue. For a start, maybe we ought to revisit what we think of as successful and high achieving in Education. (We can leave the overall purpose of Education for a little while longer). Already on the wireless today I hear talk of the newly created grammar schools helping out the other schools nearby, presumably to buy into the grammar schools vision of 'success' and 'achievement'. So even at the re-birth of this debate, the assumption is that so called academic success is of a more desirable nature than sporting success for example. Yet more fecking around with education to come then, and even more laughable as there has been a constituency of enthusiasts that have promoted 'academies' as quasi grammar. And selection? Worms can of.
Wireless? You really are seth plum ! Really enjoyed reading post's from seth bob And fiish. ..can't think of another site where you'd find such reasoned argument
Selective education happens within any non-selective school, that's a fact. Kids that are earmarked for high grades at GCSE will be prepared for that and told that they are the brightest. Those who are unlikely to achieve much at 16 are put into glorified babysitting.
Selection clearly isn't the issue since this is accepted up and down the country. Grammar schools and selection in general have become a bugbear of Labour and the left due to the fact that it is the children of the middle class and wealthy who predominantly "benefit" from the system (if, by benefit, you mean 'taught at a level that is suitable for their intelligence, potential and ability'). But as it has already been established, the children of middle class and wealthy parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to get better results at KS1 and KS2 due to the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary. So the problem isn't selection or grammars, it is that the school system is already biased towards the children of intelligent, and usually wealthier, parents in the first place and offers very little in the way of a meaningful and holistic development for those who are not destined for success in academics.
If moderns/comprehensives/state schools were properly funded and given support then there would be no issue. The pursuit of academia is also something that should not be seen as the 'holy grail', since it is not possible for every child to get dozens of high grades and to go on to further and higher education. Instead, we need to drop the idea that academics are the only way forward up until 16 and more emphasis needs to be placed on practical and vocational skills, especially between 10 and 14. There is still snobbery surrounding such subjects yet if they were presented and funded properly instead of being portrayed as a 'soft option' then there could be ample opportunities for all children to follow a path of success.
I agree with a lot of this. One factor that is sometimes overlooked when schools go on about their A-level or GCSE results is how much is down to them, and how much may be down to private tutors hired by parents. Schools will take the reflected credit for results they may have barely contributed to.
Creativity can be a stand alone accomplishment, or a combined activity. then there is physical potential, and practical potential. i don't disagree with you but maintain that this is not a simple and straightforward area of debate. Take your use of 'vocational'. If you mean that in terms of a job, or a way of life should that be the purpose of education, do the parents not have any input? If there are children with no parents what happens then anyway?
Children with no parents would hopefully have some positive pastoral care.
Yes it's important, Seth - but I wouldn't use the hyperboli of hugely philosophically significant.
But as it has already been established, the children of middle class and wealthy parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to get better results at KS1 and KS2 due to the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary.
Selective education happens within any non-selective school, that's a fact. Kids that are earmarked for high grades at GCSE will be prepared for that and told that they are the brightest. Those who are unlikely to achieve much at 16 are put into glorified babysitting.
Selection clearly isn't the issue since this is accepted up and down the country. Grammar schools and selection in general have become a bugbear of Labour and the left due to the fact that it is the children of the middle class and wealthy who predominantly "benefit" from the system (if, by benefit, you mean 'taught at a level that is suitable for their intelligence, potential and ability'). But as it has already been established, the children of middle class and wealthy parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to get better results at KS1 and KS2 due to the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary. So the problem isn't selection or grammars, it is that the school system is already biased towards the children of intelligent, and usually wealthier, parents in the first place and offers very little in the way of a meaningful and holistic development for those who are not destined for success in academics.
If moderns/comprehensives/state schools were properly funded and given support then there would be no issue. The pursuit of academia is also something that should not be seen as the 'holy grail', since it is not possible for every child to get dozens of high grades and to go on to further and higher education. Instead, we need to drop the idea that academics are the only way forward up until 16 and more emphasis needs to be placed on practical and vocational skills, especially between 10 and 14. There is still snobbery surrounding such subjects yet if they were presented and funded properly instead of being portrayed as a 'soft option' then there could be ample opportunities for all children to follow a path of success.
I agree with a lot of this. One factor that is sometimes overlooked when schools go on about their A-level or GCSE results is how much is down to them, and how much may be down to private tutors hired by parents. Schools will take the reflected credit for results they may have barely contributed to.
This is a good point, however in my experience private tutoring is building upon what a child already knows (as opposed to teaching them the subject from scratch), and the new criteria for how schools are assessed on their grades means that data is playing a far bigger role and pupils who are identified as under-achieving or have the potential to move up a grade are targeted by the school for extra in-house tuition/interventions. Schools that are not doing this already and relying on private tutors to do this for them are taking a massive gamble, if this is even happening at all.
Certainly don't consider myself to be middle class. Went to a bog standard secondary myself with good grades at 11, wasn't pushed or challenged by the teaching, left with minimal grades at 16 and managed to scrape my way into a decent job.
Both my boys are in Grammar, with the eldest one off to Uni next year. The choice was get them in grammar or let them go to the local comp where they would have been lost.
We pushed them both and challenged them academically, we home tutored them ourselves and prepared them for the Kent test. We put in the hard work to give them the best opportunity possible.
As much as my politics are left of centre, I do believe our education system fails all children in its current state.
I went to Grammar School, my 3 sisters all went to secondary moderns. None of the got any qualifications, I got 3 A levels and went on to do a degree. The whole of our lives was shaped by a test taken whatever the developmental readiness of the child. We didn't understand its importance other than the sense of anxiety transmitted by our parents. My sisters were given to understand that they were failures and had that reinforced for the remainder of their school lives during which nothing was expected of them and they expected less. That's what Grammar Schools mean.
That's the most depressing thing I've read for a long time and how I'm feeling having just gone through all this with my son.
Someone did make the good point that parents who have the capacity the time and the knowledge, who are prepared to attend events at schools and push for their children's wellbeing, who establish rules and nurture a learning environment in the home can go some way to combating the damage that early selection does to a child's sense of its own value.
It would be far fairer if this wasn't necessary just to try to level the playing field (BTW you are far more likely to have one of those in a grammar school too).
But as it has already been established, the children of middle class and wealthy parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to get better results at KS1 and KS2 due to the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary.
I'm out. I can't compete in a wibble contest.
It sounds controversial but this is actually factually true. Bear in mind this does not mean 'all poor people are stupid' or 'poor people do not care about their kids' education'. We have a skill-based economy where those who perform well academically are more likely to be in a higher paying job than those who do not, and the children of academics are more likely themselves to perform well academically than children of non-academics. It's a self-perpetuating cycle because our schools are so poorly equipped to support and prepare pupils who are not destined for academic success.
Take an example, if you took a sample of any person graduating with a bachelor's degree last year, it is very likely that at least one of their parents had a bachelor's degree as well, and universities go out of their way to ensure that children who do not have degree-bearing parents are represented in their graduates thanks to governmental guidance.
Creativity can be a stand alone accomplishment, or a combined activity. then there is physical potential, and practical potential. i don't disagree with you but maintain that this is not a simple and straightforward area of debate. Take your use of 'vocational'. If you mean that in terms of a job, or a way of life should that be the purpose of education, do the parents not have any input? If there are children with no parents what happens then anyway?
Children with no parents would hopefully have some positive pastoral care.
Yes it's important, Seth - but I wouldn't use the hyperboli of hugely philosophically significant.
If I may take the example of children in state care. The state being in loco parentis.
I am assuming there will be some kind of philosophy or structure that underpins the 'positive pastoral care' that you mention.
Now there are some parents that believe in no schooling, home schooling, or very strict religious schooling, or free schools, or taking their children around the world in a horse drawn caravan, or bringing them up as Vegetarians.
Very often these decisions are philosophically driven, it is very often a real philosophical choice not hyperbole.
So, if the state as the agent in loco parentis makes an educational decision for a minor, is there supposed to be some philosophical driver? Or is it simply geographical, the nearest school whatever it is like?
My contention is that a huge number of decisions taken in the field of Education are driven by philosophical considerations.
Comments
Education doesn't just happen at school. Any decent parent would help in the educational process, from simple encouragement to investing time in their Child's development to become a rounded individual.
For a start, maybe we ought to revisit what we think of as successful and high achieving in Education.
(We can leave the overall purpose of Education for a little while longer).
Already on the wireless today I hear talk of the newly created grammar schools helping out the other schools nearby, presumably to buy into the grammar schools vision of 'success' and 'achievement'.
So even at the re-birth of this debate, the assumption is that so called academic success is of a more desirable nature than sporting success for example.
Yet more fecking around with education to come then, and even more laughable as there has been a constituency of enthusiasts that have promoted 'academies' as quasi grammar.
And selection?
Worms can of.
It was a vile place with no redeeming features, and looking back I would have been much better off at a mixed comprehensive school with a more stimulating curriculum, and teachers who went a little bit beyond chalk and talk.
I have heard the notion of reaching potential many times, and it is meaningless. If you look at a baby or toddler for example you could argue that for every one of them their potential is limitless, they could all be brain surgeons and play for West Ham, how would you know what their potential actually is?
How would you know whether or not it had been reached?
Also what do we mean by the 'best' for our children? Wealth? Health? Happiness? Fulfilment? Intellectual greatness? ability to form good relationships with others? All of those things?
Usually when it comes to discussions about education people often want everything for everybody even if they're mutually conflicting concepts like being ruthlessly competitive yet a good super generous co-operator or team worker.
In my view people shy away from considering the philosophical aspects of education because it is pretty damn difficult stuff, well it is to me anyway.
P.S.
You missed out creative potential amongst other things.
I'm afraid I disagree with your disagreement, politely of course
P.S. creativity applies to all the three areas I listed.
i don't disagree with you but maintain that this is not a simple and straightforward area of debate.
Take your use of 'vocational'.
If you mean that in terms of a job, or a way of life should that be the purpose of education, do the parents not have any input?
If there are children with no parents what happens then anyway?
Selection clearly isn't the issue since this is accepted up and down the country. Grammar schools and selection in general have become a bugbear of Labour and the left due to the fact that it is the children of the middle class and wealthy who predominantly "benefit" from the system (if, by benefit, you mean 'taught at a level that is suitable for their intelligence, potential and ability'). But as it has already been established, the children of middle class and wealthy parents are, statistically speaking, far more likely to get better results at KS1 and KS2 due to the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary. So the problem isn't selection or grammars, it is that the school system is already biased towards the children of intelligent, and usually wealthier, parents in the first place and offers very little in the way of a meaningful and holistic development for those who are not destined for success in academics.
If moderns/comprehensives/state schools were properly funded and given support then there would be no issue. The pursuit of academia is also something that should not be seen as the 'holy grail', since it is not possible for every child to get dozens of high grades and to go on to further and higher education. Instead, we need to drop the idea that academics are the only way forward up until 16 and more emphasis needs to be placed on practical and vocational skills, especially between 10 and 14. There is still snobbery surrounding such subjects yet if they were presented and funded properly instead of being portrayed as a 'soft option' then there could be ample opportunities for all children to follow a path of success.
I went to DGS and have done ok for myself. I was surrounded by kids who wanted to learn and had a supportive but competitive environment in which to do so.
My sister just missed out, went to a comprehensive and was unfortunately surrounded by kids less keen to learn and this impacted her learning.
Whilst I don't believe grammar / comp dictates whether someone will have a successful career, I do believe it helps which is why I'll do all I can to support my kids in the hope they'll get into a good local grammar.
Yeh, my parents were uncaring bastards. Good point.
Why should parents have to fight against a system that defines their children as failures. How many working parents have the education themselves to make up for the shortfall in a system they are paying for with their taxes.
You may come up with a definition, but it won't take into account everything.
People use the phrase 'emotional intelligence' for example, and i don't think that is what you're getting at.
One factor that is sometimes overlooked when schools go on about their A-level or GCSE results is how much is down to them, and how much may be down to private tutors hired by parents. Schools will take the reflected credit for results they may have barely contributed to.
Yes it's important, Seth - but I wouldn't use the hyperboli of hugely philosophically significant.
If they are so good, why can't we make all schools Grammar Schools?
Both my boys are in Grammar, with the eldest one off to Uni next year. The choice was get them in grammar or let them go to the local comp where they would have been lost.
We pushed them both and challenged them academically, we home tutored them ourselves and prepared them for the Kent test. We put in the hard work to give them the best opportunity possible.
As much as my politics are left of centre, I do believe our education system fails all children in its current state.
It would be far fairer if this wasn't necessary just to try to level the playing field (BTW you are far more likely to have one of those in a grammar school too).
Take an example, if you took a sample of any person graduating with a bachelor's degree last year, it is very likely that at least one of their parents had a bachelor's degree as well, and universities go out of their way to ensure that children who do not have degree-bearing parents are represented in their graduates thanks to governmental guidance.
Unfairly benefits children of wealthier families while taking all the best teachers in the area.
Every school should be a comprehensive with a 'selective stream' at each one, that is a fairer system.
I am assuming there will be some kind of philosophy or structure that underpins the 'positive pastoral care' that you mention.
Now there are some parents that believe in no schooling, home schooling, or very strict religious schooling, or free schools, or taking their children around the world in a horse drawn caravan, or bringing them up as Vegetarians.
Very often these decisions are philosophically driven, it is very often a real philosophical choice not hyperbole.
So, if the state as the agent in loco parentis makes an educational decision for a minor, is there supposed to be some philosophical driver? Or is it simply geographical, the nearest school whatever it is like?
My contention is that a huge number of decisions taken in the field of Education are driven by philosophical considerations.