I am a deputy head at a secondary comp in Lambeth.
Twee as it may sound I have always chosen to work in non selective inner city schools. That is my moral purpose which I inherited from my parents. I would work in no other school environment.
Within my school there are children of both genders, many different languages, different backgrounds, different social strata, different abilities. Many many differences.
We have predominantly low ability pupils in terms of their primary SATs results on entry. Recently the intake is changing. We are getting more middle class parents who are moving into the area as they are priced out of the more affluent parts of south east London.
Schools such as mine can thrive as there are excellent teachers who are willing to go above and beyond to get all youngsters to reach their potential. Strong leadership can ensure children of all abilities and social class can succeed. If a school local to ours became a grammar school then my fear is we could become a 'sink' school. This would ensure a class system that we have fought so hard to remove will reappear. That would be a backward step.
My boys go to the local comp in Lewisham. They could have taken the 11+ and traveled by train to Dartford or Bexley. They are doing well and both achieving highly. They are well rounded and recognise the many differences amongst us.
I respect the right of parents to choose what they feel is the best educational provider for their children. However, education has been used as a political football for too long. Too much money had been thrown away on the whim of people in power who have no idea of what actually works.
Give all schools a chance and give all schools equal funding and status and maybe more children would feel they belong in an equal and fair society.
As some on this thread have stated, and plenty of leftists and Labour politicians, is that whilst they support the idea of non-selective schools, they'd rather their kids did not go to them if they could get them into a nice grammar or private school.
This means that a school's results are being artificially skewed - if all the kids in an area who are likely to achieve 10 GCSEs A*-C all go to the same school then of course the school that has lost all of the area's best potential is going to have lower grades on average. It's as if these people think secondary schools are some kind of 'brain growth labs' where the good ones are magically better at getting better grades than the bad ones. In the majority of cases a child's aggregated grades at the end of KS4 can be predicted from their performance at the end of KS2.
Of course, some schools over-achieve and some schools under-achieve but that is largely thanks to the running and management of the school, not because one school is selective and one school isn't.
This is not helped by the harmful and baseless myths such as 'all the best teachers teach at grammars', 'classes go at the pace of the slowest student', 'smart kids who go to bog-standard comps become thick thugs', those just being some of the gems seen on this thread in various forms.
the fact that intelligence correlates with wealth and intelligence is hereditary
I presume you can provide some peer-reviewed academic articles that prove this fact ?
I can, but I'm not going to spend time sourcing these since you will inevitably ignore them.
If you want something less controversial, then statistically speaking people in higher paying jobs are likely to have higher level qualifications, and statistically speaking a child is likely to at least match if not exceed the academic achievements of his parents.
These are all topics I have researched and been taught at two different universities at both degree and Masters level.
There may be a disparity between 'intelligence' and 'academic achievements'. I tend to believe there is a relationship between wealth and academic achievement, but not a relationship between wealth and intelligence.
There may be a disparity between 'intelligence' and 'academic achievements'. I tend to believe there is a relationship between wealth and academic achievement, but not a relationship between wealth and intelligence.
Intelligence is a lazy word for me to use since intelligence is not restricted to academic ability. I was using it as a lazy synonym for academic ability.
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?
Why should children be assessed at 11 and then condemned for the rest of their educational lives? Children develop at different speeds.
I completely agree that they do but it's also unfair on any child to have them in a class that moves at the wrong speed for them. Put a very smart kid in a class that is below their level and it's unfair on that kid and harming his potential. Likewise if a class is moving too fast a less intelligent kid in a top class is likely to struggle. Kids need to be put into sets that will be able to cater for what they need. I've experienced both at school and there's nothing more disheartening than not being able to keep up with your classmates.
Yes there's a debate about where and when kids should be tested but you have to draw the line somewhere and leaving primary school is a good place to start. That's not to say we ignore any kid that could not pass the 11+, absolutely they could develop at a later age and we have to ensure that all schools are able to nurture all kids abilities.
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.
Fight against the system? Education isn't just about "the three Rs". It's about children learning both academically and life skills in general. Parenting has a massive effect on children's development and suggesting that certain children have 'failed' because they've not passed their 11+ is just an excuse.
I am a deputy head at a secondary comp in Lambeth.
Twee as it may sound I have always chosen to work in non selective inner city schools. That is my moral purpose which I inherited from my parents. I would work in no other school environment.
Within my school there are children of both genders, many different languages, different backgrounds, different social strata, different abilities. Many many differences.
We have predominantly low ability pupils in terms of their primary SATs results on entry. Recently the intake is changing. We are getting more middle class parents who are moving into the area as they are priced out of the more affluent parts of south east London.
Schools such as mine can thrive as there are excellent teachers who are willing to go above and beyond to get all youngsters to reach their potential. Strong leadership can ensure children of all abilities and social class can succeed. If a school local to ours became a grammar school then my fear is we could become a 'sink' school. This would ensure a class system that we have fought so hard to remove will reappear. That would be a backward step.
My boys go to the local comp in Lewisham. They could have taken the 11+ and traveled by train to Dartford or Bexley. They are doing well and both achieving highly. They are well rounded and recognise the many differences amongst us.
I respect the right of parents to choose what they feel is the best educational provider for their children. However, education has been used as a political football for too long. Too much money had been thrown away on the whim of people in power who have no idea of what actually works.
Give all schools a chance and give all schools equal funding and status and maybe more children would feel they belong in an equal and fair society.
That's great to hear about your boys, particularly from someone in your position. I hope my son who joined the local comp in Lewisham this week does as well as them. I have found it hard for the last year seeing my son at a primary school full of extremely pushy parents and teachers that seemed to spend more time with the kids at the top. It made my son feel "stupid". When I went in to chat with the headteacher about his secondary education she informed me he was probably achieving above average but recognised that he wouldn't feel that way in that particular environment. His single class had a more significant majority going to Grammar schools than not. They are all travelling into Kent.
The system in use in my area in 1968, when I went from primary to senior school, seems a much fairer way of assessing who should go to a grammar school. It was known as the Thames-side scheme and covered Gravesend and the surrounding areas.
At 11 every pupil automatically went to the nearest high school, in my case Longfield School. During the first two years you were assessed as to whether you were capable of a grammar type education and if so, went to one of four schools in Gravesend at the age of 13. They were Gravesend Grammar School for Boys, Gravesend Grammar School for Girls, Springhead ( for boys) or Wombwell Hall School (for girls), where I went.
A system like this would do away with the coaching of children to pass a single test and they would be assessed on their work over a two year period. I don't know why the system was abandoned.
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.
In that case I think you need to rethink your claim that it is a fact that intelligence is hereditary. Hereditary means "passed on genetically". If you believe that I stand by my earlier statement.
I keep reading it, but Who is writing off a child as a failure for not passing the 11+ ?
Some have said keep all as comprehensives but have streams within the school according to ability. Isnt that the same as streaming by sending brightest to a grammar school ?
Can we not also argue, why should I be stopped from going to university just because I failed an exam when I was 18?
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.
In that case I think you need to rethink your claim that it is a fact that intelligence is hereditary. Hereditary means "passed on genetically". If you believe that I stand by my earlier statement.
As I said in a previous post, I was lazily referring to intelligence as in 'academic ability', which is both related to environment and genetic disposition. And there are plenty of studies that show that, from a neurological perspective, the genetic traits that make up someone's intelligence (say, mathematical ability) can be passed onto offspring.
I'm not sure why people get so defensive about this, especially since there is a lack of evidence to suggest genetics has absolutely no role in what intelligence traits a child will gain.
really interested in this thread as my wife is very keen to tutor our oldest (9) for 11 plus but the cost is ridiculous and I thought were were quite well off
Seriously though, I don't think you're bad and wrong if you went to a grammar school (both my parents did) or if you're sending your kids to one (it's possible my sister may do, as my nephew is choosing his secondary school this year). What I do think is that as a nation we should be designing our education system so that we give the best and most appropriate education to all kids, not just the brightest and the best. And the evidence is that if you compare outcomes between selective areas and non-selective ones, there's very little difference for kids of middle income families, but poor kids do worse in selective areas, so selection is compounding existing disadvantage.
Given that kids develop at different rates, and those born early in the academic year have an inbuilt advantage of being more mature in the early years, it's ridiculous to have such a hard dividing line based on a test that they do when they are less than halfway through their compulsory education. Far better to have a comprehensive system that takes ALL kids, and adapts their education based on their development and achievement throughout their school career. Having mixed ability schools but setting by subject means that a kid who is great at maths and science but not so good at english and modern languages (or vice versa) can work to their strengths and not get left behind in their weaker areas.
Seriously though, I don't think you're bad and wrong if you went to a grammar school (both my parents did) or if you're sending your kids to one (it's possible my sister may do, as my nephew is choosing his secondary school this year). What I do think is that as a nation we should be designing our education system so that we give the best and most appropriate education to all kids, not just the brightest and the best. And the evidence is that if you compare outcomes between selective areas and non-selective ones, there's very little difference for kids of middle income families, but poor kids do worse in selective areas, so selection is compounding existing disadvantage.
Given that kids develop at different rates, and those born early in the academic year have an inbuilt advantage of being more mature in the early years, it's ridiculous to have such a hard dividing line based on a test that they do when they are less than halfway through their compulsory education. Far better to have a comprehensive system that takes ALL kids, and adapts their education based on their development and achievement throughout their school career. Having mixed ability schools but setting by subject means that a kid who is great at maths and science but not so good at english and modern languages (or vice versa) can work to their strengths and not get left behind in their weaker areas.
I'm not getting into this debate but I will just point out that the Kent Test (effectively the 11+ in Kent) gives an uplift in scores based on which month in the year you are born. So a July child needs a much lower score to be eligible for Grammar School than a September child.
Seriously though, I don't think you're bad and wrong if you went to a grammar school (both my parents did) or if you're sending your kids to one (it's possible my sister may do, as my nephew is choosing his secondary school this year). What I do think is that as a nation we should be designing our education system so that we give the best and most appropriate education to all kids, not just the brightest and the best. And the evidence is that if you compare outcomes between selective areas and non-selective ones, there's very little difference for kids of middle income families, but poor kids do worse in selective areas, so selection is compounding existing disadvantage.
Given that kids develop at different rates, and those born early in the academic year have an inbuilt advantage of being more mature in the early years, it's ridiculous to have such a hard dividing line based on a test that they do when they are less than halfway through their compulsory education. Far better to have a comprehensive system that takes ALL kids, and adapts their education based on their development and achievement throughout their school career. Having mixed ability schools but setting by subject means that a kid who is great at maths and science but not so good at english and modern languages (or vice versa) can work to their strengths and not get left behind in their weaker areas.
That happens in Grammar schools, in the same way I expect it happens in comps; you're taught by form for the first 2 years or so, then the forms are merged for classes and you're taught by ability (i.e set). So for the Sciences, English, Maths there will be multiple sets per year group - based upon yearly assessments.
There's nothing radically different between the two styles of school with regards to a daily basis.
Except "mixed ability" when you've only got the top 20-25% of the ability range in the group is an entirely different animal to true mixed ability classes. For comparison that'd be about the same as the top stream in the 4-form entry comp I went to, and no-one was calling those classes mixed ability.
As for it not being radically different day to day, that entirely depends on the decisions of the individual heads on what strategies they prefer. All the comps I taught or observed in (in non-selective areas) set for English, Maths and Science from day 1 in Year 7 based on their SAT results. Some of them went mixed ability for other subjects til Year 8 after the end of year exams, others for just a term til Christmas and then rejigged based on teacher assessment, or used some other arcane process to set for everything but Art/Music/PE/PHSE from day 1. It's not perfect, but in a non-selective area, if you're struggling or zooming ahead in a particular subject it's usually simply a matter of transferring classes and/or extra support/extension work. In selective areas you have to start weighing up the pros and cons of transferring school too.
I went to a GS as did/do both of my sons and my wife. Some children get into a Grammar School because they are coached to pass the 11+ when they simply don't have the inherent intelligence to survive - and others don't make it because they panic on the day of the exam. We are talking about 10/11 year olds after all. And I'm really not sure that that is the right justification for such an elitist system.
However there is a more alarming aspect of education for me and that is how under funded these schools has become. And also how lazy some teachers have become with their over reliance on modern technology.
For example, mobile phones are banned from being used during school time at my youngest's school but teachers ask pupils to take a photo of home work questions because the school cannot afford a text book to be taken home and possibly lost. Equally, a lot of what is "taught" is module and internet based and the scope for help for struggling pupils is rather limited. In one subject last year my son had no less than ten different cover teachers due to the lack of a permanent one!
really interested in this thread as my wife is very keen to tutor our oldest (9) for 11 plus but the cost is ridiculous and I thought were were quite well off
Is tutoring really worth it?
We have been quoted 300 a month
Tutoring will teach your child the technic required for the 11+, which imo is a big thing.
I am against grammar schools, but one of my children went to one and the other went in sixth form. You deal with the current situation but it is undeniable that most of the secondary moderns in Kent are dire.
oh and I should've said that not all the pupils are middle class ... quite a lot of them come from very, very wealthy backgrounds.
How much is spent by government per child in grammar school? How does that compare to the cost per child in a comp?
I'm guessing that cost correlates reasonably closely to number and quality of teachers, class size and other factors that might affect a child's education.
How much is spent by government per child in grammar school? How does that compare to the cost per child in a comp?
I'm guessing that cost correlates reasonably closely to number and quality of teachers, class size and other factors that might affect a child's education.
I believe the reality is that grammar schools get less funding per pupil than comprehensives. The local authority funding per pupil is consistent throughout but pupil premiums and SEN provision would tend to take comps above grammar.
A long long time ago I went to a grammar school which was right next to the local secondary school. No mixing of ANY sort was allowed between teachers or pupils of the schools. You could get detention for being seen talking to a boy from the secondary school while in uniform.
Absolutely disgusting pointless segregation for no reason other than to try to teach us the same feeling of entitlement that public school boys get.
Didn't really work on me as you've probably guessed!
Comments
I am a deputy head at a secondary comp in Lambeth.
Twee as it may sound I have always chosen to work in non selective inner city schools. That is my moral purpose which I inherited from my parents. I would work in no other school environment.
Within my school there are children of both genders, many different languages, different backgrounds, different social strata, different abilities. Many many differences.
We have predominantly low ability pupils in terms of their primary SATs results on entry.
Recently the intake is changing. We are getting more middle class parents who are moving into the area as they are priced out of the more affluent parts of south east London.
Schools such as mine can thrive as there are excellent teachers who are willing to go above and beyond to get all youngsters to reach their potential. Strong leadership can ensure children of all abilities and social class can succeed. If a school local to ours became a grammar school then my fear is we could become a 'sink' school. This would ensure a class system that we have fought so hard to remove will reappear. That would be a backward step.
My boys go to the local comp in Lewisham. They could have taken the 11+ and traveled by train to Dartford or Bexley. They are doing well and both achieving highly. They are well rounded and recognise the many differences amongst us.
I respect the right of parents to choose what they feel is the best educational provider for their children. However, education has been used as a political football for too long. Too much money had been thrown away on the whim of people in power who have no idea of what actually works.
Give all schools a chance and give all
schools equal funding and status and maybe more children would feel they belong in an equal and fair society.
This means that a school's results are being artificially skewed - if all the kids in an area who are likely to achieve 10 GCSEs A*-C all go to the same school then of course the school that has lost all of the area's best potential is going to have lower grades on average. It's as if these people think secondary schools are some kind of 'brain growth labs' where the good ones are magically better at getting better grades than the bad ones. In the majority of cases a child's aggregated grades at the end of KS4 can be predicted from their performance at the end of KS2.
Of course, some schools over-achieve and some schools under-achieve but that is largely thanks to the running and management of the school, not because one school is selective and one school isn't.
This is not helped by the harmful and baseless myths such as 'all the best teachers teach at grammars', 'classes go at the pace of the slowest student', 'smart kids who go to bog-standard comps become thick thugs', those just being some of the gems seen on this thread in various forms.
If you want something less controversial, then statistically speaking people in higher paying jobs are likely to have higher level qualifications, and statistically speaking a child is likely to at least match if not exceed the academic achievements of his parents.
These are all topics I have researched and been taught at two different universities at both degree and Masters level.
I tend to believe there is a relationship between wealth and academic achievement, but not a relationship between wealth and intelligence.
Yes there's a debate about where and when kids should be tested but you have to draw the line somewhere and leaving primary school is a good place to start. That's not to say we ignore any kid that could not pass the 11+, absolutely they could develop at a later age and we have to ensure that all schools are able to nurture all kids abilities.
You cannot just blame the education system.
At 11 every pupil automatically went to the nearest high school, in my case Longfield School. During the first two years you were assessed as to whether you were capable of a grammar type education and if so, went to one of four schools in Gravesend at the age of 13. They were Gravesend Grammar School for Boys, Gravesend Grammar School for Girls, Springhead ( for boys) or Wombwell Hall School (for girls), where I went.
A system like this would do away with the coaching of children to pass a single test and they would be assessed on their work over a two year period. I don't know why the system was abandoned.
I keep reading it, but Who is writing off a child as a failure for not passing the 11+ ?
Some have said keep all as comprehensives but have streams within the school according to ability. Isnt that the same as streaming by sending brightest to a grammar school ?
Can we not also argue, why should I be stopped from going to university just because I failed an exam when I was 18?
I'm not sure why people get so defensive about this, especially since there is a lack of evidence to suggest genetics has absolutely no role in what intelligence traits a child will gain.
Is tutoring really worth it?
We have been quoted 300 a month
Given that kids develop at different rates, and those born early in the academic year have an inbuilt advantage of being more mature in the early years, it's ridiculous to have such a hard dividing line based on a test that they do when they are less than halfway through their compulsory education. Far better to have a comprehensive system that takes ALL kids, and adapts their education based on their development and achievement throughout their school career. Having mixed ability schools but setting by subject means that a kid who is great at maths and science but not so good at english and modern languages (or vice versa) can work to their strengths and not get left behind in their weaker areas.
There's nothing radically different between the two styles of school with regards to a daily basis.
As for it not being radically different day to day, that entirely depends on the decisions of the individual heads on what strategies they prefer. All the comps I taught or observed in (in non-selective areas) set for English, Maths and Science from day 1 in Year 7 based on their SAT results. Some of them went mixed ability for other subjects til Year 8 after the end of year exams, others for just a term til Christmas and then rejigged based on teacher assessment, or used some other arcane process to set for everything but Art/Music/PE/PHSE from day 1. It's not perfect, but in a non-selective area, if you're struggling or zooming ahead in a particular subject it's usually simply a matter of transferring classes and/or extra support/extension work. In selective areas you have to start weighing up the pros and cons of transferring school too.
However there is a more alarming aspect of education for me and that is how under funded these schools has become. And also how lazy some teachers have become with their over reliance on modern technology.
For example, mobile phones are banned from being used during school time at my youngest's school but teachers ask pupils to take a photo of home work questions because the school cannot afford a text book to be taken home and possibly lost. Equally, a lot of what is "taught" is module and internet based and the scope for help for struggling pupils is rather limited. In one subject last year my son had no less than ten different cover teachers due to the lack of a permanent one!
How much is spent by government per child in grammar school? How does that compare to the cost per child in a comp?
I'm guessing that cost correlates reasonably closely to number and quality of teachers, class size and other factors that might affect a child's education.
Absolutely disgusting pointless segregation for no reason other than to try to teach us the same feeling of entitlement that public school boys get.
Didn't really work on me as you've probably guessed!