Grammar Schools

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

The question is never phrased the other way round - should new secondary moderns be allowed?
Because you don't get one without the other.

I went to St Olaves, only because I passed the entrance test and got an offer from them, and you had to list them as your first preference to go there.

At the time, my Mum worked in admin for a retirement home in Lewisham, and my Dad worked as head chef in an office kitchen up in the city, and we are nowhere near middle class.

In hindsight I should have gone to Chis&Sid, Coopers or Beth's, as I went from being the brightest kid in my school to just another smart kid in the crowd, which definitely stunted my own education, which was compounded by the fact that I am a lazy so and so who was much more focused on playing sport, video games and watching late night TV than doing homework and coursework.

I ended up leaving within the first term of sixth form and started working in retail for several years, punctured by 2 years at catering college, until 18 months ago when I started working for Barclays.

Do I feel grammar schools are good? Yes, if you are dedicated and want to push yourself from an early age, but if you're shallow like me and want to be the biggest fish in a small pond, then a comp would have been better, and I personally believe I would have ended up at Uni etc. With a degree to my name if I didn't go to St Olaves and screw up my own education

I grew up on a council estate and went to Grammar school, father was a blue collar worker, haven't done too bad in life if I do say so myself, what's the problem?

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

I went to a grammar school and I'm definitely not from a middle class background so I'd dispute with anyone about them being elitist. I'll admit I am biased but I think they are good and definitely a benefit to a child's education and their future prospects. I have other friends from where I grew up who didn't attend grammar schools but who are doing very well for themselves now, so I also don't think not getting in to one is necessarily a hindrance either.

I know this is just based on my experience but to me they seem like a good thing.

Fiiish said:

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

All the numbers from Kent point to the richer you are, the more likely you are to get in, as your parents can pay for the private tuition to get you through the test, you might have the aspiration from lower income groups, but can't game the system, or afford the houses. Should the state fund an effective private education, for those who don't want to pay but could afford a private education?

The idea that poor people don't care about their kids education, is either funny or just odd, if they don't why are schools in some of the poorest areas in London improving at a rapid rate of knots?

What's good enough for Harriet Harman's child is good enough for the rest of us.

As a socialist she would surely agree.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/why-my-son-will-go-to-grammar-school-by-harriet-harman-1324835.html

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

its almost plausible to say that a kids educational future is determined by their "socio-economic" grouping before they start school ,parents have more influence over a kids education than what you might think

however to answer the question yes but criteria for entering grammar schools nationwide should be consistent and there should be more of them (schools not criteria)

I went to Bexley Tech / Townley which I was pleased about at the time as my mate was v brainy and I wanted to go where she went. I am dyslexic, I wasn't in the top classes, (not that I was in the bottom) but because I was never going to get A's, they didn't really help me. I was told not to take my Geography GCSE after my mocks as I got a D, and they weren't interested in helping me get a C. More interested in turning an A into an A*. The 99% 'exams sat' rate, was better than a 99% A-C passes in their league tables. Instead I had to sit in a spare classroom for those classes and was told to revise for my other subjects. No guidance, no planning, nothing.

I resat one of my GCSC's at college whilst studying for my A Levels and improved my grade from a D to a B. WIth a bit of 'teaching' help that could have happened the first time round?

I'd have been loads better off if I'd not passed my 11+ and gone to a non-selective school where I may have been in the top half of the school, probably got more help with the dyslexia and probably enjoyed the experience a lot more. I'm not saying they should be abolished, but their focus seemed to be wrong.

There was one teacher who changed the examination board/syllabus for my group in science from learning everything in one go, to learning and taking exams in modules at the end of every term for the 2 years. Got my best grade in that overall. All because she knew we would struggle with the other method of learning. She was a supply teacher too! (long term!)

I am the product of the first wave of comprehensive schools. 3 years in what was a secondary modern and 2 (+ 6th form) in what was a grammar school. I benefited from this immensely, as when I got to what had recently been a grammar I decided (not consciously) that this was a place where I could learn a lot and I felt I'd rather do that than muck about. I have to say, a lot of my friends chose the "muck about" route and the ex-grammar teachers were not so well versed in crowd control as the ex-secondary modern ones we'd been dealing with. Interesting times.

Fast forward to now and I feel that all state schools should offer a high standard of education and there should be no selection at 11 (and no need for it if the schools are good enough).

Sorry have to cut this short to pick up my son from his polo lesson.


(Joke).

Rothko said:

killerandflash said:

Rothko said:

Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

1) selective
2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
3) in very good areas

and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

Without the facts and figures, surely it's difficult to assess the quality of anything simply by the rate at which it's improving?

It perhaps indicates a brighter future, but it doesn't compare very well to schools that have traditionally done well - as they have less room to improve after all.

Rothko said:

Fiiish said:

I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

All the numbers from Kent point to the richer you are, the more likely you are to get in, as your parents can pay for the private tuition to get you through the test, you might have the aspiration from lower income groups, but can't game the system, or afford the houses. Should the state fund an effective private education, for those who don't want to pay but could afford a private education?

The idea that poor people don't care about their kids education, is either funny or just odd, if they don't why are schools in some of the poorest areas in London improving at a rapid rate of knots?

1) Yes, because wealth correlates to intelligence and intelligence is hereditary. The issue of private tuition is a fallacy too - should we scrap GCSEs because rich parents can get private tuition for them too?

2) No one ever said poor people don't care about their kids.

The problem is, as your post demonstrates, there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding selective education, both from those who want to abolish it and those who send their kids to them.