Grammar Schools

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2016-10-12 7:45 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2016-10-12 5:42 PM ....Why should any bright child fail to do well in any school because of their background? If they are bright, and well taught, they should do well, should they not?

You cannot assume that all children will be well brought up and well taught; 50% of parents are below average and so are 50% of schools.  And there's quite a large variance in both - for example some parents are drug-abusing (and maybe child abusing) wasters, some schools are regarded by OFSTED as seriously deficient and decent teachers will mostly give them a wide berth.

But I make no such assumption. Parental influence is outwith the schoo'ls control, but its influence will affect the child in much the same way whatever school they attend. The remedy would be to remove the child from that influence - and no, I'm not advocating that! :-)

 

I don't think this is about background, or even about who is bright and who is not, it is mainly about the affect of educational segregation, irrespective of backgrounds, on those who fail a selection process.

Wow!  I had no idea that people might believe that. Is there any evidence for this effect? I can see that a few children might be a bit damaged by failing the 11 plus and a few of them might show permanent effect but all of them - surely not?  One of my cousins failed 11 plus (probably a false negative of the test, he was quite bright) and had a chip on his shoulder about it which lasted a lifetime but he did quite well: apprentice toolmaker, later qualified as a teacher under some scheme, activist leftie, intensely serious and no real sense of humour.

I don't think you have really seen the downsides for those who failed. All I can say is that the results of such a public failure depend greatly on the personality of the child. Some couldn't have cared less, some had no intention of passing, some were a bit disappointed but suspected the result was the right one, some were bitterly disappointed and retained a lifetime resentment of the system, others, of course passed and were pleased. My point is that that whole process can be handled better through a non-selective system that removes the stigma for the majority of being labelled, in terms, unintelligent. So, why impose such a system if it brings no tangible benefit to the bright, but risks disadvantaging (even some of) the majority? What might that cousin have achieved without that chip?

 

Those who succeed through that process will be fine whatever the process.

His brother passed the 11 plus and was fairly bright but lacked diligence and did less well.  He was a good policeman but retired as a  constable.

Quite.

 

It is the 75% who don't get to the selective school who stand to lose out, not the 25% who get to it. Economically, we simply can't afford to leave 75% of the population (as it will become over time) with deficient educations. The education of that 75% is, I would argue, more important overall than the educations of the other, academically bright, 25%.

Those with an IQ below 100 (i.e. the lower 50% of caucasians) are destined for semi-skilled or unskilled employment and you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  If you fail to optimise the education of the top half, especially the top 10%, the Country will suffer.  If you try to send 50% through tertiary education, you end up with a lot of heavily indebted graduates in silly non-subjects.

But any simple average must have 50% who are below average, and 50% who are above, must it not? I'm arguing that everyone's education should be optimised, not just the most academically gifted 25%, as was the case when selection formed part of our national education system. An academic education points toward a career for which academic prowess is essential. Why should the car mechanic, the bricklayer, the plumber, or anyone else whose job doesn't require academic skills not get an education that is optimised for their skill sets? Work, life even, requires people to have greater levels of literacy and numeracy today than it did when I left school. Those who lack the essential skills get locked out of the better jobs while we draw in increasing numbers of better educated workers from elsewhere. Is that a sustainable remedy for our population? What is the future for those who are less academic but clever in other ways? Do we just park them on benefits instead?

 

I'm afraid your final point doesn't make logical sense to me. What actually prevents brighter children getting an equal (or for that matter better) education in a comprehensive school? They would be in classes of their academic peers, they would be taught by the same teachers, they would follow the same curricula, so why would they do less well than if they were in a different school under the same conditions? If there are flaws in some comprehensives, fix their problems, don't just throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Ideally we would have more schools than the minimum, so that class sizes would be no higher than in the private sector and there would be a spectrum of types of schools, from academic through technical to skill-focused, with ways of switching children as appropriate.  Unfortunately that's unaffordable and since some children are really unlucky with their parents, we're going to continue to fail lots of them.

Unaffordable why, and who says so? There is a high price we all bear for the failings of the education system over generations. Has that factor been costed into this "can't afford it" calculation? I'm in favour of raising standards right across the board, and I strongly suspect that the reason for bringing back a selective education system is, as you seem to accept, cost driven. Spend the money on the brightest, and leave the other 75% to glean what they can from what is left over. What then would be the impact of that system on today's society? Not at all good, I think. Those who are failed by the system will still exist, they can't just be rubbed off the educational balance sheet.

[Violet1956]

This is an interesting article on the subject with some figures that showing the current effect of grammar schools on educational achievement. It has good links to other articles which I intend to read when I get the time.

 

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8469

 

Veronica

 

 

 

 

[derek pringle]

Hi,

My fear on the introduction of Grammar schools is that these schools would 'cherry pick' the better teachers, the better qualified more experienced, leaving as Violets link says, the free school meals brigade,to be left with the younger inexperienced teachers. It was not long ago that accusations were being made that some children were being taught by non qualified personnel. Given that Grammar schools may well come in we could say the achievers will be taken care of [whatever the govt. thinks about how you assess achievers]. What then happens to the inner city free school meals children?

 

cheers

derek

[starvin marvin]

Brian Kirby - 2016-10-12 10:13 PM

 

StuartO - 2016-10-12 7:45 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2016-10-12 5:42 PM ....Why should any bright child fail to do well in any school because of their background? If they are bright, and well taught, they should do well, should they not?

You cannot assume that all children will be well brought up and well taught; 50% of parents are below average and so are 50% of schools.  And there's quite a large variance in both - for example some parents are drug-abusing (and maybe child abusing) wasters, some schools are regarded by OFSTED as seriously deficient and decent teachers will mostly give them a wide berth.

But I make no such assumption. Parental influence is outwith the schoo'ls control, but its influence will affect the child in much the same way whatever school they attend. The remedy would be to remove the child from that influence - and no, I'm not advocating that! :-)

 

I don't think this is about background, or even about who is bright and who is not, it is mainly about the affect of educational segregation, irrespective of backgrounds, on those who fail a selection process.

Wow!  I had no idea that people might believe that. Is there any evidence for this effect? I can see that a few children might be a bit damaged by failing the 11 plus and a few of them might show permanent effect but all of them - surely not?  One of my cousins failed 11 plus (probably a false negative of the test, he was quite bright) and had a chip on his shoulder about it which lasted a lifetime but he did quite well: apprentice toolmaker, later qualified as a teacher under some scheme, activist leftie, intensely serious and no real sense of humour.

I don't think you have really seen the downsides for those who failed. All I can say is that the results of such a public failure depend greatly on the personality of the child. Some couldn't have cared less, some had no intention of passing, some were a bit disappointed but suspected the result was the right one, some were bitterly disappointed and retained a lifetime resentment of the system, others, of course passed and were pleased. My point is that that whole process can be handled better through a non-selective system that removes the stigma for the majority of being labelled, in terms, unintelligent. So, why impose such a system if it brings no tangible benefit to the bright, but risks disadvantaging (even some of) the majority? What might that cousin have achieved without that chip?

 

Those who succeed through that process will be fine whatever the process.

His brother passed the 11 plus and was fairly bright but lacked diligence and did less well.  He was a good policeman but retired as a  constable.

Quite.

 

It is the 75% who don't get to the selective school who stand to lose out, not the 25% who get to it. Economically, we simply can't afford to leave 75% of the population (as it will become over time) with deficient educations. The education of that 75% is, I would argue, more important overall than the educations of the other, academically bright, 25%.

Those with an IQ below 100 (i.e. the lower 50% of caucasians) are destined for semi-skilled or unskilled employment and you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  If you fail to optimise the education of the top half, especially the top 10%, the Country will suffer.  If you try to send 50% through tertiary education, you end up with a lot of heavily indebted graduates in silly non-subjects.

But any simple average must have 50% who are below average, and 50% who are above, must it not? I'm arguing that everyone's education should be optimised, not just the most academically gifted 25%, as was the case when selection formed part of our national education system. An academic education points toward a career for which academic prowess is essential. Why should the car mechanic, the bricklayer, the plumber, or anyone else whose job doesn't require academic skills not get an education that is optimised for their skill sets? Work, life even, requires people to have greater levels of literacy and numeracy today than it did when I left school. Those who lack the essential skills get locked out of the better jobs while we draw in increasing numbers of better educated workers from elsewhere. Is that a sustainable remedy for our population? What is the future for those who are less academic but clever in other ways? Do we just park them on benefits instead?

 

I'm afraid your final point doesn't make logical sense to me. What actually prevents brighter children getting an equal (or for that matter better) education in a comprehensive school? They would be in classes of their academic peers, they would be taught by the same teachers, they would follow the same curricula, so why would they do less well than if they were in a different school under the same conditions? If there are flaws in some comprehensives, fix their problems, don't just throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Ideally we would have more schools than the minimum, so that class sizes would be no higher than in the private sector and there would be a spectrum of types of schools, from academic through technical to skill-focused, with ways of switching children as appropriate.  Unfortunately that's unaffordable and since some children are really unlucky with their parents, we're going to continue to fail lots of them.

Unaffordable why, and who says so? There is a high price we all bear for the failings of the education system over generations. Has that factor been costed into this "can't afford it" calculation? I'm in favour of raising standards right across the board, and I strongly suspect that the reason for bringing back a selective education system is, as you seem to accept, cost driven. Spend the money on the brightest, and leave the other 75% to glean what they can from what is left over. What then would be the impact of that system on today's society? Not at all good, I think. Those who are failed by the system will still exist, they can't just be rubbed off the educational balance sheet.

 

Brian, just a few words of advice. When you stopping banging your head against a wall, the pain goes away.

[StuartO]

The IFS Report which Violet1956 linked to concludes with:

 

Grammar schools therefore seem to offer an opportunity to improve and stretch the brightest pupils, but seem likely to come at the cost of increasing inequality.

 

That seems to me to state the obvious, that if improve schooling for brighter kids they will move ahead of less bright kids unless you also improve schooling for less bright kids.

 

Clearly we should try to improve schooling for all children but if we haven't yet worked out how to do that for all categories of children equally well, we certainly shouldn't deny or delay improvement to those for whom we can do better.

 

Equal opportunity should be the aim, not equality.  How can it make sense to aim to educate all children, regardless of aptitude or potential, in the same way and to the same standard?  Children have a spectrum of needs and a spectrum of aptitude so we need a spectrum of educational methods.

 

One of the objectives of improving educational opportunity might well be achieving better social mobility but that is an indirect effect and it should not be a primary or sole aim.  A situation could arise when social mobility was already optimal yet further improvements to education were still desirable.

 

[Violet1956]

StuartO - 2016-10-13 2:08 PMThe IFS Report which Violet1956 linked to concludes with:

 

Grammar schools therefore seem to offer an opportunity to improve and stretch the brightest pupils, but seem likely to come at the cost of increasing inequality.

 

That seems to me to state the obvious, that if improve schooling for brighter kids they will move ahead of less bright kids unless you also improve schooling for less bright kids.

 

Clearly we should try to improve schooling for all children but if we haven't yet worked out how to do that for all categories of children equally well, we certainly shouldn't deny or delay improvement to those for whom we can do better.

 

Equal opportunity should be the aim, not equality.  How can it make sense to aim to educate all children, regardless of aptitude or potential, in the same way and to the same standard?  Children have a spectrum of needs and a spectrum of aptitude so we need a spectrum of educational methods.

I agree with you in parts Stuart. Equality of opportunity should be the aim because equality in terms of educational achievement is clearly an impossible goal. Equal of opportunity is not what the Grammar School system achieves though, quite the reverse for all the reasons Brian has so patiently and thoroughly already given. A comprehensive system does not necessarily involve educating all children the same way or to the same standard, or at least that was my experience. And shouldn't we have gone beyond not being able to improve schooling for all children regardless of their ability? It comes down to how much we are prepared to spend on education and that may have some uncomfortable truths for the tax payer or recent governments from any side of the political spectrum who have failed to put tax dodging high on the agenda. Veronica

[StuartO]

Violet1956 - 2016-10-13 2:23 PM....Equal of opportunity is not what the Grammar School system achieves though, quite the reverse for all the reasons Brian has so patiently and thoroughly already given.

 

Agreed, it is merely a way of selecting children for an academic approach to education, a way of delivering a better education to one category of children.  We also need to deliver optimal ways of educating other categories of children too.

 

A comprehensive system does not necessarily involve educating all children the same way or to the same standard, or at least that was my experience. And shouldn't we have gone beyond not being able to improve schooling for all children regardless of their ability? It comes down to how much we are prepared to spend on education and that may have some uncomfortable truths for the tax payer or recent governments from any side of the political spectrum who have failed to put tax dodging high on the agenda. Veronica

 

I agree that optimising education for all children will be costly, perhaps unaffordable, but we still need to educate our most talented children well, for the sake of us all.

 

[StuartO]

starvin marvin - 2016-10-13 12:26 PM Brian, just a few words of advice. When you stopping banging your head against a wall, the pain goes away.

 

You can also close your eyes, cover your ears and put your hands over your mouth if you want to avoid making a fool of yourself.

 

[Brian Kirby]

starvin marvin - 2016-10-13 12:26 PM...........................

Brian, just a few words of advice. When you stopping banging your head against a wall, the pain goes away.

No pain, no gain! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

StuartO - 2016-10-13 2:34 PM.......................I agree that optimising education for all children will be costly, perhaps unaffordable, but we still need to educate our most talented children well, for the sake of us all.

I think, fundamentally, the three of us agree. The only debate is over the ways to achieve that objective. Grammar schools were a very mixed bag, and the non-grammar schools even more mixed. Apart from the lottery of genetic inheritance, and parental support, there was the added lottery of which education authority was responsible for the schools in one's area. Clearly, just from this string, but also from other sources, the schools on offer in different parts of the country varied widely. A few authorities completed the full intentions of the '44 Act, with grammar, technical modern or technical grammar schools, and secondary modern schools. The majority, however, did what "my" authority did and evaded the technical element going straight from grammar (which in my case was a very good school) to secondary modern (which was to all intents and purposes a "sink" school). Of course, some made the best of what they got in the sec mod, and equally some made nothing of what they got from the grammar. That's just life, and would be the same whatever the school. I believe some manage to fail at life even after Eton! :-D

 

My reservations about selection are based on the experiences of my friends, then and now, who were allocated either the good grammar or the poor sec mod with little to no chance of that allocation being changed whatever they subsequently achieved or failed to achieve. The decisions about how education was arranged were made by the county authority, and they were allowed to get away with that despite the Act calling for significantly better provision. They were allowed, in common with many other authorities around the country, to do this by government. Generally, it seems, the authorities pleaded poverty and government accepted their pleas. Forcing them to do otherwise would have resulted the rises to the county rate, which would have been politically unpopular - especially with supporters of the party in government. So, fear of losing votes seems to have been the underlying driver for allowing education authorities to cop out and provide poor schools. It seems to me much the same applies today, with the best comprehensives being in areas where a realistic approach to resourcing, so inevitably funding, has been taken.

 

This introduces the political dimension, which I have no desire to pursue, except to say that I fervently believe that there needs to be a national settlement over the provision of education at all levels, so that political parties who happen to get their hands on the Department of Education are no longer free to rearrange educational provision to suit their particular party dogma.

 

At the expense of repeating myself, this is my reservation about grammar schools. It is that it becomes a politicians' money saving wheeze that allows them to boast of the excellence of their grammars, while forgetting to mention the poverty of their other schools. Educating only some 25% of those entering secondary education to a high (academic) standard, while leaving the other 75% in poorly run, poorly staffed, poorly resourced, non-grammar schools resulted in a poor level of achievement overall, which still dogs this country today - as can be seen from time to time in posts on this forum. Simply put, we have to do better, and to do better consistently, for all children, for all our, and their, sakes. Ahem! :-D

[StuartO]

Brian Kirby - 2016-10-13 7:01 PM

StuartO - 2016-10-13 2:34 PM.......................I agree that optimising education for all children will be costly, perhaps unaffordable, but we still need to educate our most talented children well, for the sake of us all.

I think, fundamentally, the three of us agree. The only debate is over the ways to achieve that objective. Grammar schools were a very mixed bag, and the non-grammar schools even more mixed. Apart from the lottery of genetic inheritance, and parental support, there was the added lottery of which education authority was responsible for the schools in one's area. Clearly, just from this string, but also from other sources, the schools on offer in different parts of the country varied widely. A few authorities completed the full intentions of the '44 Act, with grammar, technical modern or technical grammar schools, and secondary modern schools. The majority, however, did what "my" authority did and evaded the technical element going straight from grammar (which in my case was a very good school) to secondary modern (which was to all intents and purposes a "sink" school). Of course, some made the best of what they got in the sec mod, and equally some made nothing of what they got from the grammar. That's just life, and would be the same whatever the school. I believe some manage to fail at life even after Eton! :-DMy reservations about selection are based on the experiences of my friends, then and now, who were allocated either the good grammar or the poor sec mod with little to no chance of that allocation being changed whatever they subsequently achieved or failed to achieve. The decisions about how education was arranged were made by the county authority, and they were allowed to get away with that despite the Act calling for significantly better provision. They were allowed, in common with many other authorities around the country, to do this by government. Generally, it seems, the authorities pleaded poverty and government accepted their pleas. Forcing them to do otherwise would have resulted the rises to the county rate, which would have been politically unpopular - especially with supporters of the party in government. So, fear of losing votes seems to have been the underlying driver for allowing education authorities to cop out and provide poor schools. It seems to me much the same applies today, with the best comprehensives being in areas where a realistic approach to resourcing, so inevitably funding, has been taken.This introduces the political dimension, which I have no desire to pursue, except to say that I fervently believe that there needs to be a national settlement over the provision of education at all levels, so that political parties who happen to get their hands on the Department of Education are no longer free to rearrange educational provision to suit their particular party dogma. At the expense of repeating myself, this is my reservation about grammar schools. It is that it becomes a politicians' money saving wheeze that allows them to boast of the excellence of their grammars, while forgetting to mention the poverty of their other schools. Educating only some 25% of those entering secondary education to a high (academic) standard, while leaving the other 75% in poorly run, poorly staffed, poorly resourced, non-grammar schools resulted in a poor level of achievement overall, which still dogs this country today - as can be seen from time to time in posts on this forum. Simply put, we have to do better, and to do better consistently, for all children, for all our, and their, sakes. Ahem! :-D

No disagreement there except that I still don't see that any doctrinaire system (which is how I see the comprehensive concept) can work consistently well on a national scale, so universal application would be a counterproductive imposition.

 

There have of course been bad grammar schools, probably far too many, so I'm arguing for the freedom to provide academic education for those who have aptitude when their parents want it for their children, for which appropriate selection is therefore necessary.  Parent choose which schools are good or bad for their children, providing the school also thinks they have aptitude.  Children can't choose their parents and there are some bad ones, so our state social care system needs to take over when necessary.

 

The selection would ideally avoid any sort of "sudden death" testing, so I'm not arguing for an 11 plus, just for aptitude testing (which might be continuous throughout the whole of primary school time if that's what works) to help choose the right type of secondary school for each child.  I don't mind comprehensive schools as one of the options available to parents if that's what they want either. 

 

The core concern which I have is that academic education should be available for children who have aptitude for it and we shouldn't ban this educational avenue for negative reasons, like the risk of disappointing other children who lack aptitude.

 

My senior daughter showed academic potential and went to Bristol Grammar, which is a highly selected, highly academic day school.  My son didn't and went to King's Taunton (a second division boarding school) where he did badly in the academic sense (and later dropped out of a third rate university course) but learned other things (eg communication and social skills, leadership) which have allowed him to thrive in business and do better in financial terms than his big sister.  Their younger sister was educated privately in primary, then a state comprehensive, then a provincial university - and financially she has done best of all three.  In all three cases I think a different education would have delivered a different result for them but in all three cases the result we got was OK. 

 

You only get one go at choosing your child's educational pathway and it's difficult to choose, especially if you have anything like a free choice.  If I was doing it again and had a free choice I would choose a boarding school (of the appropriate sort, they vary considerably) for all three.  Unless I had seen the benefits, I would have favoured a grammar school for all three because that worked for me.

 

[Colin Leake]

All this talk of equality is all very well but why does no one make the argument that for the country to be successful we need to ensure that the very best children need to have their talents maximised by receiving the best possible education. These are the ones that will go on to become the doctors, accountants, leaders of,industry, and even bankers that each in its way make a valuable contribution to the country, generate wealth and provide jobs.

 

I passed the eleven plus in Norfolk many years ago and was selected to go to what was then an all boarding technical college. A bit grander now but in those days we lived and studied in ex American nissan huts. All very basic but we had inspired teachers. It was always being drummed into us that we were being educated to become what they called Captains of Industry. It's amazing how many of us went on to be just that or very prominent engineers. Indeed I was for a while untill I drifted off into management with greater financial rewards. It did have a grammar stream but that was for those who,failed at eleven but passed at thirteen.

 

We attended classes all week and Saturday mornings with two hours supervised homework every night on weekdays.

 

Keeping the girls and boys apart was a problem made worse by the difficulty of securing the nissan huts and keeping us apart on a Sunday afternoon when we were allowed out for a walk. The expulsion rate was a little on the high side.

[Colin Leake]

Shame we didn't learn how to avoid double posts.

[StuartO]

There was an interview with the Chief Inspector of OFSTED on the Andrew Marr Show this morning; he was once a comprehensive headmasterand he believes that the presence of the clever ones within the comprehensive community is vital for bringing the best out of the less able - because they see and get influenced by the way the brighter kids apply themselves and succeed.

 

If the presence of the brighter kids exerts an influence on the less bright ones then the converse must also be true and ixing with the less bright kids must influence the brighter ones - and intuitively that would be adversely.

 

So how much do the attitudes and behaviour of the less bright kids drag down the achievement   Is it reasonable to use the brighter kids as sacrificial stimulators in this way?

 

[goldi]

good evening,

 

So who,s going to empty the dustbins if everyones a chuffing boffin ?

 

 

norm