Go to navigation
It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:02 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:05 am
Posts: 580
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/12/gra ... oor-pupils

Thought this would interest some..... :D and consolidate a few of the other threads about GS and ability streaming etc.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:56 pm
Posts: 1046
I have known of children who have won a place at gs but they have been unable to take up the place because of the cost of the transport to get them there. This has got worse as parents have to tighten their belts just to survive, some of these will not be on free school meals but just over the financial threshold and just can't afford the transport and so the local comp is the only option.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:33 pm
Posts: 310
Location: Bucks
Poses the question: "Grammar schools fail poor pupils – what's going wrong?" Well, could be it's the 11+? The latest newsletter of the Grammar School Heads Association (http://gsha.org.uk/images/newsletters/GSHANewsletterNovember2013.pdf) has this bubble on page 9:
GSHA wrote:
In 2012 just over 500 FSM children entered grammar schools. For the success rate of L5 FSM to match that of other L5 would require 200 more FSM children a year to enter grammar schools. Just one more in each school would virtually close the gap.
So in other words, the 11+ is ~ 40% worse than even KS2! I thought the whole point of the 11+ was to identify "natural ability"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:55 am
Posts: 500
Interesting article.

Quote:
That’s because those who miss the grades at 11 do worse than under the comprehensive system. Children are more perceptive than we realise: if they go to a second-class school, they behave like they’re second-class pupils.


This is the important point IMO and one that a lot of people seem to ignore for some reason. In a selective area 70 or 80% of children will not get into grammar school and regardless of their parent's wealth or class those 80% will generally do worse under the selective system.

Is it really worth sacrificing 80% of our youth just so that a small minority can benefit from what is a perceived better education?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5417
Location: RBK
Quote:
That’s because those who miss the grades at 11 do worse than under the comprehensive system. Children are more perceptive than we realise: if they go to a second-class school, they behave like they’re second-class pupils.

Instead of improving the other schools, the left-wing solution is to abolish the first class schools, so that all schools are second class schools.

Great! But then there would be outstanding comprehensives. These should be abolished as well, so the children going in other comprehensives should not feel bad as it should be imagined, same logic as quoted above, that if they are going to poor schools, they would behave poorly.


Quote:
Is it really worth sacrificing 80% of our youth just so that a small minority can benefit from what is a perceived better education?

What a logic? If 20% of the population is doing well, then it must be 'sacrificing the remaining 80%. No body should progress so that others won't feel bad. Let's have great communist society, so that every one gets the same income. You know what, it didn't work and it won't in future either.

I don't always agree with Tony Blair, but here is what he thought about abolishing grammars.

Quote:
However, in his autobiography A Journey, former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair asserted that the way grammar schools were abandoned in favour of comprehensive schools was tantamount to "academic vandalism".
Greatest dis-service done by Shirley Williams/Tony Crosland (both privately educated) and Labour Party to the education in our country.

Merry Christmas....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5417
Location: RBK
Labour Secretaries for Education

From 1964 to 2010, from Michael Stewart to Ed Balls, the Labour Education Secretaries attended private schools, except David Blunkett (who went to a school for blinds) and Estelle Morris (grammar which subsequently became comprehensive) & Alan Johnson (grammar - left school at 15).

Were/are privately educated Labour Education Secretaries/MPs overly hostile to grammar schools?
By abolishing grammars, were they helping private schools increase their intake?

Happy New Year.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:10 pm 
was it not the Tories who started the abolition of grammars? because the middle classes were complaining little Tobias and Henrietta could not get places and the little oik from the council estate where taking their rightful place?
could be wrong , history not my strongest subject at school :oops:
BTW I am a conservative (with a small "c") through and through!


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5417
Location: RBK
No, it was the Labour Party under Harold Wilson (Oct 1964- June 1970). Tony Crosland was the Secretary for Education and issued circular 10/65, 'requesting' LEAs to convert grammar schools into comprehensive schools. Shirley Williams, (who in 1967 become junior minister for Education and in 1976, Secretary for Education) was a fierce campaigner for abolishing grammar schools. Labour then issued another circular disallowing funding for new secondary school unless it was comprehensive (circular 10/66). Later in 1975, Labour Government withdrew funding for direct grant schools (fee charging schools with 25% to 50% free places for state primary children), forcing most of these schools to become comprehensives or fully independent (e.g. Manchester Grammar School / Kingston Grammar School). Some were closed.

Again, it was Labour government under Tony Blair which took the dubious 'honour' of banning any new grammar school. The Conservatives have been unable to repeal this ban as yet.


Last edited by tiffinboys on Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:08 pm 
o.k I bow to your greater knowledge :oops:
but who closed more Grammars the tories or the lefties?
not that it really matters.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:00 pm
Posts: 5417
Location: RBK
Labour controlled LEAs. Many other LEAs had to merge grammars with comprehensives as funding for schools was provided by central government which used its muscle in forcing the hand of LEAs. Only the Counties under dominant Conservative control managed to resist the pressure e.g. Kent or Bucks.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
CALL 020 8204 5060
   
Privacy Policy | Refund Policy | Disclaimer | Copyright © 2004 – 2016