conservatives to abolish grammars?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Chelmsford mum
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:16 pm
I am not saying I agree with the following but, one of the arguments against grammars is that they cream off not only some of the brightest but the more aspirational students.
The argument goes that if a school has had its top 10 - 20 % creamed off and sent elsewhere then the wider school community misses out.The argument is that if you put this top 20% back into a comp, they would raise the aspirations and standards for the whole school community.
Here in Chelmsford, there are so few grammars (well 2 - 1 boys and one girls)that I don't think they have a detrimental effect on other schools.Some of the local comps produce truly excellent results.The grammars draw from so far, that they are not watering down/altering significantly the intake of local seondary schools.
However in areas with lots of selective schools , the local comps never get that top 25 % of students and therefore results, aspirations and ethos are affected.
The argument goes that if a school has had its top 10 - 20 % creamed off and sent elsewhere then the wider school community misses out.The argument is that if you put this top 20% back into a comp, they would raise the aspirations and standards for the whole school community.
Here in Chelmsford, there are so few grammars (well 2 - 1 boys and one girls)that I don't think they have a detrimental effect on other schools.Some of the local comps produce truly excellent results.The grammars draw from so far, that they are not watering down/altering significantly the intake of local seondary schools.
However in areas with lots of selective schools , the local comps never get that top 25 % of students and therefore results, aspirations and ethos are affected.
I think that's a non sequitor. What is a "good" education for one child is not "good" for another - that's the point of a two-tier selective system.ausvic wrote: Both my DCs attend grammar school but I can see the argument that every child is entilted to a good education.
I live in Bucks, which has fully selective secondary education, so ~25% go to grammar and the rest to "upper schools". It's not perfect, but all children sit 11+ unless they actively opt out; every single child is in the catchment for at least one grammar; the most expensive house next to the "best" school is no guarantee of a place.
The fact that some of the upper schools could serve their pupils better is not necessarily a fault of the grammars. It's been exacerbated by the silly dictat that all schools must have an arbitrary 30% getting 5 good GCSEs, which is clearly harder if the top quarter go to other schools.
I've heard that's the case too, but what about the top 20% - they may help others less bright raise their attainment and aspirations but they themsleves need to reach their potential and i'm sure they do better in a grammar school.Chelmsford mum wrote:I am not saying I agree with the following but, one of the arguments against grammars is that they cream off not only some of the brightest but the more aspirational students.
The argument goes that if a school has had its top 10 - 20 % creamed off and sent elsewhere then the wider school community misses out.The argument is that if you put this top 20% back into a comp, they would raise the aspirations and standards for the whole school community.
I remember my DD in Reception class always being sat next to a boy twosome. When I asked about this teacher said my DD was a good influence on the boys as they hadn't started to read or write yet and one of the boys could be disruptive but he liked my DD - great for them but not my DD!
I know this anecdote is too simplistic for how comps teach mixed abilities and many now set/stream but i still think the clever do better with focused teaching/teachers, and it is up to parents and teachers to raise others' aspirations etc...
I'm not saying that a grammar education for all is how it should be. Not every child is academic. Non-grammar pupils should have just as much chance at getting a 'good' education in whatever area they need, ie trades etc. Too much emphasis is put on how many A levels etc you have. What I am saying about 'good' education is a school, grammar or non-grammar, where every pupil has an equal chance, with decent teachers, good discipline etc. Our local non-grammar has the worst reputation and that is not fair on the children that have to go there as they didn't made the cut off for the 11+. Have the two (or four) tier system but just make it fair for every child in this country to get the education that best suits them, academic or otherwise.zee wrote:I think that's a non sequitor. What is a "good" education for one child is not "good" for another - that's the point of a two-tier selective system.ausvic wrote: Both my DCs attend grammar school but I can see the argument that every child is entilted to a good education.
I still think choosing schools based on merit is one way of beating social inequality as everyone is given a chance and its not based on who can afford to buy in the catchment area of the best school.
If anything comprehensives create more social inequality as the best are in the most expensive part of town. However being a wannabe grammar mom I am seriously worried at where my DD would end up if she fails the 11+. I am trying not to think about it until we cross the bridge. The problem, we have with 4 grammars alone in my town and they all get about 100% pass rate and the comps are mostly all under 40% (except for a catholic one)
However I really dont see how mixing kids up helps apart from making everyone mediocre.
If anything comprehensives create more social inequality as the best are in the most expensive part of town. However being a wannabe grammar mom I am seriously worried at where my DD would end up if she fails the 11+. I am trying not to think about it until we cross the bridge. The problem, we have with 4 grammars alone in my town and they all get about 100% pass rate and the comps are mostly all under 40% (except for a catholic one)
However I really dont see how mixing kids up helps apart from making everyone mediocre.Impossible is Nothing.
-
Chelmsford mum
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:16 pm
I agree.ausvic wrote: Our local non-grammar has the worst reputation and that is not fair on the children that have to go there as they didn't made the cut off for the 11+. Have the two (or four) tier system but just make it fair for every child in this country to get the education that best suits them, academic or otherwise.
I lived for a long time in an area (not here) where the only decent schools were grammar schools and even if your child is clever, anyone can underperform.
I feel a hypocrite saying all this because I have two at grammar.
It can't be right that in some areas, mercifully not around here, the difference between the grammar schools and non grammar schools in terms of ethos, discipline, aspirations, results and opportunites is so very vast.[quote="Chelmsford mum It can't be right that in some areas, mercifully not around here, the difference between the grammar schools and non grammar schools in terms of ethos, discipline, aspirations, results and opportunites is so very vast.[/quote]
maybe it reflects the aspirations of the DCs' parents too?
the fact that some schools are poor is no rational reason to get rid of the good schools - why not learn from the good schools and the DCs' parents - teachers can't do it all. Though there has to be aspiration for the school by the head and this imparted down too. Above this there has to be aspiration at the LEA for all schools. I've met some at my local LEA (not bucks) and honestly they don't inspire confidence - not ideas people, not good leaders, the sort who love to attend meetings but rarely take away the work...
maybe it reflects the aspirations of the DCs' parents too?
the fact that some schools are poor is no rational reason to get rid of the good schools - why not learn from the good schools and the DCs' parents - teachers can't do it all. Though there has to be aspiration for the school by the head and this imparted down too. Above this there has to be aspiration at the LEA for all schools. I've met some at my local LEA (not bucks) and honestly they don't inspire confidence - not ideas people, not good leaders, the sort who love to attend meetings but rarely take away the work...
-
Chelmsford mum
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:16 pm
As I said earlier , I wasn't advocating getting rid of grammar schools ,but agreeing with a previous poster that the remaining schools should be offering children an excellent education.
I would like to see a system, where a child whose parents were not equipped/motivated to help them, still had an excellent chance of a good education.My parents had zero ambition for me academically and this was true of my classmates too - no wonder so very few got to University.
I certainly do not believe teachers can do it all (I am one after all) but it still seems that a child's academic future is too dependent on the aspirations of the parents.It would be good to see more children breaking free from the cycle of illiteracy, that many of the families I work with are in.I believe this is more difficult in areas with too high a concentration of selective schools.Would I abolish grammar schools..no but there could be more sharing of the excellence.e.g masterclasses, primary outreach etc.Some of this does go on but there could be more - funding allowing.
I would like to see a system, where a child whose parents were not equipped/motivated to help them, still had an excellent chance of a good education.My parents had zero ambition for me academically and this was true of my classmates too - no wonder so very few got to University.
I certainly do not believe teachers can do it all (I am one after all) but it still seems that a child's academic future is too dependent on the aspirations of the parents.It would be good to see more children breaking free from the cycle of illiteracy, that many of the families I work with are in.I believe this is more difficult in areas with too high a concentration of selective schools.Would I abolish grammar schools..no but there could be more sharing of the excellence.e.g masterclasses, primary outreach etc.Some of this does go on but there could be more - funding allowing.
It is all very well to say that grammar schools are 'good schools' So they jolly well ought to be when the intake is so selective. It makes me smile when people look at the national league tables and reckon that a highly selective grammar school must be doing wonderful things because all the students are getting A*s at GCSE. Of course they are - it must be very easy indeed to get bright and highly motivated pupils to perform to A* standard - the exams are the same in all schools, whether highly selective, independent or the local comp. The real achievement is surely seen in non-selective schools in highly selective areas, ie when all those from highly motivated families, who also happen to be bright and often supported by extra coaching, are all taken out of the equation and a school still manages a good crop of high grades? I think that a grammar school teacher has a very much easier time than one in a more mixed environment, because he or she knows that pupils are capable of high grades and unless something goes badly wrong, they will get them. Teachers in other sectors need to be able to use a wider range of skills to achieve decent results.
To me it is a bit like saying that X hospital is better than Y hospital because more people die in Y hospital - but without pointing out that those in X hospital weren't sick in the first place.
I hate the grammar system, especially as it is here (superselective, so children are competing with those from other counties for the tiny number of places) - even though I put my own son through the hoops of trying to get into it. I find it challenging to reconcile my own beliefs about the schools with what is best for my own children, and am wrestling with the morality of using the independent sector too. I admit to my own hypocrisy (unlike many politicians!) and recognise weaknesses there. Personally I would love to see the end of the GS system, as long as it went with an all-round improvement in schools so that all, rather than a select few, could benefit from an education tailored to their own specific strengths and talents.
Not sure which party stands for that?
To me it is a bit like saying that X hospital is better than Y hospital because more people die in Y hospital - but without pointing out that those in X hospital weren't sick in the first place.
I hate the grammar system, especially as it is here (superselective, so children are competing with those from other counties for the tiny number of places) - even though I put my own son through the hoops of trying to get into it. I find it challenging to reconcile my own beliefs about the schools with what is best for my own children, and am wrestling with the morality of using the independent sector too. I admit to my own hypocrisy (unlike many politicians!) and recognise weaknesses there. Personally I would love to see the end of the GS system, as long as it went with an all-round improvement in schools so that all, rather than a select few, could benefit from an education tailored to their own specific strengths and talents.
Not sure which party stands for that?
