Tories to reject grammar schools
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Guest
If these don't exist, you might as well forget it!Middle class does not mean rich. In this context it means probably white collar, parents probably educated beyond elementary level (possibly grammar school) probably books in the house, probably supportive about homework, prepared and able to provide either outside coaching or practice at home...generally able and willing to understand and operate withing the system
-
Guest
Absolutely. It is the parents with ambition for their children who want them to go to grammar. Quite often, ambitious parents are also those with good jobs. (I'm not just talking white collar here, ambitious plumbers with their own businesses etc.) And with this comes higher incomes.
Why oh why the government should want to drag our most intelligent and capable children down to an equal level I cannot understand.
The whole ethos within the grammars is one that cannot be shared with mixed ability schools (or seemingly not). I love the competitive spirit at my son's grammar. What other environment champions children's intelligence rather than excusing it (as I find with my younger child's school. When she does well at school the focus is on the other children not to feel bad that they didn't do as well.)
Let's continue to get the very best out of our very best and make sure we improve the comprehensives at the same time.
To all our kids - YOU COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!
Why oh why the government should want to drag our most intelligent and capable children down to an equal level I cannot understand.
The whole ethos within the grammars is one that cannot be shared with mixed ability schools (or seemingly not). I love the competitive spirit at my son's grammar. What other environment champions children's intelligence rather than excusing it (as I find with my younger child's school. When she does well at school the focus is on the other children not to feel bad that they didn't do as well.)
Let's continue to get the very best out of our very best and make sure we improve the comprehensives at the same time.
To all our kids - YOU COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!
From the point of view of a foreigner, I have to say I do not detect anything sinister, unfair or socially divisive in this kind of behaviour. Is not that what people in all civilised countries are both encouraged and expected to do when they raise a family?Middle class ... probably books in the house, probably supportive about homework, prepared and able to provide either outside coaching or practice at home
Unsupportive does not mean disadvantaged, nor vice versa. The key to success is the former. No one needs to feel apologetic for that.This means that the clever child from a disadvantaged or unsupportive home (exactly the sort of child that the grammar schools were intended to provide with a step out of disadvantage) haven't got a snowball's chance in **** of getting a place. Unfair and socially divisive.
sj355
-
GUESTL
I am all for grammar schools, and i don't think going to grammar school is a class thing at all, if your child is clever and passes the 11+ then they are entitled to a good education that will benefit them, those that are borderline and those that would not be able to sit the 11+ and can't have a grammar education should also have the very best eduaction for them i.e good high schools etc,i know some parents who oppose the 11+ and grammar school selection because they have children that will not pass the test and feel their child may miss out,but in life there will always be those that can and want to work hard and those that can't be bothered,those that can't be bothered i expect come from families that never paid attention to their childs school work and because of that the child would never have any chance of passing the 11+.i passed the 11+ but went to a non grammar i did alright and i was happy,but i wish my parents had pushed me more and given me the option of grammar they just told me i was going to such a school,end of story! so having a son who is very bright i want him to go to grammar so he won't feel like he has missed out, luckily he has passed and has a place at a good school,now i want my daighter to do well, i am not well off and i am not lower class, i guess i would be classed as middle class,i chose not to work i gave up when my children were tiny, so i could be home with them,life is a struggle and i miss out on lots,i don't own a car etc,but i'd rather be here for my children after school!
-
Mum of 3
GuestL
On one hand you imply that people who don't get to grammar school don't want to work hard, and on the other say your child was lucky to get a place. This is not consistent reasoning. Would you have said that your child did not work hard enough if he had not got a place? Whether or not your child gets a place depends on how many children do better than them on that particular day, doing that particular sort of test.
There are plenty of children who are bright, work hard and yet do not get grammar school places. Places are very competitive here in Birmingham, and people apply from a long way away to get places.
The test here claims to be objective, but in my opinion favours those that are good at Maths rather than those who are good at English. This is purely my opinion based on my knowledge of children, mine and other people's, who have got a place or failed to get a place at the grammar schools. The Mathematicians get the places, and the language people don't!! The overall GCSE grades between the Grammar school pupils and the near-misses is very similar. The choice of A'levels highlights the differences between the groups.
On one hand you imply that people who don't get to grammar school don't want to work hard, and on the other say your child was lucky to get a place. This is not consistent reasoning. Would you have said that your child did not work hard enough if he had not got a place? Whether or not your child gets a place depends on how many children do better than them on that particular day, doing that particular sort of test.
There are plenty of children who are bright, work hard and yet do not get grammar school places. Places are very competitive here in Birmingham, and people apply from a long way away to get places.
The test here claims to be objective, but in my opinion favours those that are good at Maths rather than those who are good at English. This is purely my opinion based on my knowledge of children, mine and other people's, who have got a place or failed to get a place at the grammar schools. The Mathematicians get the places, and the language people don't!! The overall GCSE grades between the Grammar school pupils and the near-misses is very similar. The choice of A'levels highlights the differences between the groups.
-
guest22
i think guestl was just saying that she is not well off, and wants her chid to have what she never had the chance of in the way of education and whats wrong with that? she has given up work to bring her children up and gone without to make sure they get there...being upper class or middle class or lower class makes no difference, i thought grammar schools were about giving that little bit extra to clever children,or am i wrong???
These are interesting arguments. Do you have evidence that:
or is it purely anectodal? If this is correct then the English GCSE grades of pupils in comprehensives would exceed, or at least be at a par, to those of pupils in grammars in Birmigham. Is this the case?the test ...in my opinion favours those that are good at Maths rather than those who are good at English.
Now what evidence can exist for that? Who will remember who were 11+ near misses to have a look at their marks as a group and then compare them to those at grammars when they all reach GCSE level? What would be the cut-off point to qualify as a near-miss?The overall GCSE grades between the Grammar school pupils and the near-misses is very similar
sj355
-
Grumpy Old Man
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:51 am
- Location: The Garden of England
For what its worth my letter to Dave!
"If the reports in today’s media are correct and the Conservative Party is to drop its support for selective education and the grammar schools then I am distraught to find that, finally, there is no longer a British political party that represents me, my family and our views, hopes and aspirations.
I understand, with a heavy heart, that the party has to change to ‘fit’ a twenty-first century Britain of targets and political correctness and where ‘excellence for none and mediocrity for all’ have become the watchwords. I realise that the party needs to change to win power. However, the issue of grammars is one that cuts across boundaries with people from all walks of life agreeing that bright kids do better when taught separately.
Since the abolition of the majority of grammars, university intakes have fallen amongst students from ‘less advantaged’ backgrounds. Realists in the teaching profession know that mixed ability teaching is not the way to improve skills across all sectors and that the real answer is to improve state education so that all schools produce students with the highest level of academic and/ or vocational skills.
I am returning my membership card and would appreciate having my details removed from your database."
There would be NO argument against grammars if the system was such that ALL bright kids whatever their social background/ school/ location etc were ENCOURAGED and assessed for academic selection.
Likewise, government should stop whining on over '50% to university' and devaluing vocational training and develop a DECENT programme for those who are not academic.
Lastly, however much the bigots of New Labour slate the 'middle classes', they cannot - short of introducing even more social engineering - stop those who understand the incredible value of education from making considerable sacrifices to ensure, in a shitty, dog-eat-dog world, that their kids do well.
Rant over - for now!
"If the reports in today’s media are correct and the Conservative Party is to drop its support for selective education and the grammar schools then I am distraught to find that, finally, there is no longer a British political party that represents me, my family and our views, hopes and aspirations.
I understand, with a heavy heart, that the party has to change to ‘fit’ a twenty-first century Britain of targets and political correctness and where ‘excellence for none and mediocrity for all’ have become the watchwords. I realise that the party needs to change to win power. However, the issue of grammars is one that cuts across boundaries with people from all walks of life agreeing that bright kids do better when taught separately.
Since the abolition of the majority of grammars, university intakes have fallen amongst students from ‘less advantaged’ backgrounds. Realists in the teaching profession know that mixed ability teaching is not the way to improve skills across all sectors and that the real answer is to improve state education so that all schools produce students with the highest level of academic and/ or vocational skills.
I am returning my membership card and would appreciate having my details removed from your database."
There would be NO argument against grammars if the system was such that ALL bright kids whatever their social background/ school/ location etc were ENCOURAGED and assessed for academic selection.
Likewise, government should stop whining on over '50% to university' and devaluing vocational training and develop a DECENT programme for those who are not academic.
Lastly, however much the bigots of New Labour slate the 'middle classes', they cannot - short of introducing even more social engineering - stop those who understand the incredible value of education from making considerable sacrifices to ensure, in a shitty, dog-eat-dog world, that their kids do well.
Rant over - for now!
