St Mary's Winter Quiz 11 January 2025
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Labour And Lib Dems 'would Fight Grammar School Plans'
http://
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
Answers
I definitely agree that grammar schools should be a thing of the past.I passed the 11 plus and went to a grammar school but hated pretty much every minute of it.My son however went to our local comprehensiv
17:26 Tue 09th Aug 2016
No Tora he did well because he had good teachers,lecturers and tutors who took the time to teach the whole class or student group.In the grammar school I went to if you weren't able to keep up with the brighter pupils you got left behind.I don't believe anyone should suffer and the re-introduction of grammar schools does not mean that attainments will increase.The comprehensive system also enables friendships made at junior school can continue and the feeling of elitism is not therefore fostered.
“Education should be available for everyone, suitable for the level they are able to attain, in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path”
But surely, Andy, that must involve some sort of selection. Not all children are the same and their abilities vary widely. Selective schools do not cram in as many pupils as they can possibly accommodate. They accept as many as they can properly educate. It is not in their interests to do otherwise. As far as funding goes, Mr Clegg’s “pupil premium” actually diverts money away from schools in more affluent areas (where achievement is likely to be higher on average) towards more “disadvantaged” pupils.
I agree with jim in that the abolition of grammar schools has not raised the education levels of all. In the same way as you cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer, all the strategy has done is to depress overall achievement. In their heyday grammar schools educated around 25% of children. The problem (if there was one) was not with the grammars but with the other schools. Abolishing grammars simply removed the opportunity for those able to deal with academic rigour; it did nothing for the other secondary pupils. I am not looking into the past through rose-tinted glasses nor am I harping back to an era that no longer exists. I live in an area where there are still grammar schools and I can see that they work.
Mikey’s comparison of numbers attending university is not all that useful. In the 1960s less than 10% of people went to university. Now it is nearer 50% but the difference is that (a) many of the universities are not worthy of the name and (b) many of today’s undergraduates would not get a look in at a “proper” university (as opposed to “Formerly Neasden Polytechnic”) and (c) many only go on to further education because of the failure of the State school system to educate them to a decent level by age 18.
Jim is quite right – there is no realistic alternative to grammar schools if the State education system is to educate its brightest children to a decent level. Doing without them has been tried for the last forty years and it’s failed. As a result two or three generations of children have been badly let down.
But surely, Andy, that must involve some sort of selection. Not all children are the same and their abilities vary widely. Selective schools do not cram in as many pupils as they can possibly accommodate. They accept as many as they can properly educate. It is not in their interests to do otherwise. As far as funding goes, Mr Clegg’s “pupil premium” actually diverts money away from schools in more affluent areas (where achievement is likely to be higher on average) towards more “disadvantaged” pupils.
I agree with jim in that the abolition of grammar schools has not raised the education levels of all. In the same way as you cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer, all the strategy has done is to depress overall achievement. In their heyday grammar schools educated around 25% of children. The problem (if there was one) was not with the grammars but with the other schools. Abolishing grammars simply removed the opportunity for those able to deal with academic rigour; it did nothing for the other secondary pupils. I am not looking into the past through rose-tinted glasses nor am I harping back to an era that no longer exists. I live in an area where there are still grammar schools and I can see that they work.
Mikey’s comparison of numbers attending university is not all that useful. In the 1960s less than 10% of people went to university. Now it is nearer 50% but the difference is that (a) many of the universities are not worthy of the name and (b) many of today’s undergraduates would not get a look in at a “proper” university (as opposed to “Formerly Neasden Polytechnic”) and (c) many only go on to further education because of the failure of the State school system to educate them to a decent level by age 18.
Jim is quite right – there is no realistic alternative to grammar schools if the State education system is to educate its brightest children to a decent level. Doing without them has been tried for the last forty years and it’s failed. As a result two or three generations of children have been badly let down.
-- answer removed --
Baldric you know very well that the brighter children at comprehensives aren't held back because setting takes place in the core subjects.Also at grammar schools if you struggle the teachers are more interested in the bright children anyway so less able children are left to struggle.Also children from a comprehensive near where I live are regularly gaining places at Oxford and Cambridge.
Seems a bit off to blame children at such a young age if for whatever reason they don't benefit properly from a grammar school -- or indeed any -- education. If nothing else, doesn't that expose a flaw in the selection process? grumpy01 is hardly alone in finding grammar school a toil after arriving there. Ironically enough, my mother, she of the "grammar schools are great", was another such. Ditto my father, if it comes to that. Neither of them, however, hold any bitterness towards grammar schools in general as a result. Not all such schools are equal, and the same with the teachers (in my Mum's case, as well, she suffered from having to move around a lot as a child).
I suppose I shouldn't go into too much detail about their childhoods -- having sacrificed my own anonymity on this site it follows that people could work out who my parents are if they so wished. It doesn't particularly matter, though. It's possible to have walked out of grammar school having overwhelmingly hated the experience and be right to do so, and indeed there are plenty of other problems with the place, but that hardly changes the fact that most people did benefit from the experience, and sadly there is no truly viable replacement (grumpy's reference to setting is all well and good but even in any given set the variations in standard at a typical high school are far too great for a teacher to cope with). As long as this is the case, getting rid of grammar schools is just self-defeating, although I do hope that in time they end up being redundant all the same.
For the record -- no, I didn't go to a Grammar School myself.
I suppose I shouldn't go into too much detail about their childhoods -- having sacrificed my own anonymity on this site it follows that people could work out who my parents are if they so wished. It doesn't particularly matter, though. It's possible to have walked out of grammar school having overwhelmingly hated the experience and be right to do so, and indeed there are plenty of other problems with the place, but that hardly changes the fact that most people did benefit from the experience, and sadly there is no truly viable replacement (grumpy's reference to setting is all well and good but even in any given set the variations in standard at a typical high school are far too great for a teacher to cope with). As long as this is the case, getting rid of grammar schools is just self-defeating, although I do hope that in time they end up being redundant all the same.
For the record -- no, I didn't go to a Grammar School myself.
A system is only elitist if employers make it that way, by responding in a disproportionately favourable way towards applicants with the name of a (known by them to be) grammar school on their CV.
So, is there any drive for this, from employers, or is it short-term, political dogma? Will we get Labour undoing all the upheaval, a few years later?
I think what must cause job recruitment boards spare is that, where grades, in decades past, indicated what percentile a school leaver was in *relative to their cohort*, these days, you could have 50 applicants, all with the same number of A* grades and no way to whittle the numbers down to a manageable quantity for interview stage.
Some new method of 'filtration' is required and if it is not achieved by illegal methods (race discrimination etc) they are resorting to things like graphology and psychometric testing. I say 'resorting' because it smacks of despair, to be frank.
It is all very well to discover that 50% of our population is capable of achieving degree-level qualification but the tree of knowledge has many leaves and all a degree says is that you know one leaf, really well. You're a specialist in your chosen field but *decidedly not* a jack-of-all-trades, capable of achieving miracles wherever you end up - for instance, because your specialism was so over-subscribed, that year, that you needed to be crême de la crême to get into that job you dreamed of, so you end up in places that aren't sniffy about you being "over-qualified".
I think we're overrun with under-employed graduates. They are saddled with debt and find they have no "magic ticket" to high-paid work. Who can blame them for thinking that the whole thing was a giant con, for the benefit of financiers, not them?
In the meantime, employers need to discuss, among themselves, how many graduates they need and the government should supply a little short of that until the current excess of graduates are all in jobs where they're paying back their loan and catching up on their non-uni contemporaries in terms of lifestyle, ability to buy a home* and so forth.
* Victoria Derbyshire prog, this morning, touched on the matter of student loan counting as a black mark on a person's credit score, inhibiting their chances of getting a mortgage!
Bankers who cannot work out that mortgages make them money? Whatever next?
So, is there any drive for this, from employers, or is it short-term, political dogma? Will we get Labour undoing all the upheaval, a few years later?
I think what must cause job recruitment boards spare is that, where grades, in decades past, indicated what percentile a school leaver was in *relative to their cohort*, these days, you could have 50 applicants, all with the same number of A* grades and no way to whittle the numbers down to a manageable quantity for interview stage.
Some new method of 'filtration' is required and if it is not achieved by illegal methods (race discrimination etc) they are resorting to things like graphology and psychometric testing. I say 'resorting' because it smacks of despair, to be frank.
It is all very well to discover that 50% of our population is capable of achieving degree-level qualification but the tree of knowledge has many leaves and all a degree says is that you know one leaf, really well. You're a specialist in your chosen field but *decidedly not* a jack-of-all-trades, capable of achieving miracles wherever you end up - for instance, because your specialism was so over-subscribed, that year, that you needed to be crême de la crême to get into that job you dreamed of, so you end up in places that aren't sniffy about you being "over-qualified".
I think we're overrun with under-employed graduates. They are saddled with debt and find they have no "magic ticket" to high-paid work. Who can blame them for thinking that the whole thing was a giant con, for the benefit of financiers, not them?
In the meantime, employers need to discuss, among themselves, how many graduates they need and the government should supply a little short of that until the current excess of graduates are all in jobs where they're paying back their loan and catching up on their non-uni contemporaries in terms of lifestyle, ability to buy a home* and so forth.
* Victoria Derbyshire prog, this morning, touched on the matter of student loan counting as a black mark on a person's credit score, inhibiting their chances of getting a mortgage!
Bankers who cannot work out that mortgages make them money? Whatever next?
Hypognosis - //A system is only elitist if employers make it that way, by responding in a disproportionately favourable way towards applicants with the name of a (known by them to be) grammar school on their CV. //
That is elitism in the employment world - we are talking elitism in education, starting when children are eleven, which is well before they are at employment age.
That is elitism in the employment world - we are talking elitism in education, starting when children are eleven, which is well before they are at employment age.
Andy-hughes, //we are talking elitism in education, starting when children are eleven//
My parents would find that highly amusing. It’s already been explained to you that selection into Grammar school depends upon nothing other than academic ability - and that isn't confined to the 'elite' - whoever they may be.
My parents would find that highly amusing. It’s already been explained to you that selection into Grammar school depends upon nothing other than academic ability - and that isn't confined to the 'elite' - whoever they may be.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.