Simon Vess
pfm Member
I know at there has already been a thread on this.....
My take:
Presenting grammar schools as elistist is missing the point
It is ok to identify special needs at the "bottom end" of the ability range, and spend public money on providing suitable learning environments
But why is it not ok to do the same at the the upper end of the ability range?
Surely grammar schools are part of the scheme to provide the education mode suited to each childs needs
The antagonists present the situation as somehow less sble students being prevented from accessing " better" education which imo is missing the point
If implemented correctly, each child should get what is best suited to them
Again, if the top ability range is "top sliced" leaving everything else the same, why should this have any negative effects on those that do not get streamed into grammar schools?
Why is it ok to spend money helping low ability students and not higher ability ones?
The real crunch question is how and at when the "selection" process is carried out
The other objection often raised is that those not selected for grammar schools are branded as failures
I guess that that because i haven't won a Nobel Prize means that my whole life has been a failure!
Dealing with failure is part of growing up
If children are cultivated to believe that they must be protected from failing , we are breeding a generation of narcissists
Simon
My take:
Presenting grammar schools as elistist is missing the point
It is ok to identify special needs at the "bottom end" of the ability range, and spend public money on providing suitable learning environments
But why is it not ok to do the same at the the upper end of the ability range?
Surely grammar schools are part of the scheme to provide the education mode suited to each childs needs
The antagonists present the situation as somehow less sble students being prevented from accessing " better" education which imo is missing the point
If implemented correctly, each child should get what is best suited to them
Again, if the top ability range is "top sliced" leaving everything else the same, why should this have any negative effects on those that do not get streamed into grammar schools?
Why is it ok to spend money helping low ability students and not higher ability ones?
The real crunch question is how and at when the "selection" process is carried out
The other objection often raised is that those not selected for grammar schools are branded as failures
I guess that that because i haven't won a Nobel Prize means that my whole life has been a failure!
Dealing with failure is part of growing up
If children are cultivated to believe that they must be protected from failing , we are breeding a generation of narcissists
Simon