advertisement


Why are grammar schools elitist?

S

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
 
As with so much soundbite politics there is a grain of logic behind it, but the big picture is missed. There is clearly a benefit to streaming children to their interests and abilities, but grammar schools/secondary moderns have been proven time and again to be a failed model in that respect. The hard evidence always points to them being a less effective solution for a variety of reasons, e.g. poorer children not being coached for the 11+ and maybe developing a school year later etc etc. Lots of reasons. There is mountains of research into this stuff out there, and proper research, not simplistic bullshit from politicians. The current situation is deeply flawed and can certainly be improved. We have ended up with a situation where wealthier people tend to go to better schools, where religion has far too much influence etc, but May's half-baked dream of returning to a Trumpton past is destined to fail. In fact it will never make it through the HoL.

The whole point of modern comprehensive education is to stream on the fly, i.e. provide education targeted to that specific child's abilities and interests. It is a far more logical and neuanced method of achieving the best result regardless of background. The problem in recent years is some spectacularly dumb politicians (some within Labour, though more specifically Michael 'idiot' Gove etc) set a series of absurdly ill-thought-out targets without even understanding the basic concepts let alone being prepared to listen to highly qualified experts within the profession. That we now have schools setup and run by belmtards such as Toby Young is just terrifying. May also looks set to relax legislation regarding religious brainwashing in schools too. A very scary time to have children. We should be looking at countries that do this stuff much better than us, e.g. Norway etc, and learning from them. Sadly we have a hard-right government and a population largely incapable of thinking beyond the simplistic reactionary soundbite.
 
It has to do with 'equality of opportunity', rather than 'equality of outcome' which most would agree is unrealistic, even if it was a desirable outcome. Home environment is at least as important as school environment; if you have supportive parents who encourage early learning and later are on your case re homework etc, then you are more or less certain to do better than someone with uninterested, unsupported parents.

Grammar and other selective schools reinforce this division; you are more likely to go to one if you have supportive parents, and more likely to do well there. Comprehensive schools, if run well, smooth out some of these disadvantages for the many rather than the few, and enable those who are intelligent and work hard, but who may lack a supportive home environment, to attain the best possible outcome.

Of course the rub there is 'if run well'. If not run well, they can have the opposite effect of dragging the brighter children down because the school environment is as disruptive as the home environment.
 
The other thing is no one is arguing for the return of the Secondary Modern as they were a complete disaster. May's half-baked "strategy" appears to be to stealthily condemn any comprehensive that doesn't elect to select into that role. Exactly the type of stupid one expects from Conservatives. In many ways I hope this ends up being as big a sticking point as Jeremy Hunt's ongoing destruction of the NHS and results in the teaching unions following the doctors into mass industrial action. People need to see just how stupid this modern dumbed-down right-wing politics actually is and witnessing a incompetent political party grind both the NHS and education to a standstill might actually be to our long-term good, i.e. it might get rid of the Tories for a decade or two. I very much hope May has bitten off more than she can chew here.
 
Pretty much agree with Tony but would add that to me there is also a much deeper and unspoken agenda here.

Someone in the other thread alluded to a 'post industrial' Britain, which is essentially what we now have.

When we were still something of a World leading industrial nation, also blessed with primary production of steel, iron ore and other stuff, we developed a pretty logical (if not necessarily equitable) system culminating in the post WW2 system of Unis, diverse provision of 'vocational' skills through local FE colleges/apprenticeships, grammar, technical and secondary modern schools. And pretty much all free at the point of delivery.

We now ( Largely thanks to Thatcher) have almost zero primary production, massively reduced manufacturing, and an economy largely comprised of taking in each others' washing. There is little real demand for highly educated people, and TBH, the Tories fear them.

HE is now 'rationed' by cost. FE is all but decimated, Apprenticeships are largely a sick joke and comprehensives can and do deliver excellent results, though are very much dependent upon the character of their locality. It is this latter which needs to be addressed, and simply providing additional boltholes for the few while leaving 'the rest' behind will only futher reinforce failure.

But, instead of improving Comprehensive Education, the objective is to quietly return to the rationing of real education to the priveleged few, with 'the rest' being kept quietly in their place.

The starting point for all this, as with the equally real but denied plans for the NHS, is to undermine confidence in/satisfaction with, what exists now. To apportion blame, to breed discontent, to inflate problems, minimise success and mostly to appeal to the baser instincts of the indignant.

The 'simplistic reactionary soundbite' which Tony alludes to, is already emerging.

Mull
 
Mullardman's rendering of the big picture is on the money IMO. Things really do look very bleak. Here's a review of a book that casts a cold eye on the situation. The basic idea is that as long as education is treated as a resource for the economy, producing human capital, it is bound to be run down, and universal education will become a thing of the past: capital requires increasingly few highly trained workers, and increasingly less from the rest (basic numeracy, literacy, obedience).

Enjoyable as May's problems with this are, then, the idea is consistent with long term goals on the right, and even if it fails here it is bound to resurface in another form.

The only way to fight against it is to insist on the intrinsic value of education. Plenty of reasons to oppose grammar schools on these grounds, most of which have been covered on the other thread.
 
Simon Vess said:
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
Click to expand...

I think this post is missing some important points of it's own.

First, Special Needs pupils are not identified at the bottom end of the ability range. To identify such pupils as low ability is factually wrong and deeply offensive. Special Needs pupils are precisely that, pupils with special needs, and if those needs are met those pupils are, in many cases, quite able to achieve at the top of the ability range. Pupil Premium is now a key indicator used to identify Special Needs, In my school we have significant numbers of PP pupils in the top sets.

Second, the whole point of education is to enable movement up the ability range. Grammar schools are separate and, by and large, 'pull up the ladder' cutting off 80% or more of the ability range.

They are therefore elitist.... as well as entrenching a rather unfortunate attitude that pupils with special needs are stuck at the 'bottom of the ability range'
 
Seanm said:
Mullardman's rendering of the big picture is on the money IMO. Things really do look very bleak. Here's a review of a book that casts a cold eye on the situation. The basic idea is that as long as education is treated as a resource for the economy, producing human capital, it is bound to be run down, and universal education will become a thing of the past: capital requires increasingly few highly trained workers, and increasingly less from the rest (basic numeracy, literacy, obedience).

Enjoyable as May's problems with this are, then, the idea is consistent with long term goals on the right, and even if it fails here it is bound to resurface in another form.

The only way to fight against it is to insist on the intrinsic value of education. Plenty of reasons to oppose grammar schools on these grounds, most of which have been covered on the other thread.
Click to expand...
This is the elephant in the room. How much education do you need to make a flat white? Unless we acknowledge it *any* policy discussion - whether about education, social security or anything else - is flawed.

I'm a grammar school boy from a working class background. I ended up at Oxford and I'm about to start a second (!) Ph.D. in theoretical physics. The grammar school experience has marked me for life - for better and for worse. I believe passionately in social mobility and I see almost every day the wasted potential of those who were left behind by the old system of selection. The issues around social mobility are so complex and affect me so deeply I can hardly bear to contribute to this thread. But I know that May's approach isn't the answer.

I guess it chimes with the Brexit theme though. Things were so much better in the old days before we had all this new-fangled Common Market and comprehensive education. But, as seanm points out, the world has changed beyond all recognition since then and seizing the retro-policy comfort blanket won't help us.
 
ks.234 said:
I think this post is missing some important points of it's own.

First, Special Needs pupils are not identified at the bottom end of the ability range. To identify such pupils as low ability is factually wrong and deeply offensive. Special Needs pupils are precisely that, pupils with special needs, and if those needs are met those pupils are, in many cases, quite able to achieve at the top of the ability range. Pupil Premium is now a key indicator used to identify Special Needs, In my school we have significant numbers of PP pupils in the top sets.

Second, the whole point of education is to enable movement up the ability range. Grammar schools are separate and, by and large, 'pull up the ladder' cutting off 80% or more of the ability range.

They are therefore elitist.... as well as entrenching a rather unfortunate attitude that pupils with special needs are stuck at the 'bottom of the ability range'
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
My daughter was statemented at school and was a special needs pupil.
She had a physical disability.
She got 4 grade A A levels.
She got a first from Durham and Is now working towards a training contract to become a solicitor.
 
ks.234 said:
I think this post is missing some important points of it's own.

First, Special Needs pupils are not identified at the bottom end of the ability range.e'
Click to expand...


OK

I mentioned special needs, not Special Needs

My point stands

There seems to be an outlook whereby somehow it perfectly OK to help the less able( rightly so) but not the more able

I agree that the mechanism for ensuring that every single student gets the education that is most optimal is very difficult but that applies as much to the more as well as the less able

Streaming "on the fly" is fine in theory, and there are many outstanding comprehensive schools..

But why should the introduction of grammar schools make any difference to this?

Simon
 
Seanm said:
Mullardman's rendering of the big picture is on the money IMO. Things really do look very bleak. Here's a review of a book that casts a cold eye on the situation. The basic idea is that as long as education is treated as a resource for the economy, producing human capital, it is bound to be run down, and universal education will become a thing of the past: capital requires increasingly few highly trained workers, and increasingly less from the rest (basic numeracy, literacy, obedience).

Enjoyable as May's problems with this are, then, the idea is consistent with long term goals on the right, and even if it fails here it is bound to resurface in another form.

The only way to fight against it is to insist on the intrinsic value of education. Plenty of reasons to oppose grammar schools on these grounds, most of which have been covered on the other thread.
Click to expand...

Not quite

There is a severe skills shortage in this country, which is why we need so many imported skilled people

Simon
 
To a certain extent there is still richer parents helping there children to better schools by moving to catchment areas instead of coaching them for an exam . At least with grammar schools it is not so area based so poorer children could attend a better school by being bright .
However building grammar schools is a bad policy and a return to the past , much better to spend money on existing ones and the ability for all pupils to have a chance .
 
Or try this:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7243&h=fAQFrm8_x

A friend directed me to the report. He's not left-wing and is not given to angry outbursts, but here's what he had to say about May's idea:

This tosh (thank you Sir Michael Wilshaw) about grammar schools and social mobility makes me want to scream “it’s behind you!” Anyone with a genuine interest in improving education would head straight to London. Why? Because kids in my home city – including poor kids - have been doing breathtakingly well in recent years. Way better than kids anywhere else in England, and way better than at any point in living memory.
Experts (who spend their lives researching this topic and - guess what – know things) have been studying the ‘London Effect’ for years. They prove that this astonishing success has *nothing to do* with grammar schools. Or parental choice. Or academization. Turns out it is mainly a result of good things happening in primary schools.
I would urge anyone who cares about the English state school system to wise up, get engaged, and help to kick this nonsense about selection into the dustbin. Feel free to start by sharing this post and graph. It is taken from a 2014 report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Institute for Education. I’ll add the link in a comment.
Click to expand...

The real question is why are we harking back to some mythical golden age of education while ignoring the hard evidence of what's been proven to work in the present.
 
Bob McC said:
Excellent post.
My daughter was statemented at school and was a special needs pupil.
She had a physical disability.
She got 4 grade A A levels.
She got a first from Durham and Is now working towards a training contract to become a solicitor.
Click to expand...


All great...as i read your post except for the very last four words

Becoming a solicitor is not something i would boast about.....

Simon
 
I think the point about grammar schools (and other selective schools) is that they are a form of social selection from an early age, which means that those 'in' get a big advantage throughout their lives and those 'out' don't.

If you want to break down barriers and make society more of a meritocracy then you need to make it easier for people to move in and out of different social groups rather than more difficult. May is right in that she's saying that we already have selection due to house price geography, but the answer to that is not to extend it.
 
Bob McC said:
Excellent post.
My daughter was statemented at school and was a special needs pupil.
She had a physical disability.
She got 4 grade A A levels.
She got a first from Durham and Is now working towards a training contract to become a solicitor.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. It has cheered me to hear about your daughter's success. I have found some of the attitudes expressed in this and the other thread quite depressing, and like Droozilla, I am entering into this debate with a heavy heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top