Grammar Schools?

[Tony L]

It's interesting that Toby Young's school isn't selective, yet is hard core high expectation academic, in the style of a grammar.

It seems to be doing rather well.

I wonder if it produces people as artless, talentless and generally ignorant as Mr Young? "Hard-core high-expectation academic" sounds like a bit of a nightmare to me, though to be honest it's likely just a meaningless soundbite.

 

[Paul R]

It's like a grammar school that takes anybody. ks.234 will enter into a infinite loop at the thought.

Paul

 

[cooky1257]

Far from being the academic sausage factory many think grammar schools to be my son's school offers the following subjects;

Business and Logic

Business Studies
Computer Science
Design Technology
Economics
Law
Mathematics

Communication

Drama
English
Music
PSHE
Religious Education

Science

Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Psychology

Wider World

Art
Foreign Languages
Geography
Government & Politics
History
Physical Education

http://www.caldaygrangegrammarschool.co.uk/page/?title=Academic&pid=6

The school's art dept was extremely good but lthough my boy was very good at Art he rebelled against the old man(little sod) and dropped it at A Level in exchange for Further Maths.

 

[fay spook]

If you have the privilege of going private, then good luck to you. The rest of us need properly funded public services that are fit for everyone and treat everyone fairly

So, to tackle pedantry, I'll re state my question; if we accept the notion that a publicly funded health service should be fit for everyone, treats everyone fairly, and doesn't select on treatability, why don't we also want an education system that is fit for everybody, treats all pupils fairly and doesn't select on teachability?

I replied to a similar question on the other thread but it has been asked again here.

Should be fit for everyone. It isn't and people suffer. The NHS does select on treatability. There are restrictions on some treatments for obese patients. Similar for smokers. Would you expect a heart transplant to go to a 90 year old or a 9 year old first? Horrible decisions but one you say we shouldn't select for. Have a think about the last example and tell me what you would do with the one heart.......? Remember you don't want a system that selects on treatability.

Yes we do want an education that is fit for everybody but how fit? Great for everyone or good for most people? We have limited resources, a confused existing structure and a job of teaching that isn't appealing. Now tell me how we get an education system that fits everybody?

Streaming is selecting on teachability. Grammar schools are also effectively streaming. You might have used the wrong word but I would hate there not to be selection based on teachability. If you don't you will get hugely mixed abilities in one class. If you teach to the average for almost half the students it will be too quick/hard, for the other section above average it will be too slow/easy. That is obviously wrong.

It also depends on how you define teachability, to get the most disruptive student back into classes and behaving, giving less able student a grasp of the fundamentals or a high flying student the chance to excel. All showing teachability but good luck to a teacher doing all this in one class.

 

[merlin]

Brilliant

 

[Mullardman]

I replied to a similar question on the other thread but it has been asked again here.

Should be fit for everyone. It isn't and people suffer. The NHS does select on treatability. There are restrictions on some treatments for obese patients. Similar for smokers. Would you expect a heart transplant to go to a 90 year old or a 9 year old first? Horrible decisions but one you say we shouldn't select for. Have a think about the last example and tell me what you would do with the one heart.......? Remember you don't want a system that selects on treatability.

Yes we do want an education that is fit for everybody but how fit? Great for everyone or good for most people? We have limited resources, a confused existing structure and a job of teaching that isn't appealing. Now tell me how we get an education system that fits everybody?

Streaming is selecting on teachability. Grammar schools are also effectively streaming. You might have used the wrong word but I would hate there not to be selection based on teachability. If you don't you will get hugely mixed abilities in one class. If you teach to the average for almost half the students it will be too quick/hard, for the other section above average it will be too slow/easy. That is obviously wrong.

It also depends on how you define teachability, to get the most disruptive student back into classes and behaving, giving less able student a grasp of the fundamentals or a high flying student the chance to excel. All showing teachability but good luck to a teacher doing all this in one class.

Utter tripe and no evidence.

Streaming is NOT selecting on teachability. It is selecting on prior performance.

The rest of your post is also bull. No teacher is required to teach vastly differing ability in one class.

Grammars are selective.

Comps aren't.

Otherwise.. brilliant.

 

[SteveT]

Yes they are. They are called mixed ability classes. There are not enough teachers in a school to have streamed classes for every subject. I have taught groups with Statemented students without assistance ranging all the way up to A* students. It is not uncommon.

 

[cooky1257]

Worth a read;

https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/setting-by-ability-what-is-the-evidence/

It begs the question if mixed ability teaching wasn't taking place then why the debate?

 

[Joe Hutch]

I expect practice varies from school to school. Back in the mists of time, in my school we weren't streamed by subject, whereas in Mrs H's school they were streamed for maths and several other subjects. In my school, boys who went on to do maths at Oxbridge were being taught alongside others who went on to fail the O level several times. The 'good' ones were basically left to get on with it, whilst the 'bad' ones (self included) got plenty of individual attention.

 

[Patrick Dixon]

Raise the average and it isn't an issue.

Yeah but it would still be average.

 

[Mullardman]

Yes they are. They are called mixed ability classes. There are not enough teachers in a school to have streamed classes for every subject. I have taught groups with Statemented students without assistance ranging all the way up to A* students. It is not uncommon.

Thanks Steve,

I stand corrected. Possibly my view of 'vastly' is a little different. I am not a teacher, but I have worked in and taken classes in schools ranging from the 'better' Comps in the 'posher' areas, through 'challenging' schools in 'deprived' areas. And I spent my last 8 years working in a school for pupils with moderate learning difficulties/delay, resulting from many causes.

Mull

 

[fay spook]

Utter tripe and no evidence.

Streaming is NOT selecting on teachability. It is selecting on prior performance.

The rest of your post is also bull. No teacher is required to teach vastly differing ability in one class.

Grammars are selective.

Comps aren't.

Otherwise.. brilliant.

Others have contradicted you. Follow the thread and you will see I am debating the points especially about giving th same treatment to everyone. I gave a hypothetical about the heart to challenge the earlier post.

As my post is bull (nice) can you correct me about smokers or obese patients being refused or delayed in getting surgeries?

While you're at it can you correct me about teaching problems?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/14/schools-spending-billions-supply-teachers-staff-shortage-labour-analysis

I mention the limited resources for education. As you say that's bull can you show us where the excess of funds is sitting?

After this I can address any other points that are causing you concern. You might have noticed I was trying to get clarity over selection, teachabilty etc.

 

[Richard Nichola]

The latest 'idea' is that Grammar schools lower the intake tariff requirements for low-income students (however that is measured).

So, that means that some middle-class kids with pass grades will not get into the Grammars, the children from low-income families will be seen as given an 'easy ride' and will be separated out and probably bullied.

The good news is that Grammar schools have a very effective weapon to use against bullying. They can expel any pupil found to be bullying and that has teeth as they will be booted out back to a secondary modern. My experience of grammar school was that there was no bullying, presumably for this very reason.

 

[droodzilla]

The good news is that Grammar schools have a very effective weapon to use against bullying. They can expel any pupil found to be bullying and that has teeth as they will be booted out back to a secondary modern. My experience of grammar school was that there was no bullying, presumably for this very reason.

There was definitely bullying at my old grammar school.

 

[Mullardman]

Others have contradicted you. Follow the thread and you will see I am debating the points especially about giving th same treatment to everyone. I gave a hypothetical about the heart to challenge the earlier post.

As my post is bull (nice) can you correct me about smokers or obese patients being refused or delayed in getting surgeries?

While you're at it can you correct me about teaching problems?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/14/schools-spending-billions-supply-teachers-staff-shortage-labour-analysis

I mention the limited resources for education. As you say that's bull can you show us where the excess of funds is sitting?

After this I can address any other points that are causing you concern. You might have noticed I was trying to get clarity over selection, teachabilty etc.

One other has contradicted me on one point and I have conceded.

I specifically argued against your definition of streaming and your interepretation of its application. My view has not changed.

You state the resources for education are limited. Obviously resources for everything are ultimately limited, but it is patently obvious to all that the current limits on all UK Govt spending are a function of policy and ideology rather than accounting. So, unlike many, I do not accept that funds cannot be allocated to deliver better education, health, etc., just because Govt (and the BBC) continue to repeat this falsehood.

Mull

 

[stephen bennett]

The good news is that Grammar schools have a very effective weapon to use against bullying. They can expel any pupil found to be bullying and that has teeth as they will be booted out back to a secondary modern. My experience of grammar school was that there was no bullying, presumably for this very reason.

I very much doubt if it's that easy to do these days.

I can't see Grammar schools being allowed to dump their unwanted kids into other schools—but then, I didn't think we'd be debating a return to selection in the 21st Century!

Stephen

 

[Joe Hutch]

There was definitely bullying at my old grammar school.

And at mine, though I think it was worse at the secondary modern my brother attended.

 

[Greg]

I benefited from a good grammar school education but I don't see them as the solution to social mobility now. A friend of mine, who isn't given to angry outbursts just posted thison Facebook.

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 couldn't have put it better myself.

If anyone's interested, here's a link to the report he refers to:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7243

Surely we should be falling over ourselves to learn from this example of dramatic and sustained improvement.

It seems pretty clear from the progress being made in many schools in London that progress and improvement is a) possible; and b) possible without extending the right to select.

Many primary schools across the country have improved in recent years and it must be possible for secondary schools to improve to the same degree.

 

[Richard Nichola]

And at mine, though I think it was worse at the secondary modern my brother attended.

I can only go from my experience, which is that the threat of expulsion had put a stop to any obvious bullying - you didn't see any fights either.

It is quite hard for me, as I understand where people are coming from when they say selection is a bad idea. I did flourish in the Grammar school environment, which was much better than the secondary modern I spent two years at (at the time, they selected at 13.) Maybe the taste of hell was what kept the kids in check?....

 

[stephen bennett]

I can only go from my experience ...

This is basically Government policy!

Not all selection is a bad idea—streaming within schools for some subjects can be a positive experience for all children especially because they can move between streams if their skills and ambitions change. But streaming isn't required for forms, PE, sex education or Citizenship, for example.

Selection at 11+ ties that child into either an acdemically-focussed education or 'the rest', whatever that is. If a child struggles academically at a Grammar, they're stuck—unless they becomes a bully as at your school! If a child in the 11+ failures school flourishes at 13, there's no way they can move to a Grammar.

There are many advantages in mingling kids at all levels of achievement and backgrounds and many disadvantages in syphoning off the brighter middle-class children and teachers into a gated system.

We should be looking into making academic and vocational education of equal merit in comprehensive schools—something that the obsession with 'hard' subjects makes difficult. I heard Toby Young on Any Questions being appallingly patronising towards students who take non-academic courses, but we are just as in need of engineers, plumbers and those with other practical skills as we are of students that gain an A* in English literature. And the creative arts, much maligned by 'academic hegemonists', are amongst the most valuable contributions to our GDP.

Stephen