advertisement


Grammar Schools?

Patrick Dixon said:
It's not just about education, it's about who you socialise with.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely.

That's another reason why some sort of selection is necessary. So that children can be shielded, in their formative years, from criminal and violent aspects so prevalent in some sectors of society.

Education is indeed the answer, but in many cases, in many districts, it's too late for the parents, who set the local values.

To some extent, the present system, which is selection by post-code, does work, but it also polarises.

JC
 
jcbrum said:
I didn't start school till I was six and a half years old.

I was privately educated till Common Entrance (13).

I was 'A' stream selected, and won a scholarship to a Grammar / boarding school founded in the 16th century. I was academically successful.

Doesn't seem to have done me much harm.

JC
Click to expand...

That's another reason why some sort of selection is necessary. So that children can be shielded, in their formative years, from criminal and violent aspects so prevalent in some sectors of society.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that being separated from your peers at a young age contributed to the prejudice expressed here, and that that constitutes harm?
 
All this talk of being segregated, separated from their peers is frankly silly.
When a child moves to senior school he/she doesn't move on mass with their primary cohort up into seniors, children go off to different schools, making new friends in the process. They can chose to remain in contact with their old neighbourhood mates outside of school or/and knock about with their new school mates. To read some of the post here you'd think grammar schools are like Hogwarts;-)
 
cooky1257 said:
All this talk of being segregated, separated from their peers is frankly silly.
When a child moves to senior school he/she doesn't move on mass with their primary cohort up into seniors, children go off to different schools, making new friends in the process. They can chose to remain in contact with their old neighbourhood mates outside of school or/and knock about with their new school mates. To read some of the post here you'd think grammar schools are like Hogwarts;-)
Click to expand...

Type 'Grammar schools' into google images and say that:)
 
The biggest problem with this whole debate is the prejudice exemplified by Seanm by those who oppose Grammar schools.
 
Seanm said:
Is it possible that being separated from your peers at a young age contributed to the prejudice expressed here, and that that constitutes harm?
Click to expand...


I wasn't separated from my peers, - I went to school with them, and made new friends, and acquaintencies, along the way, in College, and in my career, and in retirement, as another poster has suggested.

I frequently socialise with friends of more than 50 years, as well as more recent ones.


JC
 
I can understand why the idea of grammar schools has a certain popular appeal. Lots of people imagine their kids in a small, well behaved school with a focus on academic attainment, wearing traditional blazers and appearing 5 years later with 9 A* GCSEs. It certainly beats the Daily Mail’s tales of drugs and teenage pregnancies in the local comprehensive that looks more like Bash Street.

At the moment, while grammar schools represent a very small proportion of the nation’s schools they of course can select the very brightest (or at least those with an aptitude for getting through exams) and therefore their results are spectacular reinforcing this image.

If grammars are reintroduced nationally and can select the top 5% - 10% by exam score at 11, then it’s obvious that these schools are likely to score well academically, it’s also probable that on average the parents of kids there will be better off, the PTAs will be better funded, they may find it easier to recruit teachers – all reinforcing the positive impact on the school and its appearance to the outside world and making it even more oversubscribed.

Of course the downside is on the non-grammar schools who will obviously score less well in exams without the top 5%, will have a higher proportion of ‘challenging’ kids, who’s PTA will be less well funded, who’s appeal will fall. Once kids fail the 11+ they’ve lost the opportunity to get out of this school.

Now what I find bizarre is why the majority of parents, who by definition will have kids in the “bottom” 90% - 95% would remotely think this is something worth voting for.

The only way I’d think this was sensible is if grammar schools were for the top 80% of kids with the non-grammars getting extra funding and support to help the most challenging of kids achieve their maximum potential.

Sorry – a very long way of saying – what about the kids that fail the 11+ ??
 
jcbrum said:
That's another reason why some sort of selection is necessary. So that children can be shielded, in their formative years, from criminal and violent aspects so prevalent in some sectors of society.
Click to expand...

And you say your education didn't do you any harm?

It didn't do you much good I reckon.
 
jcbrum said:
I agree entirely.

That's another reason why some sort of selection is necessary. So that children can be shielded, in their formative years, from criminal and violent aspects so prevalent in some sectors of society.

Education is indeed the answer, but in many cases, in many districts, it's too late for the parents, who set the local values.

To some extent, the present system, which is selection by post-code, does work, but it also polarises.

JC
Click to expand...

So, which sectors of society would you say are characterised by 'criminal and violent aspects'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top