a couple hours a week is not beyond most people and their are children who can achieve without tutoring.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/the-guardian-view-on-grammar-schools-the-wrong-answer-but-the-right-questionEven if grammar schools boosted social mobility for the lucky few, they left many more behind and they certainly aren’t helping now. In areas that still use the 11-plus, the evidence proves that it favours affluent children and obstructs the poorest. The test measures parents’ ability to pay for coaching, not children’s natural capabilities. In Buckinghamshire, those who were privately educated are two-and-a-half times more likely to pass, while the rate for those on free school meals is one-eighth of the average. That is despite supposedly “tutor-proof” tests – a device Mrs May claims will eliminate class prejudice from the selection process.
You're right. A couple of hours of grammar and spelling practice will benefit anyone.
Your argument is wrong on several levels however.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/the-guardian-view-on-grammar-schools-the-wrong-answer-but-the-right-question
You're right. A couple of hours of grammar and spelling practice will benefit anyone.
Your argument is wrong on several levels however.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/the-guardian-view-on-grammar-schools-the-wrong-answer-but-the-right-question
Funny, as a parent governor for my daughters school we had nearly a third of children eligible for 'free school meals'. DON'T you just hate it when reality gets in the way! Middle class:2wave:
Paul, you know perfectly well that anecdotes don't make an argument. So, how is it not a return to that airy-fairy utopia of 50s and 60s Britain when the bright were brighter and the oiks knew their place?
Now I'm just settling down to watch QT. Back in a while.
You're right. A couple of hours of grammar and spelling practice will benefit anyone.
Your argument is wrong on several levels however.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/08/the-guardian-view-on-grammar-schools-the-wrong-answer-but-the-right-question
Those arguing that a return to selectivity isn't a return to the past don't appear to have an answer to the questions: 'In what way is it NOT a return to the past? How will it be different this time around?'
With respect, that wasn't my point. The Tories are saying that it isn't a return to the past. I want to know in what way it isn't a return to the past.Why is a return to the past bad?
Yes, and that means all students, not just those who can shine at 11 years old.The primary purpose of education should be to better educate the students.
Well, I haven't heard that being proposed. Perhaps you have. If so, can you link me to it? I have a fundamental objection to constant testing as if by testing students yearly and swapping them between different school systems you are going to improve the quality of their education. Constant testing does not improve education standards, it becomes an end in itself and detract from preparing students for higher education and the world of work.If your concern is as the one poster indicated that someone might blossom late, them just have incrementally more difficult testing at each grade level and give students the option to jump over to the grammar schools if and when they meet the standards should they opt to be tested again.
Nothing anecdotal about the 'fact' a supposedly 'selective school, that is only open to the affluent middle class' families, has nearly a third of kids on free school meals.
Paul, you know perfectly well that anecdotes don't make an argument. So, how is it not a return to that airy-fairy utopia of 50s and 60s Britain when the bright were brighter and the oiks knew their place?
Now I'm just settling down to watch QT. Back in a while.
~ I have a fundamental objection to constant testing as if by testing students yearly and swapping them between different school systems you are going to improve the quality of their education. Constant testing does not improve education standards, it becomes an end in itself and detract from preparing students for higher education and the world of work.
For our transatlantic cousins.
Grammar schools: What are they and why are they controversial? - BBC News
I was one of the oiks who went to grammar school in the 1960's. You didn't need rich parents, all you had to do was pass the exam.
Not really. What we are discussing here is the revelation that the government is planning to reintroduce a selective form of public education across the country. So far they haven't set out their detailed plans.If I read the article you linked correctly and understand your statement above, neither social class nor income level has anything to do with determining which kids get to attend a grammar school. That the entrance criteria is a test, that from the article's description seems to be more of a comprehension, reasoning, and expression test (similar to an IQ test or the JrSAT that we have here in the US) which is not as reliant upon previous courses of study as other forms of testing would be and therefore gauges the student's ability to perform critical thinking skills rather than simply testing memorization skills. Is that correct?
For our transatlantic cousins.
Grammar schools: What are they and why are they controversial? - BBC News
If I read the article you linked correctly and understand your statement above, neither social class nor income level has anything to do with determining which kids get to attend a grammar school. That the entrance criteria is a test, that from the article's description seems to be more of a comprehension, reasoning, and expression test (similar to an IQ test or the JrSAT that we have here in the US) which is not as reliant upon previous courses of study as other forms of testing would be and therefore gauges the student's ability to perform critical thinking skills rather than simply testing memorization skills. Is that correct?
If I'm correct, we have the same problems here in the US with our national education standards, where they tend to dumb down course content and class structure to the lowest common student level rather than rise up both course content and class structure to challenge and teach the gifted students.
"State schools for smart kids" are sold on the premise that poor kids can do as well if they are bright enough to get in.
The reality is that middle-class kids are tutored to pass the entrance exams leaving only single figure percentages of poorer kids getting access to the "higher level" education.
The Chief Inspector of Schools is not a fan either.
[FONT="]" ...“If grammar schools are the great answer, why aren’t there more of them in London?” he said. “If they are such a good thing for poor children, then why are poor children here in the capital doing so much better than their counterparts in those parts of the country that operate selection?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]“I appreciate that many grammar schools do a fine job in equipping their students with an excellent education. But we all know that their record of admitting children from non-middle-class backgrounds is pretty woeful. The notion that the poor stand to benefit from the return of grammar schools strikes me as quite palpable tosh and nonsense – and is very clearly refuted by the London experience.” ..."[/FONT]
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...-theresa-may-poorer-children?CMP=share_btn_tw
Most of the pupils in my grammar school were from working class backgrounds. We weren't that posh in the Welsh valleys. The grammar school meant that I didn't end up working in a coalmine.
For our transatlantic cousins.
Grammar schools: What are they and why are they controversial? - BBC News
Not really. What we are discussing here is the revelation that the government is planning to reintroduce a selective form of public education across the country. So far they haven't set out their detailed plans.
A lot of the discussion here has been either very generalised on the issue of selectivity, or about the way that the system used to work when British public education was wholly based on selectivity. That system changed in the early-70s.
We don't yet know whether what they are going to propose will bear a bit, much or a great deal of resemblance to the old system. Nor do we know whether this proposed selectivity will be based on one kind of testing or another, nor whether or not quotas or exceptions to promote social mobility will be a part of it.
I hope that explains things a bit better.
~ The Chief Inspector of Schools is not a fan either.Sir Michael Wilshaw said:" ...“If grammar schools are the great answer, why aren’t there more of them in London?” he said. “If they are such a good thing for poor children, then why are poor children here in the capital doing so much better than their counterparts in those parts of the country that operate selection?
~Sir Michael Wilshaw said:"“I appreciate that many grammar schools do a fine job in equipping their students with an excellent education. But we all know that their record of admitting children from non-middle-class backgrounds is pretty woeful. The notion that the poor stand to benefit from the return of grammar schools strikes me as quite palpable tosh and nonsense – and is very clearly refuted by the London experience.” ..."
The report shows that in nine of the 31 chains disadvantaged students in sponsored academies outperformed the average for those in mainstream schools in 2013. Of these, the best performers based on the proportion of disadvantaged pupils gaining five good GCSEs or equivalent are:
•The Harris Federation – which now has 27 academies and free schools mainly in South London
•The City of London Corporation – with three academies around the capital
•Barnfield Education Partnership – a Luton-based chain linked to a further education college
•Mercers’ Company – a City-based livery company which has three academies, two of which are also linked to the successful Thomas Telford City Technology College in the West Midlands
•ARK Schools – a chain that now has 27 academies in London, the South East, and Birmingham.
One of England’s largest and most successful academy chains is seeing hundreds of teachers leave its schools each year, to be replaced by new staff, Education Guardian can reveal.
~ Harris’s ‘close to the mark’ admissions policies as well. ALL children are tested and allocated to one of 9 ability bands. The school then apparently admits children in proportion. What they don’t tell you is the fact that they
i) select the top of each ability band, rather than a random sample
ii) if a child is otherwise admitted outside the above policy, they then take children from the top of the bands.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?