• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grammar school plans 'not a return to past'

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,551
Reaction score
2,879
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"The government will take a "pragmatic" look at new grammar schools but will not be "going back to the past", the education secretary has told MPs.
Justine Greening said she wanted to offer parents choice but children would not be split into "winners and losers".
She was answering an urgent question after a document proposing new grammars was photographed outside No 10.
Labour said the government was showing a "dangerous misunderstanding" of issues facing schools in England."

Grammar school plans 'not a return to past' - BBC News

I fully agree with the government on this issue. Personally, I had one child who attended a grammar school (who did very well) and one child that attended a comprehensive (who did very well, and has just started A Levels). The difference, for my two children was at 11 one was not ready, but blossomed a few years later. I see no harm in saying some kids are academic and they do better in an environment, with kids of similar ability :) I do not agree with the suggestion that: 'some parents buy their place, by professional tutoring', and only middle class parents can afford this. Bollocks, a couple hours a week is not beyond most people and their are children who can achieve without tutoring.
 
a couple hours a week is not beyond most people and their are children who can achieve without tutoring.

You're right. A couple of hours of grammar and spelling practice will benefit anyone.

Your argument is wrong on several levels however.

Even 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.
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?'
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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. It shows an admission policy that is above financial wealth, sorry to burst your outdated preconceptions.
 
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?'

Why is a return to the past bad? The primary purpose of education should be to better educate the students. 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.
 
Why is a return to the past bad?
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.

The primary purpose of education should be to better educate the students.
Yes, and that means all students, not just those who can shine at 11 years old.

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.
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.
 
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.

I don't know where you're getting that quote from, but it wasn't from me. That's not a fair description of selective schools but recognising that does not mean that selectivity is the solution to improving educational achievement. As we all know, the radical improvement in educational standards that London has achieved in recent years has had nothing to do with reintroducing selectivity, since that hasn't happened.
 
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 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.
 
~ 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.

This I can agree with.

On the subject of grammar schools though and the very successful London Challenge you discuss later - the London Challenge was a political policy, as such could be killed off by any new administration which was what happened. Grammar schools in the public sector are also a political entity but less likely to see funding expand or drop radically. They are also a function of public demand and parents do want them.

The London Challenge was brilliant but it stopped, the shame is other parents are not demanding their own challenge. Parents work hard with their kids to get them into Grammar schools and this includes the free school category. At the end of the day, it makes no difference whether a kid is in comprehensive / private or grammar - if the child won't work and the parents don't care then that kid won't succeed.

I am not a fan of the idea of lowering all other schools down to a standard comprehensive just for political ideology. The question for me is at which school are parents more likely to be engaged and supporting their kids? By nature, you would expect (and please don't ask for empirical evidence!) that parents who work to get their kids into a grammar school are going to be more engaged on the whole with their kids than those who go to the local comprehensive.
 
Excellent report on the subject on Newsnight. The poster-boy county for selectivity is Kent who never got rid of the 11-plus. Statistically, not only has Kent underperformed against the rest of the country, but it also showed a much greater inequality of achievement between kids from poorer and richer backgrounds than the rest of the country shows.

There's a Tory MP is being interviewed and he's clearly not that enamoured of this Green Paper. He won't be pinned down on committing to supporting these plans. Now, the Tories have a Commons majority of 15, so 7 more Tories objecting to it may kill it.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
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.
 
"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=&quot]" ...“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]
[FONT=&quot]“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
 
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.

That is correct. The 11 plus exam tested thinking skills.
 
"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.
 
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.

Not many middle-class folk in the valleys to compete for places back when mining was the main employment opportunity. nowadays the trend is more obvious.

CpPxtVdWgAE_T1G.jpg:large
 

THANX!
that was was essential to understanding the thread topic

don't the germans do a similar evaluation of students at the conclusion of elementary schhol to identify which kids will be on the basic ed track, versus the skilled trades track and the college prep track?

and then the japanese have the notorious test at the conclusion of high school to determine who gets into the best universities ... the exam that causes students to commit suicide every year out of anxiety and/or a sense of failure/dishonor

US schools have gotten away from ability grouping the students and our ed system outcomes reflect that change
 
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.

Grammar schools: PM seeks to ensure places for poorer pupils - Grammar schools: PM seeks to ensure places for poorer pupils - BBC News
 
~ 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?

London Challenge. It wasn't the secondary schools so much being comprehensives as a huge drive to improve primary education. As to why aren't there more - nobody has been allowed to build or open new grammar schools since 1970 or so.

~
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.” ..."

Some of those London Academies already run selective policies and entrance exams to get in.

More important question to Michael Wilshaw - why hasn't he used every ounce of his strength and all means of Ofsted's powers of persuasion to push for the London Challenge to be rolled out across the country?

I've been a huge fan of what I hear of the London Challenge and we have over 10 years experience and statistics to prove that London really is doing something well but that good practice is not being rolled out, neither by Labour nor by the Conservatives and none of them have ever talked about pushing it out.

Anyhow, here's an interesting new development

UTC South Durham

State funded but sponsored by "University of Durham," "Hitachi" and "Gestamp Tallent" - it will draw in students from an impoverished area to develop skilled apprentices and workers with technical vocational qualifications.

You can bet your left leg that local parents who care about their kids education will do everything they can to get their kids into this new college. This will include coaching, extra tuition etc. This type of place has been in practice since the first one was opened in 2011. The only people complaining about them are teaching unions and competitor further education colleges who fear they will lose funding and students to UTCs. Instead of selection at 11, selection at 14 happens in UTC.
 
OK - here's something worrying. Starts out brilliant

Sutton Trust - Best academy chains outperform mainstream average for poorer pupils, but weakest ones fall behind – new Sutton Trust research

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.

Dig a little deeper into the London Acaemies in chains doing really well and: Looking at one of the biggest and most successful chains in the London success story

Anti Academies Alliance | Harris Federation ? Spotlight on Sponsors

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.

Some suspect near 100% turnover of staff - bright young new teachers getting burnt out. Extreme inspection techniques

~ 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.

The focus of complaint is on grammar schools as this has been an argument since the 70's. What is slipping under the radar is that state funded comprehensives MAY be raising their standards through brutal working practice.
 
Back
Top Bottom