unbeliever Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 To gain a place in a Grammer School you had to pass a test made up of four different disciplines. Reasoning-Verbal, Non-Verbal Reasoning, Maths and English. So you might have been very well suited to ultimately 3 science/maths a-levels but have poor language skills and end up doing a CSE in woodwork instead? I still think I prefer sets. If that means having bigger schools and longer travel times for the kids, that's probably the lesser evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 So you might have been very well suited to ultimately 3 science/maths a-levels but have poor language skills and end up doing a CSE in woodwork instead? I still think I prefer sets. If that means having bigger schools and longer travel times for the kids, that's probably the lesser evil. The problem with sets is the "Mixed Ability" groups in the middle. These started off being only a small part of the sets system but when I was at school, we had 6 sets for maths and set 5-2 was mixed ability, with those needing a lot of help in the bottom set while those in set one were pushed. The rest of us in the middle sets were left to cruise along to a C grade in our GCSE's. This was the highest grade we could get at the intermediate exam level. What this meant was, if you did well, you got a C and could go on to study Maths A level. However as soon as you stepped into the A level class you realised you did not have the foundation of knowledge to follow the course. Quadratic equations being the most obvious omission from those who didn't study the higher level exam. This left a number of students at a real disadvantage. Students who could have excelled at the subject but were held back because they had to learn what others had learnt years previous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 A single test administered to 10 year old children (as most were at the test date) is no way to plan a child's entire life, education and future career. To say to a 10 year old you'll never be good enough to be a doctor or an engineer seems madness. We have some rose tinted view of Grammar schools. Remember the vast majority of children didn't actually go to them. I was 1 of just 4 from my whole cohort in junior school who were sufficiently developed at 10 years old to get through that test one day in November 1974. I had no concept of the enormity of that day till my mum cried on the day she heard Id passed as I was the first boy on my side of the family to achieve it. My good mates, many of whom I thought were just as academically able as myself all felt they had been put on the scrap heap, and treated their secondary education in that way. The idea that Grammar schools were a better education is flawed. I saw bullying, kids who clearly weren't able enough to do "O" Levels, let alone "A" levels, disruptive children in classes and anything else you would see at a secondary modern. I have a close friend who also failed that test when he was 11 (October birthday). Luckily he just about hung on at the secondary modern to get some “O” levels. He took himself to 6 Form College, got 3 science A levels al straight As, a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Nottingham and is now a lead Engineer for CISCO in Canada. A perfect example of how the selection system fails children and ultimately fails us all. As for a modern comprehensive, I think the fact that King Teds got 9 kids into Oxbridge this summer says a lot about their standards. Except that the selection criteria for King Teds are simply based on ability of parents, at age 4, to pay for a house in the catchment are of a feeder school. It hardly a shining example of a 'means blind' education system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I have a close friend who also failed that test when he was 11 (October birthday). Luckily he just about hung on at the secondary modern to get some “O” levels. He took himself to 6 Form College, got 3 science A levels al straight As, a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Nottingham and is now a lead Engineer for CISCO in Canada. A perfect example of how the selection system fails children and ultimately fails us all. How is it a perfect example of the system failing children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bloke Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I think that they can be divisive, and I disagree with state schools selecting their pupils. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34535778 Do you also have an issue with faith schools that are Academies too? Same principle applies; a school run on DfE cash that is allowed to apply rules to who can be a pupil. They also top league tables, much like grammar schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 Do you also have an issue with faith schools that are Academies too? Same principle applies; a school run on DfE cash that is allowed to apply rules to who can be a pupil. They also top league tables, much like grammar schools. Yes, I have the same issue. Most schools that "top league tables" do so because brighter children go to those schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Most schools that "top league tables" do so because brighter children go to those schools. And why do some schools come bottom of the league tables ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 We send our top young athletes, footballers etc to centres of excellence so that they can achieve their potential. Do you think they'd do better training with mixed ability groups? Why do Labour hate success? Why must they lower everything to the lowest common denominator? Look at how many Labour politicians send their kids to fee-paying schools. There really isn't argument against Grammar schools. Social mobility was highest when they were prevalent and has plummetted since they were abolished. Why should kids who want to learn and get on in life be prevented from doing this in the name of "inclusion" and "diversity"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 15, 2015 Author Share Posted October 15, 2015 We send our top young athletes, footballers etc to centres of excellence so that they can achieve their potential. Do you think they'd do better training with mixed ability groups? Why do Labour hate success? Why must they lower everything to the lowest common denominator? Look at how many Labour politicians send their kids to fee-paying schools. There really isn't argument against Grammar schools. Social mobility was highest when they were prevalent and has plummetted since they were abolished. Why should kids who want to learn and get on in life be prevented from doing this in the name of "inclusion" and "diversity"? You can argue your point using useless football analogies, but facts are better. Kent has the largest number of Grammar schools in England. Kent also has the highest number of National Challenge schools in England: schools which are branded "failing" based on the British Government's floor targets that 30% of pupils achieve at least 5 GCSE grades A* to C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 How many of the "National Challenge" schools are Grammar schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now