Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Staunton]

I have many friends who are teachers, from what they say, it seems is that parental involvement and behaviour are the primary problems in failing schools.

 

I would agree with biotechpete's teaching friends that the home environment is usually the primary factor in a child's inability to engage meaningfully with education. However, this cannot be the child's fault. What is required for such children is intervention in order to improve their home circumstances, along with appropriate, externally funded support in school to aid their engagement.

[Justin Smith]

My red:

 

That probably happened all the time. The law of averages. Not everyone is intelligent.

 

Life's a bitch. Now unless his parents show him any less love why would his self confidence be damaged? After all he will be at a school where everyone else failed the 11 plus no? He's not a freak or unusual and he is probably very aware that his brother and sister are 'cleverer' than he is. Kids aren't stupid!

 

Sorry not sure what point you`re making here. Are you saying it`s fine to unnecessarily damage a kids self esteem to teach him a lesson about life ? And then sideline him into the probability of low academic attainment ? You have not commented on the rest of my post where I mentioned my brother worked hard and eventually got a degree. I`m not saying that wouldn`t be possible at a Secondary Modern, but you and I know it`d be even harder, and therefore less likely.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 09:36 ----------

 

That's why it doesn't say non-selective grammar school. It says non-selective school.

 

'Every new grammar school will be required to establish a "new, high quality non-selective school". They will be required to sponsor an under-performing academy school.'

 

That`s political double speak, I`m surprised you`ve fallen for it.

I have to say my opinion of politicians, never high I must admit, has fallen to all time low. The Referendum campaign was bad enough, but this Grammar policy is just sending it into the stratosphere. Rather worryingly my opinion of the electorate is also plumbing new depths, they believe what they want to believe and think a quick fix is going to work for the country and them. As regards Grammar schools, the fact any majority of parents who are in favour of Grammar schools* shows mainly that they lack brainpower. Maybe we should bring back Grammar schools ! Only joking of course.

 

* Bearing in mind most of their kids won`t even got to a Grammar school, they`ll get fobbed off with a Secondary Modern or what ever the double speak lying low life politicians insist on calling them.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 09:42 ----------

 

That is what the proposals say yes - a new grammar school will have to take a proportion of disadvantaged pupils, establish a "high quality, non-selective free school", and set up or sponsor a primary feeder school in a deprived area or sponsor an underperforming academy.

 

A non selective free school that takes pupils that don`t get into Grammar school. Isn`t that, what was, a Secondary Modern ?

What I really don`t understand about all this is how come so many people aren`t seeing the absolute obvious. There are only two explanations :

 

1- They`re only seeing what they want to see. Rather like all these parents who say they`re in favour of Grammar schools confidently expecting their little treasure to be clever enough to pass the 11+ (when most kids won`t pass it).

 

2 - They`re thick, though I`m assuming this isn`t the case with our esteemed SF contributors, thus it must be the first.

[syne]

I get your point and broadly agree. However we've had our fingers burnt in the past by trying to be progressive which naturally makes for caution. But how do you know which new method is good? Proof in the eating and all that.

I know one school that has entirely switched its maths teaching to a method developed in Asia. Phonics came Partially from Oz and uk which is now going to be switched to a uk developed scheme.

The point being at which point do you jump on the bandwagon? For a school it's a gamble or a loose loose situation.

[WestTinsley]

That's a small minded view. And a wrong one.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 01:02 ----------

 

 

Funnily enough...

Well it is a Fact. Not an opinion.

[unbeliever]

I get your point and broadly agree. However we've had our fingers burnt in the past by trying to be progressive which naturally makes for caution. But how do you know which new method is good? Proof in the eating and all that.

I know one school that has entirely switched its maths teaching to a method developed in Asia. Phonics came Partially from Oz and uk which is now going to be switched to a uk developed scheme.

The point being at which point do you jump on the bandwagon? For a school it's a gamble or a loose loose situation.

 

Evidence based change has a far higher probability of improving things than ideology based. It's not perfect, but it's all there is.

Since at least the '70s UK teaching has been subject to ideology based change. That has to end.

[syne]

I would agree with biotechpete's teaching friends that the home environment is usually the primary factor in a child's inability to engage meaningfully with education. However, this cannot be the child's fault. What is required for such children is intervention in order to improve their home circumstances, along with appropriate, externally funded support in school to aid their engagement.

 

Intervention by whom? Improve home circumstances how, externally funded from where? aid engagement how?

 

 

On another thread ages ago Anne said,

If the governments had not tried messing with the education system so much and just focused on lowering class sizes we'd have a class size of 12 by now.

 

That should be the aim rather than top slicing for ability

[Staunton]

Evidence based change has a far higher probability of improving things than ideology based. It's not perfect, but it's all there is.

Since at least the '70s UK teaching has been subject to ideology based change. That has to end.

 

I fully agree with unbeliever's statement. Sadly, as I posted earlier, we know that the prime minister is dismissive of evidence.

 

Every child should matter.

 

And

 

So should every teacher.

 

I hope that the government's divisive proposal for more grammar schools is defeated!

[I1L2T3]

Evidence based change has a far higher probability of improving things than ideology based. It's not perfect, but it's all there is.

Since at least the '70s UK teaching has been subject to ideology based change. That has to end.

 

A grammar system is ideology writ large.

[unbeliever]

I fully agree with unbeliever's statement. Sadly, as I posted earlier, we know that the prime minister is dismissive of evidence.

 

Every child should matter.

 

And

 

So should every teacher.

 

I hope that the government's divisive proposal for more grammar schools is defeated!

 

It's very important to prioritise children over teachers. Teachers must teach using the methods and material which is best for children, not what they would like to. There will sometimes be conflicts and we can't take all of our guidance from teachers and their unions on the matter.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 10:14 ----------

 

A grammar system is ideology writ large.

 

Is it? This is the system we had in place before the teaching ideology war set in within UK politics. It advances the cause of academic rigour, which is a step toward the Chinese model.

[Staunton]

It is interesting that those who champion privilege in any shape or form, and who oppose equality, so often argue that their stance is somehow ideology-neutral, whilst those they oppose are being 'political' or motivated by ideological considerations.