Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Staunton]

If grammar schools bestow no advantage then what is the point of promoting such a system and subjecting teachers and pupils to yet more change and upheaval?

[Santo]

If grammar schools bestow no advantage then what is the point of promoting such a system and subjecting teachers and pupils to yet more change and upheaval?

 

None. Not everyone claims they 'bestow no advantage' though evidently.

[unbeliever]

If grammar schools bestow no advantage then what is the point of promoting such a system and subjecting teachers and pupils to yet more change and upheaval?

 

Nobody said that.

You're trying to get us to say something specific because you have a post in mind attacking that specific thing.

Just make your point will you.

[Staunton]

Errrrr yes.

 

I outlined my assumption that those who welcome expansion of a selective system see some advantage to those children who gain entry to a grammar school.

 

'Errrrr yes' says Santo.

 

So, this must imply some lack of advantage to the majority of children not admitted to a grammar school.

[Justin Smith]

I think this has been covered, but sure.

Teach each child according to their gifts. Don't pretend that all children have the same faculty for all learning. If this is facilitated by placing the more academically inclined children into different schools so that the schools can specialise and tailor themselves to their pupils what's the problem?

 

The problem is kids are branded a failure and their life path is largely decided at 11 (eleven for Gawd`s sake). I`m prepared to accept that those who go to Grammar school may well do slightly better academically, though there are other arguments about a rounded education meeting and interacting with different classes and such. But those who go to Secondary Moderns (the majority) will do significantly worse. So that`s not a bargain I wish to make.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 11:24 ----------

 

The point I'm making is written in the post.

 

I didn't comment on your brother because well, so what? Boy that didn't go to grammar school got a degree. Come to one of our Xmas family gatherings. I'll point out a couple in my family that did the same. And if you think sending a child to a school with peers of equal ability is unnecessarily damaging then too bad. I don't think it is. I've never said anything about sidelining them have I? That's your own opinion of what it equates to. I disagree.

 

I haven't fallen for any double speak either.

 

Anyone who tries to say you can have Grammar schools without Secondary Moderns has fallen for political double speak and is not being logical into the bargain.

 

What`s also interesting is this :

I didn't comment on your brother because well, so what?

 

 

The implication that you`re not thinking about this on a personal level of all those kids that are negatively affected by this. Please correct me if I`ve got the wrong end of the stick but that`s the clear implication of what you`ve said.

[unbeliever]

The problem is kids are branded a failure and their life path is largely decided at 11 (eleven for Gawd`s sake). I`m prepared to accept that those who go to Grammar school may well do slightly better academically, though there are other arguments about a rounded education meeting and interacting with different classes and such. But those who go to Secondary Moderns (the majority) will do significantly worse. So that`s not a bargain I wish to make.

 

I disagree. They're not branded a failure. They're identified as not amongst the most academic. If that judgement turns out to be wrong, then it can be corrected later.

It does the less academically gifted no favours to pretend that they have faculties they don't and wastefully attempt to teach them things that are beyond them. Instead they should be taught other things, to which their gifts are more suited, and be taught academic subjects at a slower pace which they can handle; lest they end up leaving school having learned little to nothing.

[syne]

What do you mean by advantage?

 

There are advantages to all aspects and a certain disadvantage also.

It's obvious that teaching a cohort of educationally able children is going to be easier than a larger mix of abilities, the progression can be swifter and further.

Having a lower ability group could allow the teacher more time to concentrate due to a more narrow range, thus reaching a larger number of the overall class ability range.

Less of a range of ability allows for quicker identification of struggling pupils.

There are many dis advantage/advantage arguments

Denying that the 'weakest link' holds back the most able is just as bad as saying grammar schools offer advantage over the rest, Both statements are broadly true.

 

In a lot of cases children are artificially stunted in their progression due to others inability and a lack of numbers on a teachers side. This is what needs rectification.

I do think if your going to have a 11+ there should be a 11- and also an 11average

But that won't happen because that's the other unacknowledged and unpalatable side of the grammar coin; how to deal with the chaff but maintain the moral facade.

[unbeliever]

Under the old system, those not passing the 11+ did not do O-levels and therefore could not attempt A-levels.

I don't think there is any hint of returning to that. All schools will offers GCSEs and all children doing well enough in those GCSEs will be able to take on A-levels.

This is surely a big difference.

[Staunton]

It is essential to notice just how evasive the promoters of privilege and advantage become when challenged to consider those left behind by their preferred policies.

[syne]

Left behind is as bad as held back.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 11:37 ----------

 

If you don't agree with that you've got a blind spot that amounts to hypocrisy.