Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[El Cid]

When the comprehensive system was introduced there was to be no streaming, as it makes no sense at all to abolish grammar schools and implement streaming as they're all part of the same idea.

 

The principle is the same, and it works.

 

But stopping children from going to their local school is wrong.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2016 at 10:59 ----------

 

Of course we don't talk about it now, but the real reason for taking all the grammars and secondary moderns and rebadging them as "comprehensives" was that it meant that all the secondary modern teachers in the NUT were suddenly entitled to the same pay and conditions as their grammar colleagues in the NAS.

 

Poorly performing Academies still have the same problem, how to recruit the best teachers.

How many teachers want to work in a school were many teachers have been assaulted or even killed.

[unbeliever]

The principle is the same, and it works.

 

But stopping children from going to their local school is wrong.

 

Most children live within minutes of multiple schools. Why can't different streams go to different schools?

[Staunton]

 

So the only real questions that remains are these: Does taking the top streams/sets from the current comprehensives and placing them in a different school help those kids? If so is it helpful or neutral to the kids in the lower streams/sets. If the answer to these questions is yes, then what else is there to talk about?

 

If so, is it helpful, neutral, or disadvantageous...

[Obelix]

Most children live within minutes of multiple schools. Why can't different streams go to different schools?

 

Because that's nasty and divisive Right Wing thinking and just Not On.

 

As you say though, I've never figured out why the far Left think that way.

[Staunton]

Of course we don't talk about it now, but the real reason for taking all the grammars and secondary moderns and rebadging them as "comprehensives" was that it meant that all the secondary modern teachers in the NUT were suddenly entitled to the same pay and conditions as their grammar colleagues in the NAS. So it removed the 2-tiers from the teaching profession at the expense of messing around with kids education for daft idealogical reasons long since discredited.

 

I would suggest that in a 2 tier educational system such as that represented by the expansion of the grammar school, grammar school teachers should be paid less than mainstream teachers since they would be teaching to a narrow ability cohort, whilst their mainstream colleagues would have an even more concentrated range of challenges to contend with.

[unbeliever]

If so, is it helpful, neutral, or disadvantageous...

 

I don't know for certain. I was hoping that this debate would help me determine as people would post studies, links and reason.

 

Mostly though we seem to be talking about other things and using grammar schools as a proxy for a wider political debate.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2016 at 11:29 ----------

 

I would suggest that in a 2 tier educational system such as that represented by the expansion of the grammar school, grammar school teachers should be paid less than mainstream teachers since they would be teaching to a narrow ability cohort, whilst their mainstream colleagues would have an even more concentrated range of challenges to contend with.

 

I suggest you put that idea back in the cereal box in which you found it.

Teachers have to have knowledge and understanding comfortably in excess of what they're teaching. Those teaching higher streams or at grammars need to be better at the teaching subject than those teaching at a lower level.

Before this idea turns around to bite you in the proverbial, let us agree that the best thing would be to keep grammar school teachers on the same pay and conditions as their comprehensive fellows. No?

 

Oh and don't think that I missed your twisting of 2-tier teachers' in the teaching profession into 2-tiers in the educational system by the way.

Edited September 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[Staunton]

I don't know for certain. I was hoping that this debate would help me determine as people would post studies, links and reason.

 

Mostly though we seem to be talking about other things and using grammar schools as a proxy for a wider political debate.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2016 at 11:29 ----------

 

 

I suggest you put that idea back in the cereal box in which you found it.

Teachers have to have knowledge and understanding comfortably in excess of what they're teaching. Those teaching higher streams or at grammars need to be better at the teaching subject than those teaching at a lower level.

Before this idea turns around to bite you in the proverbial, let us agree that the best thing would be to keep grammar school teachers on the same pay and conditions as their comprehensive fellows. No?

 

Oh and don't think that I missed your twisting of 2-tier teachers' in the teaching profession into 2-tiers in the educational system by the way.

 

Any idea that focuses on justice rather than dogma is bound to provoke howls of derision form those who champion privilege and advantage.

 

Notice how teachers in mainstream circumstances are subtly denigrated as somehow less capable in unbeliever's analysis. I wonder if there are any educationalists on sheffieldforum who might care to consider this question?

[tinfoilhat]

Any idea that focuses on justice rather than dogma is bound to provoke howls of derision form those who champion privilege and advantage.

 

Notice how teachers in mainstream circumstances are subtly denigrated as somehow less capable in unbeliever's analysis. I wonder if there are any educationalists on sheffieldforum who might care to consider this question?

 

Are you suggesting all teachers are good? Mine weren't.

[Obelix]

Notice how teachers in mainstream circumstances are subtly denigrated as somehow less capable in unbeliever's analysis.

 

Where does he do that? You might wish that to be the case but I'm afraid I don't see that in the slightest.

[unbeliever]

Any idea that focuses on justice rather than dogma is bound to provoke howls of derision form those who champion privilege and advantage.

 

Notice how teachers in mainstream circumstances are subtly denigrated as somehow less capable in unbeliever's analysis. I wonder if there are any educationalists on sheffieldforum who might care to consider this question?

 

 

I'm sorry if anything I've stated is taken as insulting, but reality must not be a slave to courtesy.

It is a simple reality that a more advanced level on knowledge is required to teach a more advanced class. There's no way around that.

 

It's likely that many teachers can take on the lower streams early in their careers and then as their experience and knowledge advances they become suited to the more advanced classes. Under your scheme that would mean that teachers would be paid more in the early part of their careers, before they have the benefit of years of experience, than later on. Does that make sense to you?