Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Santo]

This is a joke right ? I`d have thought few was about 3, but we`ll call it 5 for the purposes of this exercise.

 

On foot, 3mph, you`d get about a quarter of a mile. The great majority of kids live more than a quarter of a mile from their nearest school, never mind their nearest Grammar or Secondary Modern (if they ever split up).

 

By car. I was in a Q this morning from Stockarth Lane to Leppings lane lights, I did less than one mile in about 10 minutes. And this WILL get worse if all schools are split up into Grammars and Secondary Moderns because, by definition, many kids will not be going to their nearest school,

 

By bus, not as many kids would get the bus these days compared with the 70s, not that that matters, the bus would be stuck in the same Q. Plus the child would have to walk to the bus stop anyway.

 

 

 

Because you`re limiting children`s options from a ridiculously early age and branding 75% of them failures. Furthermore different kids are better at different things, they might be in a higher stream for, say, maths, and a lower stream for, say English. So, I`d turn the question around, if the Comps are streamed, half the point of Grammar schools goes out of the window, particularly as they can be streamed by subject, not by school (for all subjects).

 

It's you that insists on branding those that don't get in to grammars 'failures!'

 

When I was at school half a life time ago all the kids that were in the top set for maths were in the top sets for the other subjects too. I don't know of a student that was bottom for one and top for another. It didn't happen. It's not impossible but I couldn't give you an example from my peers.

[unbeliever]

It's you that insists on branding those that don't get in to grammars 'failures!'

 

When I was at school half a life time ago all the kids that were in the top set for maths were in the top sets for the other subjects too. I don't know of a student that was bottom for one and top for another. It didn't happen. It's not impossible but I couldn't give you an example from my peers.

 

I agree it's wrong to class everybody below the top 25% failures. I don't know where this idea comes from. Isn't it an argument against testing/assessing kids at all?

 

As for the odd sets thing, it must happen. But it's rare. The subjects at school are not the same as the skills. There's a lot of overlap in skills between the subjects, so if you've acquired the skills to excel at a few subjects you'll have a job to do badly in the others.

 

Still I must concede to Justin that there's merit in the point. Moving the top set kids too another school causes a problem for those kids, who do exist, who belong in the top set for some subjects but not for others.

[L00b]

So, I`d turn the question around, if the Comps are streamed, half the point of Grammar schools goes out of the window, particularly as they can be streamed by subject, not by school (for all subjects).

It would a bit nonsensical to do that, on two points:

 

(i) firstly, and logically, if you take out a top set out of any given environment, the 2nd tier automatically becomes the 'replacement' top set, there's no associated sense of failure unless you want to make it so or view it so;

 

(ii) secondly, given any specific school, not all "top set kids" make it to a grammar, for a wide variety of reasons (...having known a few, all of whom came out of state school, I daresay they're the exception rather than the norm: 1 or 2 per state school), leaving a non-trivial amount of such "top set kids" to continue as 'normal top set' in state secondary.

 

The whole debate around these recent policy noises, looks to me far too heavily influenced by illogical class envy so far.

 

Beyond that, it's not wrong to stream, sieve and push bright kids early. It's just helping life along.

[Staunton]

I should acknowledge that we do know from comments made by staff at outstanding selective state schools that scathing management techniques can become a real issue. This phenomenon has led to teachers' wellbeing becoming casualty to the flawed logic of target-led competition in some outstanding state institutions This factor could similarly become problematic across new grammars. So, we should, as unbeliever suggests, recognise the reasonable capacities and limits of all teachers and ensure that this aspect becomes a central consideration. We should seek to establish the principle that all teachers shall be protected from unreasonable expectations!

[unbeliever]

I should acknowledge that we do know from comments made by staff at outstanding selective state schools that scathing management techniques can become a real issue. This phenomenon has led to teachers' wellbeing becoming casualty to the flawed logic of target-led competition in some outstanding state institutions This factor could similarly become problematic across new grammars. So, we should, as unbeliever suggests, recognise the reasonable capacities and limits of all teachers and ensure that this aspect becomes a central consideration. We should seek to establish the principle that all teachers shall be protected from unreasonable expectations!

 

That sounds extremely dangerous. There is rightly pressure on teachers to maximise the quality of the job they do for our kids. Part of the reason we're in this mess right now with education is that some big decisions have been made more for the benefit of teachers than the kids.

 

Will you please stop implying that I agree with you when I've stated the reverse. I realise that you're implying and not stating, for the most part, but it's very bad form a probably falls foul of the rules.

[syne]

What big decisions would they be?

 

Regarding teaching of top set vs lower, each has its difficulties, poor behaviour in lower sets makes teaching akin to war, obviously the higher sets have more difficult lessons but this is all level 2 stuff and the majority of subject teachers will find top sets a cakewalk.

 

We used to go in bottom set maths just for a laugh as it was pure mayhem. There's no way in the world our set was harder to teach.

 

And as for demand for grammars in Sheffield, it would be very high I'd imagine.

[unbeliever]

What big decisions would they be?

 

The introduction of the comprehensive system for a start.

 

Regarding teaching of top set vs lower, each has its difficulties, poor behaviour in lower sets makes teaching akin to war, obviously the higher sets have more difficult lessons but this is all level 2 stuff and the majority of subject teachers will find top sets a cakewalk.

 

We used to go in bottom set maths just for a laugh as it was pure mayhem. There's no way in the world our set was harder to teach.

 

Right you think teachers should be paid according to how easy their classes are to discipline. It's certainly an idea.

 

 

The purpose of our education system is to educate our kids to be as useful as possible in the workforce. It is not to make them feel good about themselves although it's important that they not be emotionally damaged. It is most certainly, and most emphatically, not to provide teachers with the working environment and conditions which they think will make them happy.

 

Both my parents are retired state school teachers by the way. So I'm very familiar with this debate.

As much as I would like teachers to be happy and feel appreciated in their work, it is a distant second in terms of priority from doing right by the kids.

Edited September 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[sgtkate]

It's you that insists on branding those that don't get in to grammars 'failures!'

 

When I was at school half a life time ago all the kids that were in the top set for maths were in the top sets for the other subjects too. I don't know of a student that was bottom for one and top for another. It didn't happen. It's not impossible but I couldn't give you an example from my peers.

 

Exactly the point I was making on the last page where I said we need society to stop treating vocation roles as somehow lesser than academic ones.

[unbeliever]

Exactly the point I was making on the last page where I said we need society to stop treating vocation roles as somehow lesser than academic ones.

 

I don't think we can avoid that completely. We need as many kids trained to a high standard in STEM as possible or we're a bit screwed as a nation.

The kids do need to understand that there's a difference between not being the best at school and being some kind of "failure". They can and should, still make a very positive contribution and have a good a rewarding lie. The key to that is to find something useful they're good at and get very good at it.

[tinfoilhat]

Exactly the point I was making on the last page where I said we need society to stop treating vocation roles as somehow lesser than academic ones.

 

Its amazing how many people share that view - but nothing happens. I think a lot of parents aren't concerned because they KNOW tarquin will go on to be a doctor or a lawyer.

 

Good to see you back sgt.

 

As you were.