Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Santo]

Schools select via the 11 plus. What will happen is that middle-class parents will pay for private tuition for little Tarquin and Esmerelda so that they can spew out the correct answers. There was a news item on the BBC the other day showing that is exactly what happens in Trafford. Middle-class parents will do what they can to buy a grammar school education for their kids just as upper class people buy public school education for their children. It has nothing to do with ability but with programming kids.

 

A lot of primary schools have after school clubs now. Why couldn't they incorporate 11+ type study into such a club? Or a lunch time club? That would be free. That would balance out all the middle class kids and their tutors.

 

I knew a lad at college with a conditional offer from Sheffield. He needed a B at A Level maths to meet it and he was struggling. His parents, who were far from rich (live on the Cross, he received full EMA), got him a Tutor to help. He got his B and got into Sheffield. Is that fair? What about other students in the exact same situation who couldn't stretch to a tutor?

[Robin-H]

I don't understand. If there is no streaming in junior schools then I would not support Junior Grammars. So there's nothing on that matter to discuss.

 

I'm on the fence regarding the grammar school debate as I can see both sides of the argument, but I think it's true to say that streaming in junior schools only really went away when grammar schools were largely abolished.

 

A survey of junior schools in the mid-1960s (Jackson, 1964) found that 96% of teachers taught to streamed ability groups. Today I don't believe there is streaming in junior schools (my primary did put on a separate lesson once a week for the more able students, but that was it).

 

I'm not sure if a return to grammars would mean a return to junior school streaming, but they did seem to be previously correlated.

[El Cid]

That's your prerogative but they're statements about my thoughts, so it's not clear why you think you know them better than me.

 

I have no problems with selection in 16+ education, you seem to want to keep your thoughts to yourself.

[unbeliever]

I have no problems with selection in 16+ education, you seem to want to keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

I've never been accused of that before.

Do you have a question which is not loaded with a premise that I'm likely to object to?

[El Cid]

I've never been accused of that before.

Do you have a question which is not loaded with a premise that I'm likely to object to?

 

You support Grammar schools, what ever system we have now, but you do

 

not support Junior Grammars

.

 

Is that correct? Why?

[unbeliever]

You support Grammar schools, what ever system we have now, but you do

 

.

 

Is that correct? Why?

 

Because there is a clear consensus as far as I can tell across politics and the educational establishment that junior school kids are too young to benefit from streaming.

It may be that they tend to be taught in a different way such that it is easier to cater to varying ability within a single class. That would be consistent with my understanding of standard teaching methods.

 

One has to draw a line at some age. At what age do you advocate starting streaming? Would you also start secondary-style teaching at that age?

[Robin-H]

Because there is a clear consensus as far as I can tell across politics and the educational establishment that junior school kids are too young to benefit from streaming.

It may be that they tend to be taught in a different way such that it is easier to cater to varying ability within a single class. That would be consistent with my understanding of standard teaching methods.

 

One has to draw a line at some age. At what age do you advocate starting streaming? Would you also start secondary-style teaching at that age?

 

Like I said, that consensus only arose after grammar schools were largely abolished. Before that nearly every junior school in the country had streaming.

 

There is actually a very interesting summary of the history of English Education policy here..

 

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/27grouping.html

[unbeliever]

Like I said, that consensus only arose after grammar schools were largely abolished. Before that nearly every junior school in the country had streaming.

 

There is actually a very interesting summary of the history of English Education policy here..

 

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/27grouping.html

 

This is hardly a neutral review. I'm well aware of the arguments from that side.

I can't find the age at which streaming started or the degree to which it was exercised in this link.

[altus]

I'm also rather unconvinced as to the efficacy of tutoring for the 11+. It's mostly an IQ test and tutoring will have limited effect.

People with rather more experience of the issue than you disagree:

 

Grammar school chief dismisses ministers' vision of 'tutor-proof' 11-plus as 'utopian'

Ministers’ attempts to introduce a "tutor-proof" 11-plus exam as part of plans for a new wave of academically selective schools have been dismissed as being “utopian” by the head of a leading grammar school foundation.

 

Heath Monk, executive director of the schools of King Edward VI, a group of grammar, independent and comprehensive schools in Birmingham which uses the tests, has poured cold water on the idea that they can ever negate coaching.

 

...

 

Mr Monk’s group of schools, which includes five grammar schools, two independents and a sponsored academy, uses entrance exams that were developed by Durham University specifically to mitigate the effects of private tutoring. But Mr Monk said no test could stop parents coaching their children.

 

“The aim is to make sure there is not too much knowledge and context required," he said. "There’s a lot of research and effort that goes into making these tests about the aptitude rather than the prior attainment.

 

“But with the best will in the world, the more you do them, the more you are familiar with them. It’s a bit like IQ tests – all the evidence I have seen says the more you do IQ tests the better you are at them.”

[El Cid]

Because there is a clear consensus as far as I can tell across politics and the educational establishment that junior school kids are too young to benefit from streaming.

It may be that they tend to be taught in a different way such that it is easier to cater to varying ability within a single class. That would be consistent with my understanding of standard teaching methods.

 

One has to draw a line at some age. At what age do you advocate starting streaming? Would you also start secondary-style teaching at that age?

 

I leave how things are taught to the schools/teachers.

 

You can follow public opinion, but I believe selection at age of 11 does not increase the attainment of children in the UK, so why do it.

 

Any pupil can transfer schools, but its a big change, and not often done.

 

I remember walking to school every morning, about 1.8 miles, do kids still do that, it would be good exercise.

Bring back a transport allowance if selection comes back?