[la gran siete]

am I reading this right?The Tory right are busily gnashing their teeth Given there are only a handful of counties who hang on to the old system maybe he has woken up to the notion its not a vote winner. What people want are better schools all round not just a few creaming off all the talent so that the vast majority of pupils end up in sink schools with overcrowded classrooms, poor teaching and scant facilities. That was the inequity of the school aparthied system. I was talking to one of my clients, who is a retired business man, about this matter and he told me he was a Government adviser for 5 years( not Labour) and during that time he looked at the various statistics re 11 plus results and noticed that some of the results were marked down . Reason? Too many entrants for too few places H e challenged a minister on this and was told " you are very brave to bring that up but it wont get you anywhere" Hmmm! My client went on to say that all subsequent exams results were rigged to some extent to ultimately ensure the right number of students entered university and polytechnics. He called it a rationing system. Nowadays with all the extra places available and so many good exam results, the cry seems to be of dumbing down ie exams are getting easier! Could it not be that teachers are working harder as are the students and the results are well meritted?
My client had himself been to a Grammar but upon passing his 11 plus applied to 3 different schools and was rejected by two. He maintains it was because of his postcode ie rough council house area.The school that accepted him put his mother and himself through a humiliating interview with the headmaster who patronised them both incessantly. He never forgot that. "Grammar schools" he told me "were designed for the middle classes to send their children free of charge The arguement that they provided an opportunity for people like myself was largely bogus as we were so few in number. There were many kids like myself who deserved this so called wiondow of opportunity but were simply refused. Hence the 11 plus had to go"
My question is what systems do the Government or Cameron's Blue Labour party propose? 80 new city academies ,modelled on independant schools, are being built to provide first class education for disadvantegd children for poor areas. There will be no selection, but the heads will be entrusted to create an aspirational ethos. Local authorities want them as do parents nad Browns target is to bulid up to 400 new ones.Maybe that is why Cameron has ditched the selection sytstem. Ever the opportunist the only thing he wants is power. Tories dont care about the state csector . Their children arte privately educated.

go

[Ethics Gradient]

Everyone should have a right to a basic decent level of education.

However, you always need to remeber, that regardless of social backgrounds, humans have different intellectual and educational capacities ... and while people should not be given a free boost to better education out of privalage, there needs to be accomodation to allow those with greater abilities to shine and not be held back.

To me, it does not matter a persons background - all that matters is that we do not hold back or destroy potential world leaders, engineers, designers and inventors who are the ones that provide progression for mankind.

We have to accept that many of our children are not going to be the next poet laureate or nobel prize winners - and we have to find those that could be and encourage them....... we just have to do so using merit and not privellage.

[la gran siete]

I am perfectly aware of students' differing abilities. Those with an academic bent go on to univeristy etc. Trouble is that for far too long that path was reserved for the middle classes whilst those from poorer backgrounds, many of which had the potential to succeed, were denied the chance to so do. Those that did were few in number so Brown is quite right when he says that particular socioeconomic group must be given the chance to shine if they have the abilty. It doesnt just stop there though as education is also for the academically less able who must be encouraged to flower in their chosen field .In other words vocational training courses should be accorded the same level of importance as the so called "gold standard" A levels. Education must be a positive experience for all our students and not just an "elite" few who are kept separate from the rest.

[Steven]

This thread is about secondary level education more than university level education, though it is related? Besides, with a 0% interest loan that amounts to £10k and a bit plus a £1k bursary if your parents are in the lower rung of the pay ladder, I think uni is just about affordable

Though I do like the idea of being called "elite"

[Setenza]

Point one.

There are lots of Comprehensive schools and other non-grammar schools that produce well educated students. These then go on to placement at university or go direct into gainful employment.

It is simply wrong to see the matter in such black and white terms. IE Go to a grammar, you are a elitist member off the middle class and are getting a better education at the expense of other. On the flip side, all non grammar schools are lousy and you'll get a poor education and will be doomed to failure as a result.

Point two.

There are many factors as to why some people fail to receive a good education. Class size, resources, school policy on discipline, political interference at local or national level. Parents also have a role to play. If a child is not supported by their family and nurtured to learn then obviously this will have an impact. We all agree that good schooling should be available to all, but it's a lot harder to deliver.

Point three.

Humans by nature segregate themselves. It happens in every aspect of our life. Schooling should be no different. Pupils should be taught according to their needs and abilities. However, this should be done without stigma. But you should not force pupils of different ability to be educated together just to satisfy some totally abstract and ludicrous notion of social homogeneity. It benefits neither.

As to the utopian goal of social integration it doesn't work. People will natural gravitate to the social economic and intellectual group appropriate to them. Deal with it.

Point four.

Education has long been a political football hijacked by the politically minded to further their own personal idealogical agendas. People read into things what they want to reflect their outlook.

LGS, I like you a lot and I respect your passion and your commitment to what you believe in. But I think that you do come across sometimes as having a real problem with your perception of class culture. You look for it in all aspects of life. Sometimes when it's not apparent.

Yes, there has been and still is in certain aspects of society and therefore education, a degree of closed shop elitism. But the social mobility that grammar schools provided has actually been lost and there is less of it under the current Labour administration. City academies are a idea worth investigation to educate the youth of the UK in this century. But it needs to be done with far less involvement of central government and local political institutions.

There needs to be more choice and more smaller schools taking different approaches to the pursuit of excellence. I personally think industry should be more proactive in filling the vacancies they have and offer modern apprenticeships.

Point five.

Due to the excesses of the welfare state there are those in out society who do not see the point or need to seek academic success. They know they will be taken care of. Infact there are aspects of current youth culture who eschew learning and education.

There is a great range of abilities out there and we should ensure that as many people leave education with a academic or vocational qualification BUT only one that is of real practical use. I reject this Alice in Wonderland notion of the race that everyone wins.

Everyone has a skill or a function to perform. If it isn't to your liking then try and acquire news skills that afford you better opportunity. Bet lets quit carping about streams and selection. Human evolution itself is based on such principles. It's that fundamental. Deal with it, move on and find a practical political free solution to creating a good education system.

[Steven]

Originally Posted by Xusia Of Delos

City academies are a idea worth investigation to educate the youth of the UK in this century. But it needs to be done with far less involvement of central government and local political institutions.

I don't know if its "that simple", but quoted for truth nonetheless

I didn't go to the best high school in N.Manchester (no chav jokes woody ), but we still did vastly better than the academy in Manchester which had millions pumped into it (this was 3 years ago mind)

[Squiffy]

Have I read this wrong, or is LGS complaining that the tories are scrapping a policy that he doesn't agree with?

[hermanmunster]

My opinion ( for what it's worth), and LGS may not believe me..is that I believe in streaming due to ability only and that 11 is too young. The town I was educated in (at a Comprehensive) once had a Boys Grammar School a Girls High School and 3 Secondary moderns.
My school was vastly enlarged into a 1000 pupil comprehensive with sports centre, running track, the latest science blocks and theatre etc. Excellent teachers were drafted in and for 5 years maybe 6 it turned out results comparable to the selective schools. We were still streamed according to ability which meant those who wanted to learn and had an aptitude could.

The selective schools are no more, in their place 2 more comprehensives. The standards are all the same now.......much lower. Why? I think the attitude of parents and pupils is so much worse...and the quality of teachers isn't as generally high as it was then......but that was 1969 and the teachers had better weapons (sanctions) with which to fight the good fight.

[BrianC]

I'm pro streaming but I don't think it can be done fairly, I can't see how the system can not be cheated.

In my area its like the arms race during the cold war when it comes to preparing kids ready for the eleven plus. We even have an eight plus for here - its the best school in the Midlands for getting into Oxbridge with same sort of success rates as places like Eton but much much cheaper (~2K a term vs. ~20K). If you don't have the money to pay for a private school and/or a host of out of school activities you can forget getting into a grammar school unless the child is extremely bright - brighter than those who had the cramming. Its not uncommon for kids to have two different after school clubs to go to on the same evening.

We've ended up sending the twins to a whole host of after school clubs because they want to do the same activities as their friends, but when they end up doing two hours of home work (on top of an hour to an hour and a half at a club) most nights and they are only five you begin to wonder if you are doing the right thing even if they seem to enjoy it.

Perhaps streaming at an early age, say three or five, would avoid some of this, but then I've noticed wildly different development rates between my two and I know at this stage my son wouldn't make the cut yet I'm sure he would later on as he's rapidly catching his sister up.

[Steven]

Interesting read

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Xusia Of Delos

Point one.

There are lots of Comprehensive schools and other non-grammar schools that produce well educated students. These then go on to placement at university or go direct into gainful employment.

It is simply wrong to see the matter in such black and white terms. IE Go to a grammar, you are a elitist member off the middle class and are getting a better education at the expense of other. On the flip side, all non grammar schools are lousy and you'll get a poor education and will be doomed to failure as a result.

Point two.

There are many factors as to why some people fail to receive a good education. Class size, resources, school policy on discipline, political interference at local or national level. Parents also have a role to play. If a child is not supported by their family and nurtured to learn then obviously this will have an impact. We all agree that good schooling should be available to all, but it's a lot harder to deliver.

Point three.

Humans by nature segregate themselves. It happens in every aspect of our life. Schooling should be no different. Pupils should be taught according to their needs and abilities. However, this should be done without stigma. But you should not force pupils of different ability to be educated together just to satisfy some totally abstract and ludicrous notion of social homogeneity. It benefits neither.

As to the utopian goal of social integration it doesn't work. People will natural gravitate to the social economic and intellectual group appropriate to them. Deal with it.

Point four.

Education has long been a political football hijacked by the politically minded to further their own personal idealogical agendas. People read into things what they want to reflect their outlook.

LGS, I like you a lot and I respect your passion and your commitment to what you believe in. But I think that you do come across sometimes as having a real problem with your perception of class culture. You look for it in all aspects of life. Sometimes when it's not apparent.

Yes, there has been and still is in certain aspects of society and therefore education, a degree of closed shop elitism. But the social mobility that grammar schools provided has actually been lost and there is less of it under the current Labour administration. City academies are a idea worth investigation to educate the youth of the UK in this century. But it needs to be done with far less involvement of central government and local political institutions.

There needs to be more choice and more smaller schools taking different approaches to the pursuit of excellence. I personally think industry should be more proactive in filling the vacancies they have and offer modern apprenticeships.

Point five.

Due to the excesses of the welfare state there are those in out society who do not see the point or need to seek academic success. They know they will be taken care of. Infact there are aspects of current youth culture who eschew learning and education.

There is a great range of abilities out there and we should ensure that as many people leave education with a academic or vocational qualification BUT only one that is of real practical use. I reject this Alice in Wonderland notion of the race that everyone wins.

Everyone has a skill or a function to perform. If it isn't to your liking then try and acquire news skills that afford you better opportunity. Bet lets quit carping about streams and selection. Human evolution itself is based on such principles. It's that fundamental. Deal with it, move on and find a practical political free solution to creating a good education system.

i think perhaps you are misunderstanding me here
My observations are as follows
!) why has Cameron suddenly decided to ditch a system of education that many in his own party believe in?
Thatcher was a know supporter so shy did she not bring about measures to reintroduce them?
3) Most counties scrapped segregation because the system was iniquitous. Many, previously, secondary moderns schools( including my own) benefitted and standards improved whilst others didnt . O f course within the schools there is streaming but every child is given the attention he or she needs. Its a question bringing out their talents and giving them confidence. Before that parents( mostly middle class) were beside themselves worrying whether their child would pass the 11 plus for the alternative in their eyes was too awful to contemplate. Indeed paying for private schooling became the only acceptable alternative. This is not seeing things in black and white but merely stating how it was.Secondary modern schools were underfunded compared to grammar ones which in turn had the best facilities, the best teachers and the smallest classes. Most of the pupils who attended the former were seen as factory/army fodder or at best potential tradesmen and were expected to leave school at 16 with little hope of any advancement. Times have changed and the Governement has decided that a target of 50% intake into our universities is desirable therefore the net is being widened to encourage students from poorer families who have the ability . In other words academia is no longer the sole province of the middle class.Although supporters often argue that grammar schools were suppose to give the children of the disadvantaged an opportunity, the reality was that the vast majority came from a more privilidged background and were just getting their first class education free. Times have changed.
But what happens with the other 50%? My guess is that the city academies being newly built will be entrustyed to provide vocational training using teaching methods more found in the private sector. Their aim to encourage students to become aspirational within their chosen fields and to embrace practical courses with as much fervour as any acadmeic student. The aim of education must to be bring out the best in everyone . For too long and for too many this has not been the case. I know both my schools(one private and one comp) were very mediocre . Ironically both hae improved beyond measure ( although for different reasons).
You might like to read this article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...083783,00.html

[la gran siete]

Political expediency? cynical attempt to gather cheap votes?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/spec...080924,00.html

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BrianC

Perhaps streaming at an early age, say three or five, would avoid some of this, but then I've noticed wildly different development rates between my two and I know at this stage my son wouldn't make the cut yet I'm sure he would later on as he's rapidly catching his sister up.

Streaming at too early an age is a problem though for kids who are 'young' within their school year.

My son is both the youngest and tallest in his class. So he appears as old as, if not older than his peers, but he is up to 11 months younger than some of them. Which at the age of 6 is a vast, vast difference.

Streaming at age 11 is somewhat fairer, but still not perfect.

I'd prefer to see streaming being flexible throughout all ages. If someone ad 13 or 14 shows aptitude they didn't at 11, why can't they be pushed up?

[overkill]

Streaming doesn't work. Selective education doesn't work. Those who cling to it do so on the back of no knowledge of how the education system works or of educational principles.

I love seeing comments like 'teachers have no sanctions these days'. Wrong. Govt re-introduced a huge range of 'traditional sanctions' in last years Education act. However, it's down to Headteachers and governors to introduce them. Parents can lobby them if they aren't. All our local secondaries have. Another 'gem' is 'teachers aren't as well trained or as 'good' as they used to be. Wrong again. Teachers are now trained and tested within in inch of their lives, and while schools will 'protect' certain teachers, 9 times out of 10 these are 'old school disciplinarians' who cannot teach to save their lives, but the kids are terrified of them. Until recently we had two of those at our kids schools. Now we have only one. Thank God. Currently even Ofsted admits teaching, in terms of human resources (ie teachers themselves), is at an all time high. It's the schools infrastructures and management that lets the side down time and time again.

Then of course we have the issue at hand, Grammar schools. Why do people (fools eh) think mixing ability works? Well, let's look at some education systems that are (a lot) better than ours. In other words just about any European education system. They don't believe in streaming, what they do, is what the gov in it's half arsed way with it's rushed and ill thought out 'city academies', is trying to do here. Sort out a childs ability, be it academic or otherwise, and send them along that path with a final career or careers in mind. However, the Europeans don't believe a child should 'just' be vocationally trained, but should meet good academic standards too. Unlike the UK govt(s). This is why many are surprised, not by the Tories politically expedient dropping of expanding the Grammar Schools, but by their support (which is an about face as they initially opposed them) for 'City Academies'.

Academic advisors from Europe are always shocked by our system of segregation. And rightly so. Their results are better than ours without using it.............

There are some excellent websites on Education systems and results Worldwide. They make for grim reading.

[Steven]

City academies: another abandon the old idea, throw money into a new idea and lets see if it works

Money does make the world go around!

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

Streaming at too early an age is a problem though for kids who are 'young' within their school year.

My son is both the youngest and tallest in his class. So he appears as old as, if not older than his peers, but he is up to 11 months younger than some of them. Which at the age of 6 is a vast, vast difference.

Streaming at age 11 is somewhat fairer, but still not perfect.

I'd prefer to see streaming being flexible throughout all ages. If someone ad 13 or 14 shows aptitude they didn't at 11, why can't they be pushed up?

They can be, and according to Ofsted they should be. Again though Squiffy, it depends on the school. It's much harder in some schools to make your way up, than it is to fall back. Sadly, just as it is in the 'selection' process, it's the children with the pushiest parents that force their way into higher level classes. At Grammar schools the opposite is true. If you fall behind then prepare to be dumped - unless your parents step in. Anyone who cannot achieve without good support at Grammar has wasted five years of their young life.

The basic problem though, as ever in England (Britain?) is money. On the continent, Education is part funded by business, and in some countries the majority funding comes from the private sector. In the UK all funding comes from the govt.

[Steven]

Heh, my bro told me he wasn't allowed to take the higher maths GCSE paper by his teacher as basically he was a at school. I agree, he can be and on occasion is, but I don't know... of course I asked him why didn't he tell me before so maybe something could be done and he struggled his shoulders! Yooth!

[Pbryanw]

As someone who took the 11 plus and failed I have to say I agree with the idea that local comprehensives should be made better rather then one school creaming off the top pupils. In my area it was either go to the local comprehensive (which had a 21% pass rate for 5 Gcses or more) or attempt to go for the Grammer school. At the time, being 11, you have no idea of the significance of the exams you are about to take - you're simply too young to understand.

I remember not taking the exams too seriously becasue I wanted to stay with my friends at the local comp. It's only now, having gone through the local comprehensive system, that I wished that more money had been put into improving it, and spent on good teachers. Of course it's also true that money also needs putting into the local estates feeding the school, which were often neglected and poorly served by local services, thereby creating many students who were brought up with no interest in education.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by overkill

Streaming doesn't work. Selective education doesn't work. Those who cling to it do so on the back of no knowledge of how the education system works or of educational principles.

Well, I'll certainly respect that you know a lot more than me about the Education system, but my own basic experience tells me that streaming must have something in it.

I went to a truly appalling comprehensive school. Absolutely awful. And the amount of time I would sit in class twiddling my thumbs and doing nothing while the teacher spent time dealing with the less able or plain disruptive kids was beyond belief.

I can see the logic that having me in the class would have helped bring the average up. In some of the classes such as Computer Studies (where I knew more than the Geography teacher who was roped into teaching that class), my presence definitely benefited other pupils. But I was definitely held back by this.

So I wonder about the results of the European studies. By lumping all together, do they achieve a better average result, but at the expense of the more able who are held back to some extent?

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

Streaming at too early an age is a problem though for kids who are 'young' within their school year.

My son is both the youngest and tallest in his class. So he appears as old as, if not older than his peers, but he is up to 11 months younger than some of them. Which at the age of 6 is a vast, vast difference.

Streaming at age 11 is somewhat fairer, but still not perfect.

I'd prefer to see streaming being flexible throughout all ages. If someone ad 13 or 14 shows aptitude they didn't at 11, why can't they be pushed up?

Agreed, I have the same issue with my two, nearly a year younger than the oldest in the class (not forgetting they were 10 weeks prem as well). However there can also be large variations at that age for children who are born at the same time, not forgetting that girls tend to be more advanced at that age anyway, but I'm seeing that gap decrease as my two grow older.

I just don't see any streaming system being fairly implemented. As Overkill says, its the pushy parents through lobbying and/or additional cramming that exploit the system. I only want to keep it for selfish reasons.

As a parent who is targeting (till they get closed down) grammar schools for his own children I have a vested interest in keeping them going. While the secondary school I went to doesn't sound as bad as yours Squiffy, my own personal experiences matches yours. Selfishly I'd rather keep my two in a school were the majority of children want to learn, rather than be in the minority. This is why I don't want to see Overkill's seemingly preferred solution of mixing abilities in properly worked "city academies". All the pushy parents would target a limited number of high performing schools through catchment area, meaning that house prices within that area act as the barrier for entry from poorer families.

I'm also dead against streaming children into career paths as who gets to be the gatekeeper for this system? I have zero trust in the system being implemented fairly or accurately. If my school careers adviser had been allowed to choose my career path I'd have worked assembling cars at Rover, just plain wrong.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Pbryanw

As someone who took the 11 plus and failed I have to say I agree with the idea that local comprehensives should be made better rather then one school creaming off the top pupils. In my area it was either go to the local comprehensive (which had a 21% pass rate for 5 Gcses or more) or attempt to go for the Grammer school. At the time, being 11, you have no idea of the significance of the exams you are about to take - you're simply too young to understand.

I remember not taking the exams too seriously becasue I wanted to stay with my friends at the local comp. It's only now, having gone through the local comprehensive system, that I wished that more money had been put into improving it, and spent on good teachers. Of course it's also true that money also needs putting into the local estates feeding the school, which were often neglected and poorly served by local services, thereby creating many students who were brought up with no interest in education.

I didnt take the 11 plus for I arrived in the Uk at age 15 . My father tried to get me into the local grammar without success so I ended up in a comp which was a relabelled sec modern.The teaching was pretty abysmal. If one happened to be amongst the small group of brighter kids then then one was in the smallest classes with the best teachers who reallly didnt have to work too hard, I always remember this lot thinking they were the bees knees . The rest of us had to put up with larger classes and inadequate teachers most of whom were retired military personnel. Despite the poor teaching I still manged to get a handfull of "O" levels and went to the FE college to do some A's but i still cannot forget how much better things could have been if the teaching support and encouragement had been better .

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BrianC

I just don't see any streaming system being fairly implemented. As Overkill says, its the pushy parents through lobbying and/or additional cramming that exploit the system. I only want to keep it for selfish reasons.

I don't see anything at all wrong with 'pushy parents'. Everyone has a level playing field when it comes to spending time with their children, helping with homework and giving them proper encouragement and motivation.

We are certainly not heavy with our eldest at 6, but my wife or I will sit with him every school night to read his book from school, and we give him motivation such as a Nintendo Wii game for getting no more than two spellings wrong in a whole term worth of spelling tests.

Isn't competition good for driving up performance across the board?

[Mep]

I didnmt take the 11 plus forI arrived in the Uk at age 15 / My fathre tried to get me onot the lo9cal grammar without success

that's hard to believe

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

I don't see anything at all wrong with 'pushy parents'. Everyone has a level playing field when it comes to spending time with their children, helping with homework and giving them proper encouragement and motivation.

We are certainly not heavy with our eldest at 6, but my wife or I will sit with him every school night to read his book from school, and we give him motivation such as a Nintendo Wii game for getting no more than two spellings wrong in a whole term worth of spelling tests.

Isn't competition good for driving up performance across the board?

I guess it depends on how pushy people are - you don't sound pushy from my perspective. I know plenty of parents who do take it too far. I suspect that for many parents I would be consider pushy.

As for level playing field I'm not so sure. Almost all extra curricula activities cost money and time and not everybody can afford them. You spending time with the children only goes so far, obviously its still the single most important adult contact that your children get.

I personally think that competition is a good thing, but then I can afford to go down this route, my kids do not need any motivation to work hard and they are achieving.

However because not everybody can afford it (if they want to) it becomes an unfair advantage, kind of like the link between good private schools and Oxbridge entrance. I've said before that schools should be given the money to run these kinds of clubs as a standard service, and they should be free for those who could not afford them.

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Mep

that's hard to believe

Didnt do much typing at school. Trust you to highlight my errors

[Mep]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Didnt do much typing at school. Trust you to highlight my errors

sorry, I can't help it

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Mep

sorry, I can't help it

No, I think its a case of you quite enjoy it

there it has been corrected

[Mep]

it was so appropriate I couldn't resist.....I shall desist in future.......unless I forget

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by Mep

it was so appropriate I couldn't resist.....I shall desist in future.......unless I forget

Its ok I dont mind being humiliated

[Mep]

I know you're man enough to take it