Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
17 November 2009
08:4133318That last paragraph is very important Bern, well said.
Roger
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
17 November 2009
08:4933322"By the way, it is not a surprise that children of parents who are committed to their wellbeing and development and expect a level of achievement attain grammar school places - why shouldn't they?"
Yes they should, and yes every parent should, then we would be getting somewhere. I'm not disputing or knocking this, as I say I am just questioning a flawed system, not the parents or children that exist within it.
Now if every parent commited to getting their child up to the Kent Test level (which is possible for most as a number of independent primary schools can 'guarantee' it), then everybody could go to a Grammar school.
Problem Solved
17 November 2009
09:2633325Not so - some children are academic and some aren't. Not "better" or "worse", just diverse. this should be applauded and encouraged and those who are not "academic" should not be seen as failing. THAT is the flaw, not the opportunities offered to academic children. which are appropriate and should continue alongside other equally promoted and accepted opportunities in different areas.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
17 November 2009
10:0333332ROGER
In general most of the points must be applauded, but yours on why BERN uses the grammar system is strange.
What you do in life is use what is out there, and if you dont believe in a particular issue you fight/look to change it.
I used to get bogged down with principles, but principles don't put food on the table, nor buy you friends, so i took a step back from that.
On education in general Labour like all parties said one thing and did another.
In my early days, Labour gave the impression it oppossed grammar schools, but all the leading lights locally had there kids at grammar, when this came up as a debate i refused to go on the doorstep talking about opposition to grammar schools, you cant say one thing and do another!!!
didnt make me the most popular in the party, but never been worried about that.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
17 November 2009
22:5433372'Problem Solved' Sorry, I was being facetious.
You are right Bern, some are academic and some are not, not better or worse; which is unfortunately the very clear message given to 11 year olds by a selective system. But then 'academic' and 'practical' are not mutually exclusive, so it IS the system that is flawed, unable to offer diversity. If there is one thing that social comentators and economists will agree on is the necessity 'teach' adaptabilty. My good friend who is a carpenter (and a very good one at that) has a degree in botanical science. I'm not sure why people have to be so one-dimensionally pigeon holed?
Offering young people opportunities which are approriate and equally promoted is what Comprehensive schools do for 90% of the children in this country. Statistically they perform as well as counties with the old fashioned grammar system.
At some point my son and daughter will have to make a choice (with my help) of secondary school. If they pass the test it would be nothing short of obstinate to insist on sending them to a secondary modern, however they could learn a lot from the true and real diversity offered and I'd like to think they could also offer something to their peers. In fairness I could teach them to pass the exams at home, but then that's not the only reason for children to go to school.
Keith, well done, you were absolutely right to do so! Labour have let us down. Ed Balls is currently making it hard for schools in selective areas, using the discriptors I have outlined in my earlier post, anyone would think they need some results showing progress for an eminant general election!?!?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
17 November 2009
22:5933374school is important for teaching children to socialise and just get on with other children.
all sorts of life skills are learnt in that environment.
some less academic children might discover that they have a talent for a sport, for example.
most importantly, it gives parents somewhere to dump the kids during the day.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
17 November 2009
23:0633377Now this may just be a nasty rumour Howard, but I've heard academic types can also be good at football!!!!!!!
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
17 November 2009
23:1133379I've also heard they make good dustmen too.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
17 November 2009
23:1433380are we talking about any player in particular?
a cynic might say wayne rooney.
i meant as an academic type of course.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 November 2009
07:4633381I think Astor, as an example, provides an excellent academic education as well as less academic teaching to all pupils who have the motivation, interest and home support to benefit from it. While the Grammar schools are more specialised in academic subjects they too do not ignore the practical side. Selection, properly managed, does not mean Astor children have to be in any way second rate academically to Grammar children, it does not make them failures and Grammar children successes - far from it. I speak as the father of two boys who have been to the Grammar and another who we chose to send to Astor...
That is the benefit of selection, choice. The usual attack on selection, from the left, is to claim that it discriminates against those who do not pass to get into Grammar making them feel failures and giving them a second rate education. That is frankly absurd, expresed by those who are academic snobs who themselve think that non-academic education is second class. Its an expression too of their own inadequacies and its usually from those who are against competition in schools full stop (including competitive school sports days).
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
18 November 2009
08:5833385"That is the benefit of selection, choice." this doesn't make sense Barry. How can you choose unless you are the 'selector'?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 November 2009
09:3833386We chose Astor for son no 3, despite his passing the Grammar test, because we thought it would be the better choice for him (it was before I joined the GB). That is choice. Ok, if he had failed the test we could not have chosen the Grammar but in that case he would be demonstrably wrong for the Grammar and would struggle there. In which case we would have had the choice of other schools in the area and as long as he is able to pursue an academic education at his chosen school, should his academic abilities mature later, then he has not been in any way disadvantaged. The right choice was made for him and there are no regrets, no failure.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
18 November 2009
09:5833388It seems we are actually on the same side here. Unfortunately you are still holding on to this old idea for the sake of tradition more than anything else.
Kids do the same level exams everywhere, an A grade GCSE from Astor is the same as an A grade GCSE from DGGS. We don't need this unecessary system.
I see no snobbery in offering everyone the same opportunities!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 November 2009
12:0433394I agree about the same opportunities, I just like a seperate more specialised selective school to be available for the more academic to choose. It is tried and proven.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
18 November 2009
12:1533395Yes tried and proven to be pointless. Which is why 80% of local education authorities have got rid of them. It is only the counties with large numbers of middle england (you know, read the Daily Mail, like events that involve bunting, say things like "it's PC gone mad") that still have them, I wonder why...oh yes resistance to change.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 November 2009
12:5533399I went to an all boys catholic grammar school and was buggered senseless.....did me the world of good.
But seriously we do not need a two tier education system.All schools should be able to educate our young upto an acceptable and similar standard.
Grammar schools are devisive for a number of reasons
Firstly they tend to attract better teachers why? because teachers feel there is much more quodos when gathered around the dinner table with friends to state..."ah yes I teach at the local grammar" rather than "oh yeah I teach at the local comp..."for some outdated reason or notion comps are seen as a dumping ground for the less educated or less well off.The only way around this problem is to scrap grammar schools and adopt one educational system free and available for all.
Secondly children are often pressurised to do well and go to the local grammar merely so their parents can boast about it to others.I know my Mum used to be overly proud of her lads.I would have preferred to stay with my mates and gone to the local comprehensive instead I had to travel 8 miles to and from home to a school in Manchester where I knew no-one.The result being that although my sisters who all attended the local comp still have lifelong school friends to this day.I have not met any of my classmates from the day I finished school. No kid wants to travel 16 miles by bus for a night out or whatever.
Thirdly and probably more important now than in my day these type of different schools can lead to bullying."He goes to that posh grammar lets dufff him up" (sorry that sounded a bit old fashioned and Jennings style but hopefully you get my drift.)
Maybe Politicians should listen to what the kids want and not their aspiring parents desires are.
As for BarryW's point of competition it has been reintroduced and is thriving.That could be something to do with us hosting the Olympics where the worlds best will be competing.
I have a good friend from a solid background(his father was a Bishop) my friend attended Oxbridge Uni(I can never recall which one) he was a Major during the war aged only 24yrs.He helped set up the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme etc,a Headmaster,a Senior Civil Servant awarded the OBE and other bits and pieces but for all of his privileged background held strong left wing tonybenn like views.He sent his children to the local comprehensive even though he could afford public schools because he wanted them to have a rounded education. Very brave in his day to make that decision.His son is now a Labour MP with a 28thousand majority safe seat. So moulds can be broken if we ,as parents, and the government,as leaders, are prepared to make changes that may be unpopular but in 20 or 30 years will have greatly improved and overhauled or educational system.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 November 2009
13:4133400No DT1, Grammars have been destroyed by left wing political dogma driven by the left wing educational establishment. It was sheer vandalism and has led to an overall deterioration in educational standards, as most employers will testify. When Mrs T was education secretary in the early 70's even she was unable to stem the tide against them and education was one area her Government in the 80's failed and did not reform.
In more recent years we have seen a reversal of many of these left driven teaching practices reversed, for instance a welcome return to streaming, or 'setting' in the modern parlance and, of course, competition coming back to school sports as examples. So far Grammars have not been reintroduced in areas where they have none, but I am sure that will also change eventually, whatever is said politically.
Even where we still have Grammars schools, they have not been immune to backward and dogmatic educationalists with policies leading to a leveling down not up. Lets be clear that there is a great deal of excellent education going on in all types of school, Grammar and Secondary Modern, often against the odds and despite political interference. But, lets face it, compare the old O Level exams with todays GCSE, that says it all about reduced expectations.
Getting back to more specialist schools will happen, that includes Grammars selecting by academic ability, indeed it is creeping back in... under other guises and this will accelerate over time.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
18 November 2009
14:1733402While the "establishment" is trying to squeeze all the youngsters into acedemia what, as I have asked previously, is happening to the trade and craft skills? In my somewhat out-of-touch view it seems that the opportunity to learn basic craft skills at school is missing or, at best, severely limited for those that are less academically inclined. We still need carpenters, joiners, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, painters and decorators, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers in the future. Are we to rely soley on migrants to fill these important and necessary jobs?
The first priority, however, must be to make the potential future workforce numerate and literate _before_ they go on secondary education.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 November 2009
14:4633403Spot on Phil - the 50% Uni target is utter nonsense and a huge waste of resources that just results in a lot of youngsters with a pile of debt.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
18 November 2009
17:5733405I hadn't even given the graduate debt angle any consideration! If these graduates cannot subsequently get a high-paying acedmic job does that mean the debt gets written off or will they be dragged off to debtors prison for the rest of their lives?
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!