[Adorno]

(Original post by simontinsley)
On what basis? Taking into account the tax bill shaved off, then the middle classes would easily save enough over a working career to pay for a child's education, while maintaining the current standard of living. Help needs only be targeted at the least well off.

Must be wonderful to live in a rich family like that. Now, back in the real world, if those friendly societies are providing education for the poorest what happens to those who can afford to pay? Do they go to a school that has better facilities because they're paying? Yes. Do the poor get a school that scrapes by? Yes. Social exlusion? Yes. Inequality? Yes. Lack of Social Mobility? Hell yes.

But we digress from the main points of the thread and if you really do want a further discussion on this topic, move the quotes. Not that I especially care at this time of night for the "**** you all I'm an individual" theories of your particular political philosophy.

[paperclip]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Sorry I really don't understand what you mean here?

Grammar schools provide an advantage in education. If student x is at the same level as student y, but wasn't 3 years ago when they took the 11+, why should they have a difference in quality of education due to a test taken at an arbitrary point in time? Especially one which many behavioural changes occur.

Grammar schools select based on the 11+ (an IQ test of sorts) which has Maths/English components. I don't doubt that the 11+ is not an overly effective way of deciding who is bright and who isn't - nor are academic tests - but in general if someone gets 20/30 points higher on what is essentially an IQ test they tend to be brighter. As I said earlier, plenty of people who pass the 11+ turn out to be pretty useless, and conversely plenty of people who fail turn out to be bright [academically speaking at elast].

Replace my argument with 11+ and you're just proving my point.

If someone does well at the 11+, doesn't mean they will in the future. Why is my educational future decided by what school i go to, rather then my ability? Adequate streaming would beat the grammar school system, as if student x improved, then he can still learn at the same level as student y.

My experience: my year 6 sats were good, my year 9 poor. Suppose if tested at the first i'd go to a grammar school, if the latter i wouldn't. However, the school streamed well and once i started paying more attention during GCSEs i quickly moved higher, and though not being the best student achieved B in all my core subjects (sciences, maths, englishs). Without the streaming this change would have been unlikely.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by paperclip)
Grammar schools provide an advantage in education. If student x is at the same level as student y, but wasn't 3 years ago when they took the 11+, why should they have a difference in quality of education due to a test taken at an arbitrary point in time? Especially one which many behavioural changes occur.


Replace my argument with 11+ and you're just proving my point.

If someone does well at the 11+, doesn't mean they will in the future. Why is my educational future decided by what school i go to, rather then my ability? Adequate streaming would beat the grammar school system, as if student x improved, then he can still learn at the same level as student y.

My experience: my year 6 sats were good, my year 9 poor. Suppose if tested at the first i'd go to a grammar school, if the latter i wouldn't. However, the school streamed well and once i started paying more attention during GCSEs i quickly moved higher, and though not being the best student achieved B in all my core subjects (sciences, maths, englishs). Without the streaming this change would have been unlikely.

In one go I was streamed down from top set everything to bottom set everything and I think there were 6 sets XD, then they threw me out. Our experiences differ somewhat

You have a point, and as long as there was something in place to provide for the people that need extra support in the bottom set and the people that should be pushed most (such as the University involvement I discussed briefly with Adorno) I can perhaps see myself supporting this. I would say that class sizes should be smaller in top and bottom sets though

[paperclip]

(Original post by paddy__power)
In one go I was streamed down from top set everything to bottom set everything and I think there were 6 sets XD, then they threw me out. Our experiences differ somewhat

That's because streaming, due to the grammar/comprehensive divide is merely an afterthought. If you had schools dedicated to streaming, such as mine (to a degree) and the one i've mentioned that had 10 sets for some stuff (i think it was in Hackney?) then you'd have a more equal education system and hopefully more people going up.

You have a point, and as long as there was something in place to provide for the people that need extra support in the bottom set and the people that should be pushed most (such as the University involvement I discussed briefly with Adorno) I can perhaps see myself supporting this. I would say that class sizes should be smaller in top and bottom sets though

To maintain a yearly comparisoni imagine you'd need a very relative measure, tied to a normal distribution curve so the majority of middle sets encompasses the majority of children. The outliers would be the ones that have to be moved up a year.

This would also tackle grade inflation as it would reflect that as a population we are generally getting smarter (the IQ in the US increases by a few points every 10 years or something?)

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by paperclip)
That's because streaming, due to the grammar/comprehensive divide is merely an afterthought. If you had schools dedicated to streaming, such as mine (to a degree) and the one i've mentioned that had 10 sets for some stuff (i think it was in Hackney?) then you'd have a more equal education system and hopefully more people going up.

Na, it's because I was encouraging people around me to play strip rock/paper/scizzors - which can be a fun game in maths class .

If people go up people have to go down or eventually the streaming is diluted.

To maintain a yearly comparisoni imagine you'd need a very relative measure, tied to a normal distribution curve so the majority of middle sets encompasses the majority of children. The outliers would be the ones that have to be moved up a year.

This would also tackle grade inflation as it would reflect that as a population we are generally getting smarter (the IQ in the US increases by a few points every 10 years or something?)

There a similar stats to that no doubt, although different studies will of course vary . Each term the top two students from each set should go up and the bottom two go down or something... I dunno.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by Melancholy)
See, this is where Libertarianism anxiously sweats in realisation of its own incoherence. If education is about the individual, then why not let children choose their education, let them drop out of education at the age of 6 if they they so wish, let them use their own money on drugs, and have sex - hey, let a 7 year old consensually have sex and have their photo taken and circulated on-line! Your moral intuitions, I suspect disagrees with your 'all about the liberty of the individual' principle. Perhaps because "soundness of mind" is a morally relevant factor? Children can't legally consent. Fair enough, but that means that something else is interfering here, trumping liberty-concerns; there is another morally relevant factor which could equally be introduced in other scenarios relating to adults.

1) What is your point?

2) I didn't say anything about a principle which is 'all about the liberty of the individual'. I simply said that education should be driven on an 'individual' philosophy. God knows where they started having sex??

Arguably, some adults simply aren't mature enough to take important decisions about the education of their children. In the interests of equality of opportunity, surely it's right that some sort of centrally-directed education curriculum stipulates that mainstream science (e.g. evolution) is taught - at least purely as a theory, in addition to a range of religious alternatives should they so wish.

I don't see why some "centrally-directed education" is necessary? See below. Weren't we talking about 7-year-olds a second ago?

I don't think it's so clear-cut that the education of a child should be left the whims of any old parent or any old school who could dogmatically choose any old exam board (purely because faith is deemed as much more important than presenting a fair analysis of all scientific theories that would be most likely to get them a university place), with no guarantee that basic educational standards are met. Only a certain type of education is valuable.

You think that a parent will choose "any old school", that has "any old exam board"? Lol. You think they'll be so blaze about a service they're directly paying for? You think a school will have "any old exam board" that intends to be successful? You think they won't want to have the best and at the lowest possible price?

In any case, this is about grammar schools, no?

[Melancholy]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
1) What is your point?

2) I didn't say anything about a principle which is 'all about the liberty of the individual'. I simply said that education should be driven on an 'individual' philosophy. God knows where they started having sex?

My point is contained within my post - I'm merely saying that this is where the Libertarian philosophy (to which you subscribe) breaks-down. The child (the principle agent concerned) has no liberty when it comes to his/her education (and no liberty do to what the hell they want with their own bodies). When you say that your system is concerned with the individual, you're really talking about schools catering for the needs of parents with economic leverage. That's entirely different.

I don't see why some "centrally-directed education" is necessary? See below. Weren't we talking about 7-year-olds a second ago?

If you don't see why it is necessary, then tackle my argument (RE: the necessity of teaching evolution as a scientific theory). Your paragraph below does not deal with that argument. And yes, we're dealing of children of all ages; that shouldn't be problematic.

You think that a parent will choose "any old school", that has "any old exam board"? Lol. You think they'll be so blaze about a service they're directly paying for? You think a school will have "any old exam board" that intends to be successful? You think they won't want to have the best and at the lowest possible price?

Of course they would be! Parents would actively pay more to go to a private faith school so long as they don't get taught certain valuable parts of a curriculum which happens to contradict their beliefs.

And regardless, their child's education is important - that you have to spend an extra sum of money on top of that isn't going to change that fact. Let's just take a quick thought experiment.

Person A cares about their child's education. They will do their best to cater for their child's educational needs regardless of whether they have to pay an extra sum money on top or whether they do not have to do so.

Person B cares little about their child's education. They won't do their best to cater for their child's educational needs. Adding price tags will create even more of a disincentive.

Now look at where your scenario leaves you - the individual concerned has no real choice over their education. It depends entirely upon what their parents value, and, perhaps more cruelly, how much money they happen to have in their purse.

In any case, this is about grammar schools, no?

Is it? I'm responding to your quote, word-for-word:

"The only moment when the person becomes recognised is when they go into their pockets and pay for something directly. That is to say, the free-market."

So if it's about grammar schools, you're off-topic in the first place - it's hardly justified to blame me for going off-topic if I'm attacking your argument.

[ajp100688]

Smacks to me of the usual socialist dirge of dragging everyone down to the level of the lowest in society, levelling down if you will, rather than giving people the opportunity to make something of their talents. Definitely a no from me, no matter what revisions are made.

This is coming from someone who rejected a Grammar school for a Comp aswell.

[Adorno]

(Original post by ajp100688)
Smacks to me of the usual socialist dirge of dragging everyone down to the level of the lowest in society, levelling down if you will, rather than giving people the opportunity to make something of their talents. Definitely a no from me, no matter what revisions are made.

Opportunity for all rather than opportunity for a few is a far more noble goal.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by Adorno)
Opportunity for all rather than opportunity for a few is a far more noble goal.

Technically speaking there is opportunity for all in a selective education system, thats the point or entrance exams and whatnot. If your child fails their 11+ or whatever, it's not because of a system of privledge for the few as they've been given the chance to enter a grammar. It's because they havn't made the grade. Furthermore they have every chance to still suceed given comps are hardly appalling schools these days. I went to a secondary school in ofsted special measures for the first two years of my education and it never really harmed me, even after (stupidly) turning down the local Grammar school.

[Adorno]

(Original post by ajp100688)
Technically speaking there is opportunity for all in a selective education system, thats the point or entrance exams and whatnot. If your child fails their 11+ or whatever, it's not because of a system of privledge for the few as they've been given the chance to enter a grammar. It's because they havn't made the grade. Furthermore they have every chance to still suceed given comps are hardly appalling schools these days. I went to a secondary school in ofsted special measures for the first two years of my education and it never really harmed me, even after (stupidly) turning down the local Grammar school.

You will be one of the few right-wingers who admits that. Selective education provides far greater opportunities than for people from comprehensives in that two-tiered system. The vast majority of state-schooled pupils in my year at Oxford, for example, had come from grammar schools and given that grammar schools account for just 10% of state-educated pupils that's a vast disparity. Of course it's skewed by the fact that Oxford takes more people from the South East than anywhere else and there are more grammars there than anywhere else but you get where I'm going. I believe, and you might appreciate that I have always believed, the selection at the age of 11 is wrong. School is about education, it is about community, and it is about the social.

If you agree that 10% of pupils should continue to enjoy a singular advantage over everyone else then vote no. If, however, you recognise that comprehensives are improving (as you do) and that comprehensives are far better a place to broaden the curriciulum away from academic subjects to more vocational ones then vote yes and rid our school system of academic selection.

http://www.newstatesman.com/educatio...king-academies

[ajp100688]

(Original post by Adorno)
You will be one of the few right-wingers who admits that. Selective education provides far greater opportunities than for people from comprehensives in that two-tiered system. The vast majority of state-schooled pupils in my year at Oxford, for example, had come from grammar schools and given that grammar schools account for just 10% of state-educated pupils that's a vast disparity. Of course it's skewed by the fact that Oxford takes more people from the South East than anywhere else and there are more grammars there than anywhere else but you get where I'm going. I believe, and you might appreciate that I have always believed, the selection at the age of 11 is wrong. School is about education, it is about community, and it is about the social.

If you agree that 10% of pupils should continue to enjoy a singular advantage over everyone else then vote no. If, however, you recognise that comprehensives are improving (as you do) and that comprehensives are far better a place to broaden the curriciulum away from academic subjects to more vocational ones then vote yes and rid our school system of academic selection.

http://www.newstatesman.com/educatio...king-academies

My view is largely that selection is right. It allows the brightest to shine in our society. As you say Grammar schools dominate state school entrance into Oxford/Cambridge, indeed at Torquay Grammar School about a third of Sixth formers end up there. This is because the best students have been funelled through the grammar system, naturally those at grammars will be the ones going to Oxbridge. You wouldn't expect those failing the 11+ to be going to Oxbridge in the future.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that the split between Grammar/Comp retards those that could have go to elite institutions from doing so. Those at grammars are generally those that should be looking at Oxbridge and the like, those at comps should be looking at lesser institutions. There might be the odd child that slips through the grammar system when they could have suceeded but so long as we have quality comps they still have an opportunity.

However this doesn't mean that we should ignore those that fail to make the grammar school grade. Having top class comprehensive schools and giving those children the utmost chance to suceed is vitally important. Furthermore a lot of comps these days run selective streams anyways allowing bright kids who missed out on grammar to excel. I know two people in my sixth form who went onto Oxbridge from a Comprehensive. If we can provide comprehensive education to a high enough degree that those children going through it can go to the likes of the University of London, Leicester, Manchester, Leeds etc (or similar ranking middle to upper universities) and the odd gifted child to Oxbridge/UCL/Durham whatever then we are still providing them with a great opportunity. Slightly less than someone going the Grammar -> Oxbridge route but society isn't fair and with hard work and lots of extra-curriculas a Leicester graduate could be just as attractive to an employer as an Oxbridge one.

I recognise the quality of Oxbridge and what it does to students but it's not the be all and end all of higher education. Horses for courses and all that. I feel had I chosen a grammar school I probably could have made Oxbridge standard, given I was only a few marks short of AAA, but I don't feel particularly hard done by or stolen of an opportunity because I went the comp route. Then again this was my choice so it might colour my view a little differently to those that miss out on grammar education by failing the 11+ by a few marks or whatnot.

School is about education and community but it also has the other function of developing the next generation of businessmen, teachers, administrators, politicians and the like. Taken this way, it's advantageous to the nation for those most gifted to be pushed as far as they can go.

[Adorno]

(Original post by ajp100688)
My view is largely that selection is right. It allows the brightest to shine in our society. As you say Grammar schools dominate state school entrance into Oxford/Cambridge, indeed at Torquay Grammar School about a third of Sixth formers end up there. This is because the best students have been funelled through the grammar system, naturally those at grammars will be the ones going to Oxbridge. You wouldn't expect those failing the 11+ to be going to Oxbridge in the future.

Why not? As others have said in this thread, 11 is a poor age at which to judge potential at 18. Indeed, many who do not go to Oxford or Cambridge at undergraduate attend there for postgraduate and many of those will have gone to a comprehensive school.

those at comps should be looking at lesser institutions.

Pity no one told me eh?

There might be the odd child that slips through the grammar system when they could have suceeded but so long as we have quality comps they still have an opportunity.

There's more than the odd child. There's a system in which 90% of people go to comprehensives because that is the system in their LEA.

School is about education and community but it also has the other function of developing the next generation of businessmen, teachers, administrations, politicians and the like. Taken this way, it's advantageous to the nation for those most gifted to be pushed as far as they can go.

Or, it is preferable to create generations of those people who are more willing to stay in their home communities and develop regional economies so that we can finally end the regional dependency on London because that is the direction in which the "most gifted" are pushed? Eduation is the key to unlocking and throwing off those regional dependencies and to continue to insist that 10% get privileges in advance of everyone else is, in my (admitedly socialist) view, wrong.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by Adorno)
Why not? As others have said in this thread, 11 is a poor age at which to judge potential at 18. Indeed, many who do not go to Oxford or Cambridge at undergraduate attend there for postgraduate and many of those will have gone to a comprehensive school.

Postgrad is an entirely different kettle of fish. I know someone who went to Greenwich Uni of all places and managed to get into UCL for an MA. Where you end up at postgraduate isn't exactly an indication of the standards of the 5-18 education system. It's more a show of your university performance and whether you can find the funding.

Pity no one told me eh?

I didn't suggest that they couldn't look at Oxbridge, just that those people are more predisposed to other universities. It's perfectly possible to transfer into Grammar Sixth Forms aswell if you improve between your 11+ and GCSEs.

There's more than the odd child. There's a system in which 90% of people go to comprehensives because that is the system in their LEA.

Which is exactly why I stated that having strong comprehensives with selective streams is important. Most of my post was in the context of a region where both a grammar school and comprehensives operate such as Torbay.

Or, it is preferable to create generations of those people who are more willing to stay in their home communities and develop regional economies so that we can finally end the regional dependency on London because that is the direction in which the "most gifted" are pushed? Eduation is the key to unlocking and throwing off those regional dependencies and to continue to insist that 10% get privileges in advance of everyone else is, in my (admitedly socialist) view, wrong.

I entirely agree with you, I'm from a region that is just as downtrodden in national attention as Wales. The problem is that the most gifted will naturally gravitate towards London, no matter how the system is designed to keep them in their localities. Simply for the fact that is where the highest wages are. If I could stay in Torbay on a graduate job then I would any day, chances are I won't be able to unless I get on the ngdp which given current cuts is incredibly unlikely.

It doesn't matter what the education system is, whether selective or comprehensive, bright people will gravitate towards London and the large urban areas. Government should promote business in areas of the UK via tax breaks and incentives like America and Canada do. Changing the education system won't have much effect at all.

[Adorno]

(Original post by ajp100688)
Postgrad is an entirely different kettle of fish. I know someone who went to Greenwich Uni of all places and managed to get into UCL for an MA. Where you end up at postgraduate isn't exactly an indication of the standards of the 5-18 education system. It's more a show of your university performance and whether you can find the funding.

Possibly, though I'm not sure I have much time for your description of the university system if I'm honest but then it's the kind of language you expect from a Tory. But anyway my point was that limiting people at 11 is not particularly fair.

I didn't suggest that they couldn't look at Oxbridge, just that those people are more predisposed to other universities. It's perfectly possible to transfer into Grammar Sixth Forms aswell if you improve between your 11+ and GCSEs.

Only if you live in an area where grammars exist. Otherwise you can transfer to an FE college to do your sixth form study but that's not quite what we're on about.

Which is exactly why I stated that having strong comprehensives with selective streams is important. Most of my post was in the context of a region where both a grammar school and comprehensives operate such as Torbay.

Well this bill doesn't alter internal setting and streaming since that is a policy for a school and its system of organisation. Indeed, streaming is legislatively encouraged on TSR thanks to Drogue's education bill from last year. All this bill does is remove the final set of grammar schools and end a process begun in the 1960s.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by ajp100688)
I didn't suggest that they couldn't look at Oxbridge, just that those people are more predisposed to other universities. It's perfectly possible to transfer into Grammar Sixth Forms aswell if you improve between your 11+ and GCSEs.

They reason they are predisposed tends not to be because of the students but the attitude of the teachers. Comprehensive schools routinely dicourage people from applying to Oxbridge without what they -incorrectly I may add - consider prerequisistes; grades extra curriculars etc.

This is what I hate about the comprehensives, the lack of encouragement. It's a self fulfilling prophesy - which is admittedly not helped by the Grammar/Comp disparity - if you don't tell them they can do x y and z then they will often assume they cannot.

The same can be said of all types of schools with the underlined, it's disgusting.

[Adorno]

(Original post by paddy__power)
They reason they are predisposed tends not to be because of the students but the attitude of the teachers.

A lot of staff teaching in comprehensives will not have any experience of the Oxford or Cambridge system (they're not the same so can we drop the Oxbridge label please?) and so may themselves not feel comfortable helping someone with it in fear of making mistakes. It's difficult to create a universalism but certainly when I was doing access work for Oxford, the general ideas I got from staff (and pupils) was that it was so far removed from their sphere of knowledge that they found it doubling daunting. You have to be a particularly resiliant person to take yourself off to Oxford when almost all of your friends are going to, for example, Cardiff or Swansea.

This is what I hate about the comprehensives, the lack of encouragement. It's a self fulfilling prophesy - which is admittedly not helped by the Grammar/Comp disparity - if you don't tell them they can do x y and z then they will often assume they cannot.

It's not universally true though but the other aspect is this - people are localised. They want good local schools, good local hospitals, local employment prospects, and local housing opportunities. Being able to go from your local to school to a local university is sufficient for most.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Adorno)
A lot of staff teaching in comprehensives will not have any experience of the Oxford or Cambridge system (they're not the same so can we drop the Oxbridge label please?) and so may themselves not feel comfortable helping someone with it in fear of making mistakes. It's difficult to create a universalism but certainly when I was doing access work for Oxford, the general ideas I got from staff (and pupils) was that it was so far removed from their sphere of knowledge that they found it doubling daunting. You have to be a particularly resiliant person to take yourself off to Oxford when almost all of your friends are going to, for example, Cardiff or Swansea.

Firstly, the conflation doesn't dictate they are the same - it dictates that my comment regards both of them; they are different but they are united in their general differnce to the rest of the universities - the term is valid.

Secondly, having no experience of it is no excuse tbh - they should do the research and even if they don't feel they can help they should actively encourage students to look at the very best universities not back away because they are unsure of the intricacies of the system. They are educators, they should educate.

Thirdly, I'm not sure if resiliant is apt. Most of my mates are not even going to university, I would flip the relationship and say people that follow exactly what their friends do in terms of higher education shouldn't be going to uni well not quite, that's disingenuous but you get the jist.

It's not universally true though but the other aspect is this - people are localised. They want good local schools, good local hospitals, local employment prospects, and local housing opportunities. Being able to go from your local to school to a local university is sufficient for most.

I really don't think it is. I know very few people (and I know a lot of people) who have any ambition of going to the local universitie(s) and the ones that are tend to be asian and being forced by their parents....

[ajp100688]

(Original post by paddy__power)
They reason they are predisposed tends not to be because of the students but the attitude of the teachers. Comprehensive schools routinely dicourage people from applying to Oxbridge without what they -incorrectly I may add - consider prerequisistes; grades extra curriculars etc.

This is what I hate about the comprehensives, the lack of encouragement. It's a self fulfilling prophesy - which is admittedly not helped by the Grammar/Comp disparity - if you don't tell them they can do x y and z then they will often assume they cannot.

The same can be said of all types of schools with the underlined, it's disgusting.

Why is why I like selective streams in comprehensives, which are basically designed to be like 'grammar-lite' but within the environment of a comprehensive school. They strike the middle ground between grammars and comprehensives while still allowing those that failed their 11+ or don't have a grammar in the area a more tailored form of education.

[Adorno]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Firstly, the conflation doesn't dictate they are the same - it dictates that my comment regards both of them; they are different but they are united in their general differnce to the rest of the universities - the term is valid.

I hate the term. Use it if you must but I thought I'd at least point out that they are not identical institutions. Their admissions processes are different for starters.

Secondly, having no experience of it is no excuse tbh - they should do the research and even if they don't feel they can help they should actively encourage students to look at the very best universities not back away because they are unsure of the intricacies of the system. They are educators, they should educate.

I have no idea what your experience has been and I'm not sure I see it as useful in a discussion about generalisms. It is certainly the case that in schools where the majority of teachers are not Oxford or Cambridge educated and where the majority of pupils will be applying to other Russell League, 1994 Group or post-1992 institutions the unfamiliarity amongst the staff will be obvious. If there is one student in 5 years that applies then it is a bit hard on the staff to expect them to know the ins and outs. If the student is serious then they should do the work themselves. All they need from their teachers is help and sympathy.

Thirdly, I'm not sure if resiliant is apt. Most of my mates are not even going to university, I would flip the relationship and say people that follow exactly what their friends do in terms of higher education shouldn't be going to uni well not quite, that's disingenuous but you get the jist.

I'm not sure I do.

I really don't think it is. I know very few people (and I know a lot of people) who have any ambition of going to the local universitie(s) and the ones that are tend to be asian and being forced by their parents....

Depends where you live. From my school, around 90% of those who went to university went to Cardiff, Swansea, Glamorgan, or UWIC and in a variety of subjects from Archaeology and Astronomy to Maths and Medicine.