Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    ??

    If Kent grammars take the top 25% of students, then of course the secondary moderns are going to perform less than comprehensives (who have would-be grammar school pupils) from non-grammar counties..... :rolleyes:

    !!
    Exactly the issue with grammars-they favour the top 25% at the expense of the vast majority of students-which is also why comparing exam results between grammars and comprehensives is useless. The key stat is the value added between comparative pupils in both secondary moderns and grammars.

    If grammars did produce a better system then why would so many schools be in trouble in kent? Thats a far higher proportion than in comparative counties which don't have grammars.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Exactly the issue with grammars-they favour the top 25% at the expense of the vast majority of students-
    Errrr yes?? If ive only got X number of good teachers do i use those them on students who are bright and more likely to remain in education OR to use them on less bright pupils who are more likely to quit education aged 16/turn into future ASBO-wannabes (due to family problems) before age 16?


    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    which is also why comparing exam results between grammars and comprehensives is useless. The key stat is the value added between comparative pupils in both secondary moderns and grammars.
    I didnt compare results from grammars and secondary moderns. I compared the average GCSE grades per pupil in COUNTIES.....

    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    If grammars did produce a better system then why would so many schools be in trouble in kent? Thats a far higher proportion than in comparative counties which don't have grammars.
    County with comprehensive system has two schools, scoring:
    60 and 60, average 60

    Kent:
    90 (Grammar) and 50 (Secondary Modern)
    average 70

    The 50 is the school which is 'in trouble' (the reality is that they just dont have any bright pupils to score as many A* grades)

    Come on, its not rocket science is it? If you have a school which accepts the bottom 75% they arent going to score the same as a comprehensive which contains pupils who are in the top 25% ????
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    But are you trying to deny that grammars take most of there intake (if not all) from the local area and that those areas are generally populated by the middle and upper classes?
    so now it's the middle class' fault because they werent stupid enough to get rid of Grammar Schools?

    What do you expect a school, built in a middle class area to be full of- monkeys??


    Put it this way, if Labour areas hadn't closed Grammar schools up north and in Wales, guess which social class would be further represented in Grammar school intake? Working class perhaps??

    Next you'll be telling me Bingo halls are full of the working class ?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    Errrr yes?? If ive only got X number of good teachers do i use those them on students who are bright and more likely to remain in education OR to use them on less bright pupils who are more likely to quit education aged 16/turn into future ASBO-wannabes (due to family problems) before age 16?
    You use them on those who need the most help in order to find jobs, to move themselves forward and give themselves and their decendents a bit of help. The brightest have the ability to do well anyway-its the others who need to help up. Otherwise your just letting the cycle continue.

    [qote]
    I didnt compare results from grammars and secondary moderns. I compared the average GCSE grades per pupil in COUNTIES.....[/quote]
    I know-but thats an irrelevent comparision. I was pointing out a relevent comparision not commenting on what you said.

    County with comprehensive system has two schools, scoring:
    60 and 60, average 60

    Kent:
    90 (Grammar) and 50 (Secondary Modern)
    average 70
    But 75% of pupils go to the secondary modern meaning that the actual average in terms of pupil numbers is lower.
    The 50 is the school which is 'in trouble' (the reality is that they just dont have any bright pupils to score as many A* grades)

    Come on, its not rocket science is it? If you have a school which accepts the bottom 75% they arent going to score the same as a comprehensive which contains pupils who are in the top 25% ????
    I'm well aware of that-my real question is weither or not grammars provide that much of a better education so that the brightest schools would score '90' rather than the, say, 85 they'd have scored in a comprohensive and weither to achieve that small improvement your penalising the majority of pupils.

    It isn't about weither or not grammars have better overall results. They do. Its about if they system as a whole is better than everyone rather than a small elite who will do well anyway.

    so now it's the middle class' fault because they werent stupid enough to get rid of Grammar Schools?

    What do you expect a school, built in a middle class area to be full of- monkeys??

    Put it this way, if Labour areas hadn't closed Grammar schools up north and in Wales, guess which social class would be further represented in Grammar school intake? Working class perhaps??
    Theres quite a few grammars left in the north-I went to one and theres quite a few more around. But I'd point out that you should really learn your political history-a majority of grammars where closed in the 1970-1974 period under an, erm, Tory government (Indeed Thatcher was educations sec. during the biggest closure of grammar schools).

    The basic fact is this: That grammars are ineffective. They don't premote social mobility, the penalise a vast majority of pupils (And they penalise the ones who need to most help) in favour of a small minority of gifted students and they don't provide adeqete value added to justify this. For the average student grammar schools harm their attainment and that isn't a justifiable system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    I am rather interested in politics, and would like to do more than read about the various happenings, so what about joining a party? Yes, yes.. that

    I don't want to join one of those little parties, because they'll probably never do anything much. So:

    Labour. Well their drug policy is way up the left, and they like comprehensive schools.. **** that

    Conservative. They're largely aristocratic, but at least they like grammar schools. But then their Chancellor is interested in "tax simplification", by which he means taxing the poor, proportionately speaking, as much as the rich. That's a bit regressive. No...

    Liberal Democrats. Liars. Done.

    My information is probably all wrong. Could anyone convince me of a party?
    Well I'm a member of the Conservative party, and if it helps at all, the tax cuts won't come into practice any time soon (unfortunately!). The tax system wouldn't be regressive anyway, as everyone would have the same percentage, so the rich would still pay more.

    Personally, I'm a member of the Conservatives because I'm a bit of a traditionalist at heart, and I agree with a lot of their ideas, such as family values policies, and their views on welfare. (PM me for details, I could write an essay on these topics! ).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    I am rather interested in politics, and would like to do more than read about the various happenings, so what about joining a party? Yes, yes.. that

    I don't want to join one of those little parties, because they'll probably never do anything much. So:

    Labour. Well their drug, economic and most other policy is way up the left, and they like comprehensive schools.. **** that

    Conservative. They're largely aristocratic, but at least they like grammar schools. But then their Chancellor is interested in "tax simplification", by which he means taxing the poor, proportionately speaking, as much as the rich. That's a bit regressive. No...

    Liberal Democrats. Liars. Done.

    My information is probably all wrong. Could anyone convince me of a party?
    your information is correct on the conservatives I believe (aside from obviously the aristocracy comment), though your perspective is warped. CBA with an anti tax rant atm though.

    They're all saying pretty much the same things now, all hovering around the same buzzwords. The tories under cameron are trying to portray themselves as leftist (using the word 'progressive'); that said, they remain IMO the lesser of the three evils.
    I think the lib dems are doing their best to carry out their bizarre economic ideology - i.e. punishing the rich is inherently a good thing - with regards to the tuition fees. Still, you're right to ignore them; they'd merrily centralise all power in brussels.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain92)
    The same % can be described as regressive, depending on your ideology. Everyone being taxed 30%, for example, might sound fair, but when you take into account people earning 15k a year, who then lose almost 5k, left with only 10k to live on, compared with 150k a year, who are taxed 50k, and left with 100k, clearly the lowest earners are disadvantaged, because living on the small amount that is left is extremely difficult.
    If I was earning 300k a year, I'd have no problem with a 75% tax rate, personally.
    I know there are plenty of others who would be horrified by that, so it's each to their own
    In my humble opinion, the rich simply paying more in terms of cash, rather than a higher % compared to lower earners is unfair, but that would be because I'm a Labour Party member. To put in context, my dad (until he was made redundant) was on 50k a year, (therefore paying 40% tax) supporting a family of 4, large house in an expensive area, two cars and two expensive holidays a year. Lowering the tax rate to 30%, for example, wouldn't have improved my quality of life. Him paying more into the system would, however, improve the quality of life of the less fortunate.
    That's my two cents.
    Neg rep away peeps.
    I see your point of view, but in my opinion, if you earn the money, you should get to keep it, and it seems like a bit of a disincentive to tax the higher earners. I think that 40% is just too high. If the taxrate was 30%, wouldn't your family have had more money and therefore, you could have had a better quality of life? It would also encourage the poorer people to work harder, as they'd get significantly more money.

    Meh there's no real right or wrong to this, it's all opinion. XD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    You use them on those who need the most help in order to find jobs, to move themselves forward and give themselves and their decendents a bit of help. The brightest have the ability to do well anyway-its the others who need to help up. Otherwise your just letting the cycle continue.
    The types of jobs the 'not bright' will be getting are not dependent on grades. Does it matter if a hairdresser has an E grade or D grade in GCSE English?


    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    I know-but thats an irrelevent comparision. I was pointing out a relevent comparision not commenting on what you said..
    It's an irrelevant comparison to look at the average GCSE grade per county/LEA? :rolleyes:


    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    But 75% of pupils go to the secondary modern meaning that the actual average in terms of pupil numbers is lower.
    What are you on about man?? It doesnt matter how many pupils are in the school. The school will achieve less because they dont have all the brainy people???? Jeeeeeeeezzz !!


    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    I'm well aware of that-my real question is weither or not grammars provide that much of a better education so that the brightest schools would score '90' rather than the, say, 85 they'd have scored in a comprohensive and weither to achieve that small improvement your penalising the majority of pupils.

    It isn't about weither or not grammars have better overall results. They do. Its about if they system as a whole is better than everyone rather than a small elite who will do well anyway.
    Since when was 25% of the population a 'small elite' ?

    If i have a big population of people (i.e. Kent), Kent has Grammar schools and the average grade per pupil in Kent is higher than the average grade of say Yorkshire (which doesnt have the 11+ system like Kent and Lincs) then how on earth is it irrelevant to state having grammar schools raises the average grade per pupil ??

    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Theres quite a few grammars left in the north-I went to one and theres quite a few more around. But I'd point out that you should really learn your political history-a majority of grammars where closed in the 1970-1974 period under an, erm, Tory government (Indeed Thatcher was educations sec. during the biggest closure of grammar schools).
    You think the year a school closes was the year they decided to close it? I think you'll find it was a timelag effect from the previous Labour Government in the 60s....

    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    The basic fact is this: That grammars are ineffective. They don't premote social mobility, the penalise a vast majority of pupils (And they penalise the ones who need to most help) in favour of a small minority of gifted students and they don't provide adeqete value added to justify this. For the average student grammar schools harm their attainment and that isn't a justifiable system.
    Your last paragraph has just summed up your warped view:

    1) 25% of the population is a small minority? That's the percentage of pupils who would go to a grammar school if the 11+ system was on a national scale.

    2) How can you say they are ineffective when they raise the average grade of an LEA above that of a comprehensive system?

    3) They dont promote social mobility? Let me guess, moving into the catchment area of a good comprehensive school does? Can you please reply back to this specific point.

    4) Whats the difference between a pupil not being selected from the 11+ and them being put in the bottom set for every subject in a comprehensive? Why doesn't that ruin their attainment?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    I am rather interested in politics, and would like to do more than read about the various happenings, so what about joining a party? Yes, yes.. that

    I don't want to join one of those little parties, because they'll probably never do anything much. So:

    Labour. Well their drug policy is way up the left, and they like comprehensive schools.. **** that

    Conservative. They're largely aristocratic, but at least they like grammar schools. But then their Chancellor is interested in "tax simplification", by which he means taxing the poor, proportionately speaking, as much as the rich. That's a bit regressive. No...

    Liberal Democrats. Liars. Done.

    My information is probably all wrong. Could anyone convince me of a party?
    [email protected] Anyway, you don't need to join a political party to be politically active. First work out what kind of politics you support before trying to shove your ideas into a party political line.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by future_hopeful_uk)
    The types of jobs the 'not bright' will be getting are not dependent on grades. Does it matter if a hairdresser has an E grade or D grade in GCSE English?
    If you want them to have the ability to make a bit more of themselves than being a hairdresser it does. Personally I don't favour writing people off to 'lower' occupations based on a pretty doubtful test which they take aged 11.

    It's an irrelevant comparison to look at the average GCSE grade per county/LEA? :rolleyes:
    Yes, because theirs so many variable within one county-from differences in class from one county to another, difference in education systems (For example, many different education systems can exist within one county), differences in population density (which can make a major difference) and so froth. its too broad a brush and discounts the realy important things like value added.

    What are you on about man?? It doesnt matter how many pupils are in the school. The school will achieve less because they dont have all the brainy people???? Jeeeeeeeezzz !!
    Do I really have to explain basic statistical methods to you? really?

    Okay. Say there are 1000 pupils and 250 of them go to the grammar. Thus even though in your comparision those 250 pupils get '90' out of a hundred (though in reality thats far too high a number) and the 750 get 50 out of a hundred the average per pupil isn't 70 as you've said. Thats the average per school (though actually you'd probably have 2 or 3 secondary moderns to the single grammar so that average doesn't work anyways) rather than the average per pupil which would be far lower.

    See?


    Since when was 25% of the population a 'small elite' ?

    If i have a big population of people (i.e. Kent), Kent has Grammar schools and the average grade per pupil in Kent is higher than the average grade of say Yorkshire (which doesnt have the 11+ system like Kent and Lincs) then how on earth is it irrelevant to state having grammar schools raises the average grade per pupil ??
    Compared to the 75% of other pupils it is a small elite. I might be stating the obvious here but 250 people is 500 less than 750...

    Some areas of Yorkshire do have grammars-the Craven district and Ripon for example (and Yorkshire isn't a single county.) kent does have a higher average grade but I could just as easily say thats due to class rather than the system of education and there is a far stronger corrolation across the country along class lines as compared to grammars vs comps.

    Thus we have schools like St. Aidens and John Fishers in Harrogate scoring almost a highly as the nearby (and class compatative) grammars dispite being comprohensives. In the same vein schools like Stratford grammar in Manchester have managed to fail their OFSTED dispite being selective.

    You think the year a school closes was the year they decided to close it? I think you'll find it was a timelag effect from the previous Labour Government in the 60s....
    None the less the Tories had the chance to stop the closure and it actually accelerated under her tenure. Even with a time lag you can't hide from the fact that the closures accelerated under their tenure
    Your last paragraph has just summed up your warped view:

    1) 25% of the population is a small minority? That's the percentage of pupils who would go to a grammar school if the 11+ system was on a national scale.
    Yes. As compared to the vast majority of 75%. 4 million pupils are in secondary education in the UK (If we round) which means that 3 million would be rejected under your proposed system. 1 million is a small minority as compared to 3 million...
    2) How can you say they are ineffective when they raise the average grade of an LEA above that of a comprehensive system?
    Class does that. No grammars.
    3) They dont promote social mobility? Let me guess, moving into the catchment area of a good comprehensive school does? Can you please reply back to this specific point.
    Its hard to say if they do or don't-there is no evidence that they provide far better value added for a majority of pupils in the area or for those who go to grammars. In areas with grammar schools we know that class remains the defining factor on how well people do in school.

    I'm guessing you attend or attend a grammar. Tell me, how many working class pupils go there?
    4) Whats the difference between a pupil not being selected from the 11+ and them being put in the bottom set for every subject in a comprehensive? Why doesn't that ruin their attainment?
    Because your not abandoning them at 11 years of age. its a very basic psychological difference but a key one. (And, of course, your not focusing a majority of your resources, and the best teachers on the most gifted. You also still ahve the 'drag-up' effect in place.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NyLonEd)
    Well what do you regard as more important - Rehabilitation or Punishment?
    Do you think criminals are born that way or their environment contributes and makes them like that?

    Things like that.
    Definitely rehabilitation.
    I think it's a mixture of both. I'm not sure of the distribution though...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.