Turn on thread page Beta

Grammar Schools = Higher Offers? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    The unregistered who seems better informed than anyone else here.
    The one who quoted Professor Jesson, who later admitted much of his data was competely wrong and that the real data actually supported grammars?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    The one who quoted Professor Jesson, who later admitted much of his data was competely wrong and that the real data actually supported grammars?
    Pressure?

    The unregistered in question seems more knowledgeable on the subject than you (and me).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where is this thread going? It's obvious that no one is going to agree with one and another - so there is no point in arguing.

    Let's just say clever people at both grammar and comp. schools can do well with determination and motivation in any enviroment and there is loads of evidence of this.

    Actually, i dont think the thread was originally posted to argue this matter....
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Pressure?

    The unregistered in question seems more knowledgeable on the subject than you (and me).
    The Government gave him the figures, he complied a report concluding grammars did not work. Later, after properly analysing the data he was given after an outcry by some parts of the media he said that much of the data was inaccurate and was not a proper sample.

    The British public want to keep grammars. In the million pound Labour campaign to abolish grammars, only one ballott has been held, and the anti-grammars were beaten 70-30.

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    The Government gave him the figures, he complied a report concluding grammars did not work. Later, after properly analysing the data he was given after an outcry by some parts of the media he said that much of the data was inaccurate and was not a proper sample.

    The British public want to keep grammars. In the million pound Labour campaign to abolish grammars, only one ballott has been held, and the anti-grammars were beaten 70-30.
    The only ballot that has been held on whether to keep grammars is the Ripon one - I presume this is the one you are alluding to. In that particular case, Ripon Grammar school had the financial backing of many extremely wealthy business people which enabled them to produce a glossy brochure and professionally produced video to be used as their evidence that Ripon Grammar did a good job in educating the top quartile. Against this persuasive production you had manipulation of the minds of many parents who, against all the odds stacked against them, still harboured the tenuous hope that their child might just get into a grammar and it was these poor parents who voted to maintain the status quo!
    The ballot regulations are almost impossible to surmount and indeed, a group of parents (Step campaign) have proved the impossibility of getting sufficient signatures to instigate a ballot in the first place -which was the intention of our Labour incumbents when they devised the regs.
    As for Prof. Jesson's so-called flawed reseach which you cite - it was subsequently proved that he was not incorrect and my quote from the Guardian dated Feb 2002 supercedes yours of 2001!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Now who is pulling figures and stats out of thin air and who is actually well-informed on this? Don't really care personally, who is so sad as to debate how well-informed they are on an issue like this? Maybe it's because I'm from a lowly voluntary aided (formerly grant maintained)...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    The only ballot that has been held on whether to keep grammars is the Ripon one - I presume this is the one you are alluding to. In that particular case, Ripon Grammar school had the financial backing of many extremely wealthy business people which enabled them to produce a glossy brochure and professionally produced video to be used as their evidence that Ripon Grammar did a good job in educating the top quartile. Against this persuasive production you had manipulation of the minds of many parents who, against all the odds stacked against them, still harboured the tenuous hope that their child might just get into a grammar and it was these poor parents who voted to maintain the status quo!
    The ballot regulations are almost impossible to surmount and indeed, a group of parents (Step campaign) have proved the impossibility of getting sufficient signatures to instigate a ballot in the first place -which was the intention of our Labour incumbents when they devised the regs.
    As for Prof. Jesson's so-called flawed reseach which you cite - it was subsequently proved that he was not incorrect and my quote from the Guardian dated Feb 2002 supercedes yours of 2001!
    But Sig Prais of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, published his analysis of the same figures. Both the initial calculations by the department and Prof Jesson's interpretation were "highly precarious" he said.

    He said: "It is dangerous to draw conclusions from the figures but, if you must do, then they actually show that grammar schools add more value to the top ability group than comprehensives." Both sets of schools recorded "negative value" for the high achievers but that of grammar schools minus 0.6 was higher than the minus 1.7 of compehensives.

    Prof Jesson said: "I respect Sig and I give credit to him for picking up the inadequacies of the department's work. I am not against grammar schools as such. I went to one. Grammar schools do a good job for their pupils but we need to look very carefully at selective systems as a whole and what happens to the pupils who are not selected."

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    But Sig Prais of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, published his analysis of the same figures. Both the initial calculations by the department and Prof Jesson's interpretation were "highly precarious" he said.

    He said: "It is dangerous to draw conclusions from the figures but, if you must do, then they actually show that grammar schools add more value to the top ability group than comprehensives." Both sets of schools recorded "negative value" for the high achievers but that of grammar schools minus 0.6 was higher than the minus 1.7 of compehensives.

    Prof Jesson said: "I respect Sig and I give credit to him for picking up the inadequacies of the department's work. I am not against grammar schools as such. I went to one. Grammar schools do a good job for their pupils but we need to look very carefully at selective systems as a whole and what happens to the pupils who are not selected."
    Widen your resource base and then say the same things. You just keep quoting from one particular reference and this is not widening the debate. Also you haven't commented on my other points which I find somewhat disappointing.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Widen your resource base and then say the same things. You just keep quoting from one particular reference and this is not widening the debate. Also you haven't commented on my other points which I find somewhat disappointing.
    Fine, more stats:

    In the early Sixties, 56 per cent of the children of unskilled manual workers and 65 per cent of the children of skilled manual workers achieved at least two A-level passes.

    Now, one comprehensive in four performed less well academically than the average secondary modern school because of an ideological insistence that illiterate 14-year-olds should be educated alongside future Oxbridge scholars.

    (Original post by ZJuwelH)
    Now who is pulling figures and stats out of thin air and who is actually well-informed on this? Don't really care personally, who is so sad as to debate how well-informed they are on an issue like this? Maybe it's because I'm from a lowly voluntary aided (formerly grant maintained)...
    Please don't denigrate yourself by saying you're from 'a lowly voluntary-aided'. Be proud of what and who you are.
    This attitude towards oneself is one of the consequences of having a selective system in education, which suggests that unless yo go to a selective school you are of no significance.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Please don't denigrate yourself by saying you're from 'a lowly voluntary-aided'. Be proud of what and who you are.
    This attitude towards oneself is one of the consequences of having a selective system in education, which suggests that unless yo go to a selective school you are of no significance.
    The problem with that is that only those outside the selective system think that. No one inside it thinks people are failures for not passing their 11 plus.

    Getting back on thread "Grammar schools = Higher offers".
    If, as L.H. maintains, grammar schools add more value then it follows that it is only right that students from Grammar schools should be given much higher offers to achieve.
    At the moment, in Cambridge certainly, I'm not sure about Oxford, Grammar school applicants are treated the same as state school applicants, which under LH's premise is totally unfair. Why not then put them on a par with private schools and ask for 4 A's instead of the usual AAB plus give them higher offers in step where appropriate i.e. Grades 1,1 in step 2 and 3.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Getting back on thread "Grammar schools = Higher offers".
    If, as L.H. maintains, grammar schools add more value then it follows that it is only right that students from Grammar schools should be given much higher offers to achieve.
    At the moment, in Cambridge certainly, I'm not sure about Oxford, Grammar school applicants are treated the same as state school applicants, which under LH's premise is totally unfair. Why not then put them on a par with private schools and ask for 4 A's instead of the usual AAB plus give them higher offers in step where appropriate i.e. Grades 1,1 in step 2 and 3.
    Grammar schools are state schools.

    I have never said it was unfair to give higher offers to grammar school students. Bigcnee did, and I repect him for that as it is consitent with his arguement.

    Why 4 A's when only three is required from any university?

    Why include STEP when it is not compulsary for any school to take?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Please don't denigrate yourself by saying you're from 'a lowly voluntary-aided'. Be proud of what and who you are.
    This attitude towards oneself is one of the consequences of having a selective system in education, which suggests that unless yo go to a selective school you are of no significance.
    Thanks very much, but I am perfectly happy and proud of myself. I wasn't having a go at myself, just a jokey stab at where I lived my life. (Not addressing you specifically but) People go on like significance is defined as success. It's not. You may not be the high-rolling entrepreneur but you are still significant to certain people. That's the significance I care about, and success is a mere bonus.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Grammar schools are state schools.

    I have never said it was unfair to give higher offers to grammar school students. Bigcnee did, and I repect him for that as it is consitent with his arguement.

    Why 4 A's when only three is required from any university?

    Why include STEP when it is not compulsary for any school to take?
    STEP is compulsory if you want to study Maths at Cambridge and/or Warwick, among others. A grade 2 in STEP (the third best grade) is part of their standard offer.

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Grammar schools are state schools.

    I have never said it was unfair to give higher offers to grammar school students. Bigcnee did, and I repect him for that as it is consitent with his arguement.

    Why 4 A's when only three is required from any university?

    Why include STEP when it is not compulsary for any school to take?
    You are missing the point.
    Selective schools and independent schools should be asked for higher and more grades because, if what you said yourself is so, they add more value to potential than ordinary state comps.
    Step is compulsory for some degree courses at Cambridge and if you are made an offer that includes step you have to take it if you want to be accepted. (I only talk about Cambridge in this instance, as I said before I am not au fait with Oxford's selection process).
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    You are missing the point.
    Selective schools and independent schools should be asked for higher and more grades because, if what you said yourself is so, they add more value to potential than ordinary state comps.
    Step is compulsory for some degree courses at Cambridge and if you are made an offer that includes step you have to take it if you want to be accepted. (I only talk about Cambridge in this instance, as I said before I am not au fait with Oxford's selection process).
    I agree with you, I have never said the opposite.

    I believe this because grammar schools have more funding and so have better teachers and resources. This, therefore, enables students to achieve higher, and so should have higher uni offer grades. Whereas a state comp student has (generally) had poor teaching and zero learning resources, and so potential isn't fulfilled.

    Anyone here agree/disagree?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think background should be taken into account but wouldn't go that far myself.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

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

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