"Pupils shine brightest at grammar schools"

Watch
This discussion is closed.
GH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by ChemBOOM)
Hope you all dont mind if I join in the converstion.

I went to a plain old secondary school and would like to say that I'm doin ok for myself.

The problem with the schools at the top of the tables is they get so absorbed in them. Nothing else matters. There were schools in my home city that wouldnt enter you for an exam if they thought you were going to fail.

I agree with earlier comments; they are good if you're acedemic in the first place, but there is no thought for supporting students with, say, a more practical based learning curve.

????
I'm like in a grammar school because it is the literally only school in teh area, and since it was newly built it had excellent facilities. After all the future is in our ahnds and we make it what it is.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by fishpaste)
Perhaps the non selective school was crap because the best quality factors were going to the selective school, or maybe the non selective didn't know how to push more able students properly because they didn't get many because they all went to selective schools.

Also, post 14 apprenticeships? Zuh? I think everybody needs an academic education until at least 16.
I don't agree-some people just need to be taught basic numeracy, literacy and world facts-all of this can be done before 14. Hilterisation of History does not have to be a factor in a great education, I have never studied Nazi Germany in any depth. Also, useless Maths like trig etc isn't of any use to the craftsmen/labourers this country needs.
0
.NK
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
Yes, so the percentage who attend grammars is lower, something like the top 10%?
It would be 10% of all pupils in the UK that attend a grammar, but not necessarily the most intelligent 10% - they can be of any ability within the top 25% of the country.

Does that make sense? It could be that the top 25% of year sixes in the country has an IQ of 110 or over (just an example...). There aren't enough grammar schools for all the pupils who have an IQ of over 110, but those that do get in to grammar schools are not going to be the 10% that get over 130 - it'll be more evenly spread from an IQ of 110 upwards.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
The tables are flawed, misleading and unnecessary.
It is a waste of public money.
They are trying to pretend that these results are important. All they show is that the brightest students make the most progress. It says nothing about the progress made by equally bright children in comprehensives because the results are averaged across the wide range of abilities there.

The tables are basically flawed.
0
Baron Huntroyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#45
(Original post by Bigcnee)
How can you not see it?

I mean, really....

Grammar schools admit the top quartile of students in their area. The top quartile in areas where there are no Grammars, attend Comprehensive schools (unless there are competing Grammars and Comps in the same area). This is not hard to understand.
But in many areas they admit less than the top quartile. In my area, my grammar takes 600 out of about 4000 pupils.
0
.NK
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#46
Report 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
But in many areas they admit less than the top quartile. In my area, my grammar takes 600 out of about 4000 pupils.
Same in my area, but they then admit up to the maximum number of pupils depending on their proximity to the school. It doesn't matter how well they do on the 11+ as long as they pass.

I don't know if that's the same for your grammar, I just assumed that's how most schools would work it.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
But in many areas they admit less than the top quartile. In my area, my grammar takes 600 out of about 4000 pupils.
In some areas they take the top 10% in some the top 35%, hence I said "generally". The definition is top 25%.
This is what I mean by "strange micro-climates".
0
Baron Huntroyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by Bigcnee)
The tables are flawed, misleading and unnecessary.
It is a waste of public money.
They are trying to pretend that these results are important. All they show is that the brightest students make the most progress. It says nothing about the progress made by equally bright children in comprehensives because the results are averaged across the wide range of abilities there.

The tables are basically flawed.
Thus spake John Dunford.

However they do not only show that the brightest make the most progress, they also prove that teaching is best at grammar schools. We are not trying to compare bright children with bright children, we are seeing how the teachers improve pupils.
0
emzie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 16 years ago
#49
I went to a comprehensive school (one of the best in the uk) for secondary school before getting a scholarship to a public school for 6th form, and I have to say that for high achievers or those with high ambitions comprehensives (in my experience) are a bad thing. When my carrers teacher at my comp asked me what uni I wanted to go to and I said Oxford, she looked shocked and told me don't apply there there are plently of other good unis! i was so shocked!!!! (this was just before I did my gcses and she knew i was predicted 10A*) the *****! and also in lessons n stuf the high ppl were not given encouragement, just made to feel bad for knowing everything and getting everything really quickly, the aim of the sch was to get as many ppl at grade C, not to get A*. Years 7 and 8 there were the biggest waste of time EVER, there was no setting and I spent the whole time bored as i'd have finished the work set, and the extra work, and the homework before the end of the lesson. My parents sent me there (i was at prep school before then) as they believed as this comp was an 'excellent' state school, if I could get a good education without paying for it then it made sense, however my parents opinions have now completly changes, needless to say that's why i'm now in a public school where I get all the help, encouragement and and extra stuff I could possibly want and its great
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by Bigcnee)
The tables are flawed, misleading and unnecessary.
It is a waste of public money.
They are trying to pretend that these results are important. All they show is that the brightest students make the most progress. It says nothing about the progress made by equally bright children in comprehensives because the results are averaged across the wide range of abilities there.

The tables are basically flawed.
I think I read in the table of top 100 Free Schools, two of them where Comprehensive. It's like duh of course they are going to progress the best since their schools have the most money, best teachers and these students will have much better attitudes.
0
Baron Huntroyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by .NK)
Same in my area, but they then admit up to the maximum number of pupils depending on their proximity to the school. It doesn't matter how well they do on the 11+ as long as they pass.

I don't know if that's the same for your grammar, I just assumed that's how most schools would work it.
Yes, they take in 120 per year, and that is the top 120, well 100 from in the catchment area and 20 from out.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by claire1985)
I don't agree-some people just need to be taught basic numeracy, literacy and world facts-all of this can be done before 14. Hilterisation of History does not have to be a factor in a great education, I have never studied Nazi Germany in any depth. Also, useless Maths like trig etc isn't of any use to the craftsmen/labourers this country needs.
Regardless of whether it's specifically useful, as a society, education beyond 14 makes us better, more appreciative of the basic ethos of learning, I'd go so far as to say more civilised. Many of my friends went into apprenticeships after 16, but I think it's worth them knowing some basic things, like pythagoras, or the dates of the second world war, or the reasons why we shouldn't build houses on floodplains, or that PH1 is an acid. It also encourages them to be more logical and analytical in their thinking, it's not just about knowing things, but learning to think about things.
0
ChemBOOM
Badges: 0
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
Where I went to school, in sheffield, next to my 6th form there was an all girls school and then down the road an all boys school.

My school was a plain on sam old school, the single sex being private.

Trying not to differe from the topic, do you think that single sex schools, especially if subjected to them for whole of school life, have a negative effect on the social development of the respective students

???
0
Baron Huntroyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#54
(Original post by happysunshine)
I think I read in the table of top 100 Free Schools, two of them where Comprehensive. It's like duh of course they are going to progress the best since their schools have the most money, best teachers and these students will have much better attitudes.
Grammars don't have more money than comps, indeed many are grant-maintained.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#55
Report 16 years ago
#55
(Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
Grammars don't have more money than comps, indeed many are grant-maintained.
Yeah but surely, better results = more money?
0
Baron Huntroyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by ChemBOOM)
Where I went to school, in sheffield, next to my 6th form there was an all girls school and then down the road an all boys school.

My school was a plain on sam old school, the single sex being private.

Trying not to differe from the topic, do you think that single sex schools, especially if subjected to them for whole of school life, have a negative effect on the social development of the respective students

???
I wouldn't have liked to go to a single sex school. Interestingly, there is less of a problem with male under-acheivement in grammar schools.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
Thus spake John Dunford.

However they do not only show that the brightest make the most progress, they also prove that teaching is best at grammar schools. We are not trying to compare bright children with bright children, we are seeing how the teachers improve pupils.
It records the level of improvement between 11 and 14.
It is accepted, even by most Grammar school gurus, that the concentration on passing the 11+ leads to a deterioration in the progress of students. This accounts for the progress made by students in those years 11-14. Also, judging the progress of intelligent students at Comps. is made irrelevant by the averaging that occurs ACROSS THE BOARD.

These tables are statistically flawed, but will no doubt be used in coming debates.
Statistical misrepresentation, like this, really hinders progress.
0
.NK
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#58
Report 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by emzie)
Years 7 and 8 there were the biggest waste of time EVER, there was no setting and I spent the whole time bored as i'd have finished the work set, and the extra work, and the homework before the end of the lesson.
But I still found that, even though I was at a grammar school.

At the time, doing the 11+ didn't make any sense to me. It wasn't like anything I'd had to do at school before and wasn't like anything I went on to do at secondary school. Going by SATs results would have given a more accurate idea of general English and maths ability...

I don't think the 11+ necessarily picks out the brightest pupils or those with the most potential - just those who have learnt how to answer the questions best. Going back to the whole IQ-test intelligence vs real world intelligence debate....!
0
Baron Huntroyde
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#59
(Original post by happysunshine)
Yeah but surely, better results = more money?
They aren't given money for good results.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#60
Report 16 years ago
#60
(Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
Interestingly, there is less of a problem with male under-acheivement in grammar schools.
Source?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (39)
8.18%
Confident (65)
13.63%
Indifferent (66)
13.84%
Unsure (119)
24.95%
Worried (188)
39.41%

Watched Threads

View All