This discussion is closed.
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#201
Report 16 years ago
#201
(Original post by Joey_Johns)
LH seems to disappear when someone puts him on the spot and proves him wrong in an arguement. Don't worry i'm sure he will come back strong with some stats off a league table site or something he got from google. He will reply.
I have never done that, in five months of membership, but this must be the tenth time we have discussed grammar schools, usually with yawn and Bigcnee, so I sometimes forget what I have said today.

Happysunshine - that would be a problem, but it is one now - no teachers want to teach in rough inner-city schools. It is certainly something that has to be considered but I don't see why standards should be pulled down just so that some kids don't get worse teachers - they are often the ones who don't want to learn anyway.

Joey_Johns - are you for or against grammar schools?
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#202
Report 16 years ago
#202
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)

Happysunshine - that would be a problem, but it is one now - no teachers want to teach in rough inner-city schools. It is certainly something that has to be considered but I don't see why standards should be pulled down just so that some kids don't get worse teachers - they are often the ones who don't want to learn anyway.
How would standards go down? As you say comprehensives always get funded more than grammar schools and bright students wouldn't be rare so there would be more help to gain the A*/A grades rahter than hitting the golden C at GCSE.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#203
Report 16 years ago
#203
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
Joey_Johns - are you for or against grammar schools?
Yes they provide a good supply of hard working people into jobs like bank managers etc. People needed within society.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#204
Report 16 years ago
#204
(Original post by happysunshine)
How would standards go down? As you say comprehensives always get funded more than grammar schools and bright students wouldn't be rare so there would be more help to gain the A*/A grades rahter than hitting the golden C at GCSE.
Because rather than having the brightest being given an excellent standard of teaching, everyone would have an average standard of teaching and the state sector certainly wouldn't be better than private schools, of which some currently are.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#205
Report 16 years ago
#205
Actually. My oppinion has changed. Grammars can/should stay. But more money should be put in to the bad comprehensive schools. And it doesn't effect the clever people too much because as long as there isn't too many grammars, they should be fine.

Sorry for the complete change in oppinions. How long I will keep this thought, I don't know.
0
LH
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#206
Report 16 years ago
#206
(Original post by happysunshine)
Actually. My oppinion has changed. Grammars can/should stay. But more money should be put in to the bad comprehensive schools. And it doesn't effect the clever people too much because as long as there isn't too many grammars, they should be fine.

Sorry for the complete change in oppinions. How long I will keep this thought, I don't know.
I completely agree with you. I think t was a mistake when the government of the time abolished grammars to improve failing Secondary Moderns. Instead, they should have concentrated on improving the Secondary Moderns.

Now we have a situation where we have some excellent comps, but some under-performing ones. The aim should be to improve those, rather than abolishing grammars.

Grammars work best when they are quite sparse, which is probably why the Kent LEA is under-performing, there are too many grammars in a small area.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#207
Report 16 years ago
#207
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
I completely agree with you. I think t was a mistake when the government of the time abolished grammars to improve failing Secondary Moderns. Instead, they should have concentrated on improving the Secondary Moderns.

Now we have a situation where we have some excellent comps, but some under-performing ones. The aim should be to improve those, rather than abolishing grammars.

Grammars work best when they are quite sparse, which is probably why the Kent LEA is under-performing, there are too many grammars in a small area.
Agreed.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#208
Report 16 years ago
#208
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
I completely agree with you. I think t was a mistake when the government of the time abolished grammars to improve failing Secondary Moderns. Instead, they should have concentrated on improving the Secondary Moderns.

Now we have a situation where we have some excellent comps, but some under-performing ones. The aim should be to improve those, rather than abolishing grammars.

Grammars work best when they are quite sparse, which is probably why the Kent LEA is under-performing, there are too many grammars in a small area.
It was this post that changed my mind:
Yes they provide a good supply of hard working people into jobs like bank managers etc. People needed within society.
Well what you've written sounds like the best idea I've heard. I know exactly why schools fail, it's because there isn't enough emphasis on how important it is to learn outside school and that what grades you get will effect the rest of your life. If they really drum it into the students, I'm posative failing schools will improve.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#209
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#209
(Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
I completely agree with you. I think t was a mistake when the government of the time abolished grammars to improve failing Secondary Moderns. Instead, they should have concentrated on improving the Secondary Moderns.

Now we have a situation where we have some excellent comps, but some under-performing ones. The aim should be to improve those, rather than abolishing grammars.

Grammars work best when they are quite sparse, which is probably why the Kent LEA is under-performing, there are too many grammars in a small area.
Too simplistic an answer LH!
Grammars were abolished for several reasons:
1. There was a concentration of ability leading to lack of social mix.
2. Siblings were unable to be schooled in same school.
3. Grammars were gradually ceasing to be 'neighbourhood schools'.
4. The presence of Grammars causes a stagnation in Secondary Mods because of the lack of full range ability in Sec.Mods.
So the idea of a comprehensive education system was born. That is schools that would serve ALL the students in their neighbourhood. Where brother, sisters and friends could all continue their education on the same site. Where children of ALL abilities could be educated (albeit separately in classes stramed and set according to ability).
Of course, you still had a core of academically selective schools who refused to change so they either became fee-paying (as in London) or held in in predominately Conservative dominated areas, hence Kent.
Kent proves the point in why we should not return to wholesale selection. The 133 grammars are, in the main, mediocre. There are exceptions particularly in the best 3 who do enable their charges to achieve their potential but the rest do a disservice to their pupils as they 'just coast along' because parents think that as they do better than the secondary mods they must be doing a good job!
Schools that are left to take in the other 75% will obviously not achieve the same percentage passes at the benchmark 5 A*-C. How the heck can they?
The very few comps which do get some of the 'crumbs' of the top quartile actually do extremely well. Their most able pupils achieve very highly, much more so than the equivalent group at the grammars.
As a final 'rectification' of points raised by LH - grammars get more funding than sec. mods. The reason being that they have 6th forms and the monies per student are paid per subject in addition to the yearly amount of the general student population. So if you have a school say with 1,000 students from year 7 - 11 the income for them will be approx. £2.5m. However the same grammar with those 1,000 plus say 250 in 6th form each taking 3 A levels (where each A level is worth, say £100, will get additional funding of £75,000.
The road we need to go down is to give each school a specialism. I have already explained the requirements of achieving and maintaining specialist status and because the monies only come from efforts to improve standards, then standards WILL be improved.
The 'carrot and stick' method!!
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#210
Report 16 years ago
#210
(Original post by yawn1)
Too simplistic an answer LH!
Grammars were abolished for several reasons:
1. There was a concentration of ability leading to lack of social mix.
2. Siblings were unable to be schooled in same school.
3. Grammars were gradually ceasing to be 'neighbourhood schools'.
4. The presence of Grammars causes a stagnation in Secondary Mods
There should only be 3 grammars per county (not including when counties are sectioned off ie, east, south etc.) and these grammars should take the best and make it their job to choose the best children to go to their school. And if they've chosen right there should be no one who gets 5 passes at GCSE (it really annoys me when people have the best education, yet don't take the offer up).

Often there are children who are from a rough/poor background and they cannot go to grammar school because their parents know little about it and can't afford to let them go. Brains come in all classes and thats why they should take away the 11+ and go and find suitable candidates by looking around schools. And this would hopefully give more mixing.

I can easily find you several examples (I hope) of where there is only one/two grammars in the area and the whole county/borough is failing. Suggesting grammars have little effect on the success of comprehensive students.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#211
Report 16 years ago
#211
(Original post by happysunshine)
It was this post that changed my mind:

Well what you've written sounds like the best idea I've heard. I know exactly why schools fail, it's because there isn't enough emphasis on how important it is to learn outside school and that what grades you get will effect the rest of your life. If they really drum it into the students, I'm posative failing schools will improve.
That is the easiest persuasion in the history of the Universe!

Stand up to the Grammar propaganda.

@ LH. I see you've become more central in your views on Grammar schools, which just goes to show that peoples minds can be changed!
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#212
Report 16 years ago
#212
(Original post by happysunshine)
I can easily find you several examples (I hope) of where there is only one/two grammars in the area and the whole county/borough is failing. Suggesting grammars have little effect on the success of comprehensive students.
This makes no sense.
0
Othello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#213
Report 16 years ago
#213
Went to a state non-sel., and did exceedingly well-comes down to the individual at the end of the day
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#214
Report 16 years ago
#214
(Original post by Bigcnee)
This makes no sense.
Why? It's true? grammars when there are only a small amount in the area don't drag down comprehensives.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#215
Report 16 years ago
#215
(Original post by happysunshine)
Why? It's true? grammars when there are only a small amount in the area don't drag down comprehensives.
Read your post again.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#216
Report 16 years ago
#216
(Original post by Bigcnee)
That is the easiest persuasion in the history of the Universe!

Stand up to the Grammar propaganda.

@ LH. I see you've become more central in your views on Grammar schools, which just goes to show that peoples minds can be changed!
I can't! Although there are lots of things about grammars that need to change.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#217
Report 16 years ago
#217
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Read your post again.
I did and it makes sense to me. But you can point out what is wrong/why you don't understand it if you like.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#218
Report 16 years ago
#218
(Original post by happysunshine)
I can easily find you several examples (I hope) of where there is only one/two grammars in the area
I'm listening.

(Original post by happysunshine)
and the whole county/borough is failing.
Ok. Sounds like the start of an anti-selection post.

(Original post by happysunshine)
Suggesting grammars have little effect on the success of comprehensive students.
Eh? Come again.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#219
Report 16 years ago
#219
(Original post by Bigcnee)
I'm listening.



Ok. Sounds like the start of an anti-selection post.



Eh? Come again.
No I was just saying areas fail even when there are no grammars in that area.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#220
Report 16 years ago
#220
(Original post by happysunshine)
No I was just saying areas fail even when there are no grammars in that area.
You may have meant that, but it sounded like you were saying that having any Grammars in an area is detrimental to the LEA.
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (388)
67.24%
No (189)
32.76%

Watched Threads

View All