Turn on thread page Beta

Grammar schools and social mobility watch

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Its often been written on threads on TSR and in the media that grammar schools were an engine of social mobility in the 1950s-70s and the reason why we have lower social mobility now is because there are very few grammar schools.

    This is false as proved by research by Oxford and Bath Spa universities. There were no difference in social mobility of working class people between those who went to grammar schools and comprehesives. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ocial-mobility
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, the boom in social mobility in the 1950s-1970s was due to a huge increase in white collar jobs not because of the education system.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Maker)
    Its often been written on threads on TSR and in the media that grammar schools were an engine of social mobility in the 1950s-70s and the reason why we have lower social mobility now is because there are very few grammar schools.

    This is false as proved by research by Oxford and Bath Spa universities. There were no difference in social mobility of working class people between those who went to grammar schools and comprehesives. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ocial-mobility
    I've been trying to convince grammar school apologists of this fact for quite a few years on TSR but they don't want to listen, preferring instead to take account of the propaganda promulgated by pro-selection adherents. :rolleyes:

    This article - I've used it myself on such debates - won't do anything to convince them. When one has a die-hard attitude to anything (whatever it may be) it takes a 'Damascene' moment to change their minds...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The apologists also forget that there are still grammar schools in certain regions of the country today- of course they can't provide a scrap of evidence to show that social mobility is greater in those areas than in places without, though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As I mentioned, the members on this forum would probaly be the grammar school type, which means many people are unlikely to have any empathy for those who would end up in the bottom tier of education.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Social mobility isn't down to education per se. IMO, of course, with natural intelligence and determination you can still succeed. However, the middle classes have long had the monopoly on jobs in certain sectors of the white collar market, can thayt be attributed to the fact that their education was better, in general, to those that never had the chance to go to university.
    Do you need a degree to be socially mobile though? Lots of blue collar workers shatter the so called conventions and barriers of class anyway in my view. It's a shame that to be viewed as socially "worthy" in this society you seemingly have to have gone to x uni, done y degree and now work in z industry. Aye well.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by jaydoh)
    Social mobility isn't down to education per se. IMO, of course, with natural intelligence and determination you can still succeed. However, the middle classes have long had the monopoly on jobs in certain sectors of the white collar market, can thayt be attributed to the fact that their education was better, in general, to those that never had the chance to go to university.
    Do you need a degree to be socially mobile though? Lots of blue collar workers shatter the so called conventions and barriers of class anyway in my view. It's a shame that to be viewed as socially "worthy" in this society you seemingly have to have gone to x uni, done y degree and now work in z industry. Aye well.
    Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green never went to grammar schools!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green never went to grammar schools!
    I know, Alan Sugar's dad was a market trader iirc. There are exceptions of course. People who have so called ascribed status just seem to have more doors open for them than those that aren't moneyed/come from an academic background.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green never went to grammar schools!
    Neither did Socrates, Aristotle or Plato.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    As I mentioned, the members on this forum would probaly be the grammar school type, which means many people are unlikely to have any empathy for those who would end up in the bottom tier of education.
    I agree in the entirety.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Maker)
    Neither did Socrates, Aristotle or Plato.
    You're right...they didn't, did they?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You're right...they didn't, did they?
    (Original post by Maker)
    Neither did Socrates, Aristotle or Plato.
    Argh. What does this even have to do with the debate? Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were taken as pupils of the best scholars of the time when they were very young. That vastly affected the trajectories of their lives.

    Anyway, anecdotal evidence like 'Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Phillip Green' is quite frankly not furthering your point very much. So what about them? Does their success nullify the fact that children of 'working class' backgrounds are not able to get access to top level education? So what if there is no statistical difference (as the Guardian article suggests)?

    The real question is this: do you seriously want children of a working class background to have access to rather awful educational surroundings and teaching in Secondary-Moderns, for the sake of not leaving a few people without the academic inclination behind? Or do you want intelligent youngsters to get the opportunity to access the best teaching, comparable to public schools?

    I swear you left-wingers are all confused... you bang on about 'equality of opportunity', but it seems all you really want is for everyone to be crap together. Disgusting.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Argh. What does this even have to do with the debate? Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were taken as pupils of the best scholars of the time when they were very young. That vastly affected the trajectories of their lives.

    Anyway, anecdotal evidence like 'Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Phillip Green' is quite frankly not furthering your point very much. So what about them? Does their success nullify the fact that children of 'working class' backgrounds are not able to get access to top level education? So what if there is no statistical difference (as the Guardian article suggests)?

    The real question is this: do you seriously want children of a working class background to have access to rather awful educational surroundings and teaching in Secondary-Moderns, for the sake of not leaving a few people without the academic inclination behind? Or do you want intelligent youngsters to get the opportunity to access the best teaching, comparable to public schools?

    I swear you left-wingers are all confused... you bang on about 'equality of opportunity', but it seems all you really want is for everyone to be crap together. Disgusting.
    The evidence is about social mobility, not educational attainment. If you want to argue that grammars have improved the educational attainment of working class children, you should find some evidence to back up your argument.

    I am surprised that someone who advocates better education is so poor at making his own. You correctly pointed out that anecdotal evidence is not very useful but then rubbished real statistical evidence. You then made further statements about access to awful education in secondary moderns implying grammars are better without providing any evidence at all.

    You need to be more conherent with your arguments with respect to consistency of evidence before you will be taken seriously.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I am surprised that someone who advocates better education is so poor at making his own. You correctly pointed out that anecdotal evidence is not very useful but then rubbished real statistical evidence. You then made further statements about access to awful education in secondary moderns implying grammars are better without providing any evidence at all.

    You need to be more conherent with your arguments with respect to consistency of evidence before you will be taken seriously.
    I didn't rubbish it? I just asked so what. Fine, let's say I accept your argument about social mobility, does that then mean we should not allow working class children to get access to a better quality of education? In all honesty, I couldn't be any less bothered whether you took me seriously, because anyone who tries to make childish jokes about Aristotle not being Grammar School educated in a debate like this clearly has very little to offer, but OK.

    If you don't recognise why Grammars are better than Comprehensives, as far as quality of education goes, then I suppose this discussion is pointless. Do Comprehensives provide the same quality of education as public schools? Do you know why recently there has been a discussion as to why public schools hold a virtual monopoly on the top jobs in the country, and their former students make up the vast majority of people at universities?

    I don't need to bring evidence for things that are common knowledge, next you'll be asking me to bring 'evidence' of natural selection in a theological debate. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I didn't rubbish it? I just asked so what. Fine, let's say I accept your argument about social mobility, does that then mean we should not allow working class children to get access to a better quality of education? In all honesty, I couldn't be any less bothered whether you took me seriously, because anyone who tries to make childish jokes about Aristotle not being Grammar School educated in a debate like this clearly has very little to offer, but OK.

    If you don't recognise why Grammars are better than Comprehensives, as far as quality of education goes, then I suppose this discussion is pointless. Do Comprehensives provide the same quality of education as public schools? Do you know why recently there has been a discussion as to why public schools hold a virtual monopoly on the top jobs in the country, and their former students make up the vast majority of people at universities?

    I don't need to bring evidence for things that are common knowledge, next you'll be asking me to bring 'evidence' of natural selection in a theological debate. :rolleyes:
    Where is your evidence that that grammars and better than comprehensives in terms of education? You might think is common knowledge but what is your evidence that it is common knowledge and if its is common knowledge, what evidence it is true?

    There are many factors why "top" jobs are done by people from public schools including contacts, presentation, internships and education. Education is important but not the soul determinate in getting a "top" job or place at a university. Also you are incorrect in stating the vast majority of university students are from public schools.

    You are making assertions that education is essential but at the same time arguing from ignorance which is the opposite of the many centuries of thought starting from the ancient Greeks to the Enlightenment and today that assertion without objective evidence is meaningless.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Where is your evidence that that grammars and better than comprehensives in terms of education? You might think is common knowledge but what is your evidence that it is common knowledge and if its is common knowledge, what evidence it is true?

    There are many factors why "top" jobs are done by people from public schools including contacts, presentation, internships and education. Education is important but not the soul determinate in getting a "top" job or place at a university. Also you are incorrect in stating the vast majority of university students are from public schools.

    You are making assertions that education is essential but at the same time arguing from ignorance which is the opposite of the many centuries of thought starting from the ancient Greeks to the Enlightenment and today that assertion without objective evidence is meaningless.
    You are starting to bore me. Unlike you, I have very little interest in getting involved in a 'who-can-google-the-most-crap' contest'. So, this is the last time I'm going to say this: Grammar Schools provide a better education than Comprehensives, you can debate this all you want; but do it with someone else.

    The only actual argument anyone has against Grammars, is that they are 'unfair' for various reasons. If you used that line, I would at least listen to you. But at the moment, you're just talking complete, well, nothing.

    Notice I also said 'top universities'. To be honest, more contacts are made at university than at school, so it would be natural to assume that if public schools contribute something like 50% of all Oxbridge students, for example, then they are going to be able to get the top jobs. So the question is, why aren't children who go to Comps and other state schools, who make up a far bigger percentage of the population than public schooled children, not making up the a larger number, presuming as you seem to be, that they get a similar level of education? Public schooled children make up less than 10% of the entire population, their dominance suggests that there is some sort of distortion within the system, which is not allowing the other 90% to excel.

    There are only two key differences though, (1) economic background and, (2) what type of school they went to. Now, you may want to suggest here that top universities have some sort of bias against state schooled children, but even then, that wouldn't account for such a large discrepancy.

    We could go even further, by considering what the 90% are being taught in their schools, but as I said, I really can't be bothered. And all you seem to have at your disposal is some pseudo-intellectual sophistry about ancient Greek knowledge. Who cares?

    And on that note, I'm out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    **** guardian reporting as per usual. What the study highlights is the **** part of the previous system - Secondary Moderns -which were just holding pens for those deemed to dumb to educate properly. The study explicitly states that Grammar Schools themselves give advantages over Comps but that they are cancelled out by Secondary Moderns.

    However, having Grammars doesn't mean you need underinvested sink schools like the old secondary moderns. There is another way.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    You are starting to bore me. Unlike you, I have very little interest in getting involved in a 'who-can-google-the-most-crap' contest'. So, this is the last time I'm going to say this: Grammar Schools provide a better education than Comprehensives, you can debate this all you want; but do it with someone else.

    The only actual argument anyone has against Grammars, is that they are 'unfair' for various reasons. If you used that line, I would at least listen to you. But at the moment, you're just talking complete, well, nothing.

    Notice I also said 'top universities'. To be honest, more contacts are made at university than at school, so it would be natural to assume that if public schools contribute something like 50% of all Oxbridge students, for example, then they are going to be able to get the top jobs. So the question is, why aren't children who go to Comps and other state schools, who make up a far bigger percentage of the population than public schooled children, not making up the a larger number, presuming as you seem to be, that they get a similar level of education? Public schooled children make up less than 10% of the entire population, their dominance suggests that there is some sort of distortion within the system, which is not allowing the other 90% to excel.

    There are only two key differences though, (1) economic background and, (2) what type of school they went to. Now, you may want to suggest here that top universities have some sort of bias against state schooled children, but even then, that wouldn't account for such a large discrepancy.

    We could go even further, by considering what the 90% are being taught in their schools, but as I said, I really can't be bothered. And all you seem to have at your disposal is some pseudo-intellectual sophistry about ancient Greek knowledge. Who cares?

    And on that note, I'm out.
    You took a long time to admit you have nothing of substance to say on the subject. But brownie points for admitting it, well done.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    **** guardian reporting as per usual. What the study highlights is the **** part of the previous system - Secondary Moderns -which were just holding pens for those deemed to dumb to educate properly. The study explicitly states that Grammar Schools themselves give advantages over Comps but that they are cancelled out by Secondary Moderns.

    However, having Grammars doesn't mean you need underinvested sink schools like the old secondary moderns. There is another way.
    Blame the messenger if you don't like the message. Again someone with little of substance to contribute to this thread.

    The level of intellect on the 2 contributors above is rather worrying.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You took a long time to admit you have nothing of substance to say on the subject. But brownie points for admitting it, well done.
    :rolleyes:

    Hehe; you are rather amusing! Ah well, enjoy.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,438

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.