Turn on thread page Beta

Grammar schools and social mobility watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just saw Richard Branson mentioned and I'd like to raise this point; Branson is dyslexic which means his literacy and numeracy skills which means at the age of 11 will be pretty poor. On the other hand, it's quite easy to see that he's a very successful man.

    My point is that you can't generalise people at such an early age. People develop at different points in their lives.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    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.
    Er, no. I read the report when it came out, not just believed the 'analysis' in the Guardian. To be charitable, the Guardian reportage can be considered a highly partisan reading of the results of the report. It conflates the outcomes in Grammars and Secondary Moderns, when having Grammars doesn't mean having Secondary Moderns in the way they existed in the 60s.

    Like I said in my last post, the key outcome of this report is that if you put children who fail a test at 11 in under-invested, poorly run schools then they will not progress and rub out any benefits you get from Grammars. Secondary Moderns aren't required by a selective education system and just because you believe in selective education doesn't mean that you believe in the concept of 'sink schools'.

    The other problem is that looking back in time doesn't really help us solve the problems we have now. The alternative to selective education, the comprehensive system, has now lead to the effective selection by wealth. The best comprehensive schools are surrounded by areas of high house prices and have disproportionately small number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. How is this fair? How does this benefit anyone?

    Social Mobility is lower now than it has ever been and yet people are prepared to defend a Comprehensive school system that has clearly failed in its objective. The comprehensive system actually forced many grammars into the private sector as well, we lost a lot of very good schools from the state sector and denied opportunities to many children to experience a quality, academic education.

    I don't want a return to the old days, I want a modern, academically selective education system that consists of excellent and specialist institutions that are top class at what they do, with the flexibility to move between them. My proposals require us to invest heavily and specifically in education so that's why they won't be happening any time soon.

    Also, just because I don't share your view doesn't mean I'm intellectually deficient. If you have read the report then I'm surprised that you haven't see the errors and oversights in the Guardian report too. There is no need to resort to ad homs, please actually put up a decent counter-argument to the comments instead.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tulley11)
    I just saw Richard Branson mentioned and I'd like to raise this point; Branson is dyslexic which means his literacy and numeracy skills which means at the age of 11 will be pretty poor. On the other hand, it's quite easy to see that he's a very successful man.

    My point is that you can't generalise people at such an early age. People develop at different points in their lives.
    But... Richard Branson isn't a Professor, he's a business man, why should an academically selective education system put him in a Grammar school even if he is now successful? Also, he's one person against the grain. Why do so many firms recruit graduates rather than 16 year old school leavers to train to become senior managers?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well, all I know is that grammar schools turn out far fewer chavs than comps...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Er, no. I read the report when it came out, not just believed the 'analysis' in the Guardian. To be charitable, the Guardian reportage can be considered a highly partisan reading of the results of the report. It conflates the outcomes in Grammars and Secondary Moderns, when having Grammars doesn't mean having Secondary Moderns in the way they existed in the 60s.

    Like I said in my last post, the key outcome of this report is that if you put children who fail a test at 11 in under-invested, poorly run schools then they will not progress and rub out any benefits you get from Grammars. Secondary Moderns aren't required by a selective education system and just because you believe in selective education doesn't mean that you believe in the concept of 'sink schools'.

    The other problem is that looking back in time doesn't really help us solve the problems we have now. The alternative to selective education, the comprehensive system, has now lead to the effective selection by wealth. The best comprehensive schools are surrounded by areas of high house prices and have disproportionately small number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. How is this fair? How does this benefit anyone?

    Social Mobility is lower now than it has ever been and yet people are prepared to defend a Comprehensive school system that has clearly failed in its objective. The comprehensive system actually forced many grammars into the private sector as well, we lost a lot of very good schools from the state sector and denied opportunities to many children to experience a quality, academic education.

    I don't want a return to the old days, I want a modern, academically selective education system that consists of excellent and specialist institutions that are top class at what they do, with the flexibility to move between them. My proposals require us to invest heavily and specifically in education so that's why they won't be happening any time soon.

    Also, just because I don't share your view doesn't mean I'm intellectually deficient. If you have read the report then I'm surprised that you haven't see the errors and oversights in the Guardian report too. There is no need to resort to ad homs, please actually put up a decent counter-argument to the comments instead.
    I think you have proved yourself intellectually deficient.

    You assume because its a report in a left leaning paper and your are not left leaning, it must be wrong or biased. You have no basis for your judgement except your own political views.

    Have you looked at the original article to see if you are correct or have you chosen the intellectually empty route of assuming?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    x
    I think this post was very good, however I would like to hear your views on a point made by another poster. Namely that sets and streams incorporate the best values of the grammar school system, ie lessons catered to students of a high ability, whilst doing away with the problems associated with a one test system like the 11+ such as tutoring and later bloomers being left out. So what are your views in relation to setting being superior to grammar schools?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think you have proved yourself intellectually deficient.

    You assume because its a report in a left leaning paper and your are not left leaning, it must be wrong or biased. You have no basis for your judgement except your own political views.

    Have you looked at the original article to see if you are correct or have you chosen the intellectually empty route of assuming?
    To be fair, he has addressed your points adequately and explained why he holds his views. Rather than insult him, why don't you try to address his argument and launch a thoughtful counter argument?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think you have proved yourself intellectually deficient.

    You assume because its a report in a left leaning paper and your are not left leaning, it must be wrong or biased. You have no basis for your judgement except your own political views.

    Have you looked at the original article to see if you are correct or have you chosen the intellectually empty route of assuming?

    Last response to you:

    No, you don't seem to get it. I read the report myself. I went to source and read the conclusions. They are not the same as the guardian article claims.

    End of Story.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    But... Richard Branson isn't a Professor, he's a business man, why should an academically selective education system put him in a Grammar school even if he is now successful? Also, he's one person against the grain. Why do so many firms recruit graduates rather than 16 year old school leavers to train to become senior managers?
    You didn't understand my point. He's obviously very good at what he does, however he has specific learning difficulties, so these tests would put him in the 'lower' catagories.

    You can't generalise people by saying at such an early age 'right your this intelligent'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think you have proved yourself intellectually deficient.

    You assume because its a report in a left leaning paper and your are not left leaning, it must be wrong or biased. You have no basis for your judgement except your own political views.

    Have you looked at the original article to see if you are correct or have you chosen the intellectually empty route of assuming?
    I think this is a disingenious and unfair response to chemistBoy's argument! His point was that after reading the original report and comparing it with the article, that the Guardian seems to have taken a very political stance on the issue! Which I would agree with. The grammar school system as it was in the 50s and 60s did have significant problems with it, because people dumped in underfunded secondary moderns suffered hugely from the lack of investment and interest in their education, whilst their grammar school peers had university to look forward to almost as a given.

    However, this is not a problem with grammar schools per se, but the system as it was then, an entirely different thing. Look at current results in Kent and Lincolnshire, the only areas to have a full grammar school system using the standardised PESE test, and tell me they are not markedly better than neighbouring and otherwise similar counties! There is still more work to be done with comprehensives in these areas, and in making them offer more non-academic qualifications as well as academic ones for those who later turn out to be best suited to them, but a very good proportion of them are still pretty decent. Of the 3 nearest my (Kentish) super-selective grammar school, I would be more than happy to go to 2 of them, which are adequately funded, have decent facilities, and seem very nice places. Both of them also have significant numbers of oxbridge places every year, so clearly having a grammar school in an area does not destroy attainment in other schools!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    I think this post was very good, however I would like to hear your views on a point made by another poster. Namely that sets and streams incorporate the best values of the grammar school system, ie lessons catered to students of a high ability, whilst doing away with the problems associated with a one test system like the 11+ such as tutoring and later bloomers being left out. So what are your views in relation to setting being superior to grammar schools?
    Sorry to jump in, but I just thought I'd had my opinions and say that I think that whilst setting can be a good idea, and is indeed more flexible, I think a large part of the success of grammar schools is their ability to provide an academically focused and competitive environment (the majority of my year are off to Russell Group institutions) where everyone is pushed to do their best by being surrounded by other clever people, and they can also attract the best teachers who are capable of stretching even the brightest students.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vinchenko)
    Sorry to jump in, but I just thought I'd had my opinions and say that I think that whilst setting can be a good idea, and is indeed more flexible, I think a large part of the success of grammar schools is their ability to provide an academically focused and competitive environment (the majority of my year are off to Russell Group institutions) where everyone is pushed to do their best by being surrounded by other clever people, and they can also attract the best teachers who are capable of stretching even the brightest students.
    All of which occur in the top sets of state schools. Surely thats the whole point of sets, to push each group of students to the best of their ability, and if we're talking about the top sets, they would be filled with the most able students. A local comprehensive I know has a top set yr10 group who are already doing additional science GCSE and a sizeable portion are getting A and A*
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    All of which occur in the top sets of state schools. Surely thats the whole point of sets, to push each group of students to the best of their ability, and if we're talking about the top sets, they would be filled with the most able students. A local comprehensive I know has a top set yr10 group who are already doing additional science GCSE and a sizeable portion are getting A and A*
    But people wouldn't be exclusively judging themselves by a group of people who're of equal standard - we were talking about this in my (boys) school last week, and it's the competitiveness which a lot of people think has made them do better. If they'd been in a comprehensive, a lot of people (myself included) thought we'd have been more inclined to rest on our laurels, since we were in the top group or whatever. Also, setting wouldn't attract any better teachers I suspect! So I think that whilst setting is good and ought to be done more, grammar schools are better for the overall environment they provide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green never went to grammar schools!
    Richard Branson went to a public school, so can't really be considered in this.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green never went to grammar schools!
    No, Branson and Green went to public schools and Alan Sugar succeeded despite no qualifications - not because of a good comprehensive!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vinchenko)
    But people wouldn't be exclusively judging themselves by a group of people who're of equal standard - we were talking about this in my (boys) school last week, and it's the competitiveness which a lot of people think has made them do better. If they'd been in a comprehensive, a lot of people (myself included) thought we'd have been more inclined to rest on our laurels, since we were in the top group or whatever. Also, setting wouldn't attract any better teachers I suspect! So I think that whilst setting is good and ought to be done more, grammar schools are better for the overall environment they provide.
    Top sets have plenty of competition, indeed two of the students had to be separated for being overly competitive. There are poor teachers in grammars and outstanding teachers in comps. The point is that the benefits are still present but instead of an arbitrary sorting ages of 11 based on one test, you have a fluid continual assessment where teachers are better able to select the most able students to be in the top sets. And as this is annual, it accounts for the late bloomers who haven't developed to their full potential by age 11 but suddenly flourish at 13 or 14 ect.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think you have proved yourself intellectually deficient.

    You assume because its a report in a left leaning paper and your are not left leaning, it must be wrong or biased. You have no basis for your judgement except your own political views.

    Have you looked at the original article to see if you are correct or have you chosen the intellectually empty route of assuming?
    I actually went to a grammar school, I am a left-wing, Labour voter.

    I agree with the guy you are accusing of being biased.


    STFU
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vinchenko)
    No, Branson and Green went to public schools and Alan Sugar succeeded despite no qualifications - not because of a good comprehensive!!
    And not because of a grammar school either.

    And all it shows about Branson and Green is that independent schools don't always produce academically able students.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Last response to you:

    No, you don't seem to get it. I read the report myself. I went to source and read the conclusions. They are not the same as the guardian article claims.

    End of Story.
    I read the article as well, their conclusion was there was no overall advantage of the grammar/secondary modern scheme compared to the comprehensive scheme with regards to social mobility.

    You are making a conjecture that if grammars/secondary moderns were to replace comprehensive, the secondary moderns would be different from their older counterparts. But it is just conjecture because they don't exist by definition.

    I am not discussing the future, just whats in the article. You are extending the thread beyond the parameters of the article.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    To be fair, he has addressed your points adequately and explained why he holds his views. Rather than insult him, why don't you try to address his argument and launch a thoughtful counter argument?
    He did not address my points, he suggested the Guardian article was biased and dismissed it without providing any evidence to the contrary. He read the source article and interpreted in a way that is at variance to the authors.

    He is simply saying his own opinion carries more weight than evidence which of course is nonsense.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.