| Grammar Schools 22:17 - Sep 8 with 29241 views | texasranger |
I can't help feeling that much of the currently fashionable condemnation of grammar schools is based on two false premises; that they are socially divisive, and that kids who failed the old 11-plus were branded as 'failures'. I'm an old geezer now who went to a boys only grammar school in the early 1950's but we had all sorts there, bright academics through to some right tearaways. I was just a boy from a working class family but I enjoyed and benefited from grammar school though not enough to go to university, doing two years National service instead, but my mates outside school were a mixture of Secondary Modern, Technical and Grammar school boys. We got along fine and theTech and S/Modern boys went on to become printers, plumbers, builders and engineers, all of whom I suspect made more money than I did. Surely any school regardless of type will grade kids by ability and attempting to force kids of different backgrounds to socialise will not work. Finally, condemning today's grammar schools on account of the number of kids getting free school meals seems totally irrelevant. I realise I may be the only surviving Rangers supporter who went to a grammar school so if I get any response I expect it to be unfavourable. No matter. Come on you RRRRRRRRRR's ! |  | | |  |
| Grammar Schools on 22:42 - Sep 8 with 9043 views | Lblock |
My Grammar school was good
But my Grandad said his school was better |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 22:44 - Sep 8 with 9042 views | LadbrokeR |
I managed to get through the eleven plus and go to grammar school. Then suddenly in the 1974 reorganisation of education under Labour it became a high school. To be honest I thought I was very clever until I had a couple of weeks in the first year at grammar school and soon realised that there were one or two others around that who forgotten more than I knew. That was a crushing moment but school was fantastic not least because I experienced our season of being runners up as a teenager. Looking back my time at school mirrors the Rangers I underachieved but entertained those close to me. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 22:54 - Sep 8 with 9018 views | kropotkin41 |
You're not the only surviving Rangers fan who went to grammar school for the simple reason that I grew up in Buckinghamshire, a county blighted by the bloody things, where much more money gets spent on kids who pass their 11+ (which was in 1981 when I took it the 12+) than on the ones who fail. It is a terribly iniquitous system that claims to select on ability, but in reality fails to do so because it tests at only one moment in a kid's life, and then throws resources at those who are academically gifted whilst limiting at every turn the choices of the ones who are not.
Now, I know a lad, hardly a lad because he's my age, who failed his 12+ and went to secondary modern, and just this year he's got himself a 1st class degree and has already made a real success of himself, not because of the school he was condemned to, but in spite of it. There were plenty who passed that stupid exam and did nothing with the extra chances they were given, and it's not like the football league with promotion and relegation, the chances of changing over if you do well or badly are very slim.
As it happens though, my experience is one of those rare ones, and somewhat illustrative of what a totally fcuking sh*t system it is. I failed my 12+ despite all my teachers believing I would pass. It was so-called verbal reasoning, and meant nothing to me. I appealed and failed the appeal. However, I had a very vociferous mother and kept, rather inconveniently, getting report cards full of A's.
Wanting to take all sciences at what was then O level, and being told that I could only do two sciences at my then school, and then only at CSE, my mother pushed, with teacher support, for a transfer to a grammar school. In the end, after a test, I was transferred. It was at that stage I realised the vast gulf in my knowledge that not quite two years at the secondary modern had left me with. There was no way I could catch up in the sciences, and Buckinghamshire had essentially robbed me of the chance to go on to do botany at university which is what I thought I wanted when I was 14. I changed track and when down the arts route.
So, here's the thing, and I don't bring this up to boast because it really does mean sh*t to me, but I was told that I was a failure when I was 12, and then I got 8 O levels, 3 A levels and the second best grades in a 6th Form of 120 at a grammar school, I won two prizes in modern history as an undergraduate, received the top 1st in my department, was awarded British Academy funding, and completed a PhD. I had failed my 12+.
You can't trust a system of selection at that age, it's not fair, it's not about improving social mobility, it's a lie. On top of that it serves no-one effectively, it serves neither the kids who are told that they are not academic, nor the ones who are academically hot-housed; we all end up f*cked up. I have a doctorate mainly because I thought a university history department might be a nice place to hide from the world Thatcher made, I was wrong, that's no reason to choose a path in life, I should have been making things and growing things, which is what I do now anyway............. it was a broken system all along. |  |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 23:02 - Sep 8 with 9001 views | FredManRave |
| Grammar Schools on 22:42 - Sep 8 by Lblock |
My Grammar school was good
But my Grandad said his school was better |
B+ |  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 23:02 - Sep 8 with 9001 views | A40Bosh |
| Grammar Schools on 22:54 - Sep 8 by kropotkin41 |
You're not the only surviving Rangers fan who went to grammar school for the simple reason that I grew up in Buckinghamshire, a county blighted by the bloody things, where much more money gets spent on kids who pass their 11+ (which was in 1981 when I took it the 12+) than on the ones who fail. It is a terribly iniquitous system that claims to select on ability, but in reality fails to do so because it tests at only one moment in a kid's life, and then throws resources at those who are academically gifted whilst limiting at every turn the choices of the ones who are not.
Now, I know a lad, hardly a lad because he's my age, who failed his 12+ and went to secondary modern, and just this year he's got himself a 1st class degree and has already made a real success of himself, not because of the school he was condemned to, but in spite of it. There were plenty who passed that stupid exam and did nothing with the extra chances they were given, and it's not like the football league with promotion and relegation, the chances of changing over if you do well or badly are very slim.
As it happens though, my experience is one of those rare ones, and somewhat illustrative of what a totally fcuking sh*t system it is. I failed my 12+ despite all my teachers believing I would pass. It was so-called verbal reasoning, and meant nothing to me. I appealed and failed the appeal. However, I had a very vociferous mother and kept, rather inconveniently, getting report cards full of A's.
Wanting to take all sciences at what was then O level, and being told that I could only do two sciences at my then school, and then only at CSE, my mother pushed, with teacher support, for a transfer to a grammar school. In the end, after a test, I was transferred. It was at that stage I realised the vast gulf in my knowledge that not quite two years at the secondary modern had left me with. There was no way I could catch up in the sciences, and Buckinghamshire had essentially robbed me of the chance to go on to do botany at university which is what I thought I wanted when I was 14. I changed track and when down the arts route.
So, here's the thing, and I don't bring this up to boast because it really does mean sh*t to me, but I was told that I was a failure when I was 12, and then I got 8 O levels, 3 A levels and the second best grades in a 6th Form of 120 at a grammar school, I won two prizes in modern history as an undergraduate, received the top 1st in my department, was awarded British Academy funding, and completed a PhD. I had failed my 12+.
You can't trust a system of selection at that age, it's not fair, it's not about improving social mobility, it's a lie. On top of that it serves no-one effectively, it serves neither the kids who are told that they are not academic, nor the ones who are academically hot-housed; we all end up f*cked up. I have a doctorate mainly because I thought a university history department might be a nice place to hide from the world Thatcher made, I was wrong, that's no reason to choose a path in life, I should have been making things and growing things, which is what I do now anyway............. it was a broken system all along. |
In the words of my old mate.....
I make you right! |  |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 00:16 - Sep 9 with 8928 views | QPR_Jim |
| Grammar Schools on 22:54 - Sep 8 by kropotkin41 |
You're not the only surviving Rangers fan who went to grammar school for the simple reason that I grew up in Buckinghamshire, a county blighted by the bloody things, where much more money gets spent on kids who pass their 11+ (which was in 1981 when I took it the 12+) than on the ones who fail. It is a terribly iniquitous system that claims to select on ability, but in reality fails to do so because it tests at only one moment in a kid's life, and then throws resources at those who are academically gifted whilst limiting at every turn the choices of the ones who are not.
Now, I know a lad, hardly a lad because he's my age, who failed his 12+ and went to secondary modern, and just this year he's got himself a 1st class degree and has already made a real success of himself, not because of the school he was condemned to, but in spite of it. There were plenty who passed that stupid exam and did nothing with the extra chances they were given, and it's not like the football league with promotion and relegation, the chances of changing over if you do well or badly are very slim.
As it happens though, my experience is one of those rare ones, and somewhat illustrative of what a totally fcuking sh*t system it is. I failed my 12+ despite all my teachers believing I would pass. It was so-called verbal reasoning, and meant nothing to me. I appealed and failed the appeal. However, I had a very vociferous mother and kept, rather inconveniently, getting report cards full of A's.
Wanting to take all sciences at what was then O level, and being told that I could only do two sciences at my then school, and then only at CSE, my mother pushed, with teacher support, for a transfer to a grammar school. In the end, after a test, I was transferred. It was at that stage I realised the vast gulf in my knowledge that not quite two years at the secondary modern had left me with. There was no way I could catch up in the sciences, and Buckinghamshire had essentially robbed me of the chance to go on to do botany at university which is what I thought I wanted when I was 14. I changed track and when down the arts route.
So, here's the thing, and I don't bring this up to boast because it really does mean sh*t to me, but I was told that I was a failure when I was 12, and then I got 8 O levels, 3 A levels and the second best grades in a 6th Form of 120 at a grammar school, I won two prizes in modern history as an undergraduate, received the top 1st in my department, was awarded British Academy funding, and completed a PhD. I had failed my 12+.
You can't trust a system of selection at that age, it's not fair, it's not about improving social mobility, it's a lie. On top of that it serves no-one effectively, it serves neither the kids who are told that they are not academic, nor the ones who are academically hot-housed; we all end up f*cked up. I have a doctorate mainly because I thought a university history department might be a nice place to hide from the world Thatcher made, I was wrong, that's no reason to choose a path in life, I should have been making things and growing things, which is what I do now anyway............. it was a broken system all along. |
It's funny because without a vociferous mother I wouldn't have had the chance to sit the 11+ because my teachers at the time thought it would be a waste of time. Anyway my mum talked them around and I was the only boy from my school that passed that year, which I'm not sure my teacher was too happy about.
I definitely benefited from the grammar school education improving year on year in a way that I think was unexpected of me. As I benefited from the system I find it hard to argue against it as I would want others to benefit in the same way although I do see how it can be unfair. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 02:23 - Sep 9 with 8881 views | Boston |
| Grammar Schools on 22:54 - Sep 8 by kropotkin41 |
You're not the only surviving Rangers fan who went to grammar school for the simple reason that I grew up in Buckinghamshire, a county blighted by the bloody things, where much more money gets spent on kids who pass their 11+ (which was in 1981 when I took it the 12+) than on the ones who fail. It is a terribly iniquitous system that claims to select on ability, but in reality fails to do so because it tests at only one moment in a kid's life, and then throws resources at those who are academically gifted whilst limiting at every turn the choices of the ones who are not.
Now, I know a lad, hardly a lad because he's my age, who failed his 12+ and went to secondary modern, and just this year he's got himself a 1st class degree and has already made a real success of himself, not because of the school he was condemned to, but in spite of it. There were plenty who passed that stupid exam and did nothing with the extra chances they were given, and it's not like the football league with promotion and relegation, the chances of changing over if you do well or badly are very slim.
As it happens though, my experience is one of those rare ones, and somewhat illustrative of what a totally fcuking sh*t system it is. I failed my 12+ despite all my teachers believing I would pass. It was so-called verbal reasoning, and meant nothing to me. I appealed and failed the appeal. However, I had a very vociferous mother and kept, rather inconveniently, getting report cards full of A's.
Wanting to take all sciences at what was then O level, and being told that I could only do two sciences at my then school, and then only at CSE, my mother pushed, with teacher support, for a transfer to a grammar school. In the end, after a test, I was transferred. It was at that stage I realised the vast gulf in my knowledge that not quite two years at the secondary modern had left me with. There was no way I could catch up in the sciences, and Buckinghamshire had essentially robbed me of the chance to go on to do botany at university which is what I thought I wanted when I was 14. I changed track and when down the arts route.
So, here's the thing, and I don't bring this up to boast because it really does mean sh*t to me, but I was told that I was a failure when I was 12, and then I got 8 O levels, 3 A levels and the second best grades in a 6th Form of 120 at a grammar school, I won two prizes in modern history as an undergraduate, received the top 1st in my department, was awarded British Academy funding, and completed a PhD. I had failed my 12+.
You can't trust a system of selection at that age, it's not fair, it's not about improving social mobility, it's a lie. On top of that it serves no-one effectively, it serves neither the kids who are told that they are not academic, nor the ones who are academically hot-housed; we all end up f*cked up. I have a doctorate mainly because I thought a university history department might be a nice place to hide from the world Thatcher made, I was wrong, that's no reason to choose a path in life, I should have been making things and growing things, which is what I do now anyway............. it was a broken system all along. |
Ever stand in a pub and listen to other people explaining what they'd prefer to do for a living / occupation if they had the chance / choice?. About 90% of the population appear to think they're more suited somewhere other than their current position, regardless of educational qualifications or lack of them.
I'm sorry for your 'wasted' years. | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 06:26 - Sep 9 with 8839 views | Gloucs_R |
I went to grammar school in Slough and I'll be tutoring my lads to get into grammar school in Gloucestershire. I do feel as though we need to rethink secondary schooling... More options for non academic training should be given and started earlier. I'm not saying kids should be able drop Maths and English but more emphasis on design tech, home economics and engineering. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Grammar Schools on 07:27 - Sep 9 with 8797 views | exiled_dictator |
I left school at 14
Not a single qualification, not even a goodbye
Just worked hard every day since
Luckily it's a family business, otherwise I might have tried harder
I have been educated by life and teachers who believed in me, as opposed to the racist 5hit at school who gave up on me before I even opened my mouth.
Education works for those that have the ability. Some people are simply less capable of learning. |  |
| It's not what you've got; it's where you stick it. | | Poll: | Climate Change |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 08:16 - Sep 9 with 8761 views | NW5Hoop |
I went to grammar school in Slough, too. The thing is, you only hear the people who went to grammar schools saying they should be brought back. You don't hear the people who went to secondary moderns — which took three times more kids than grammar schools — talking about how great it would be for selective education to return. Grammar schools reward a few enormously; they penalise a whole lot more. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 08:27 - Sep 9 with 8747 views | ElHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 08:16 - Sep 9 by NW5Hoop |
I went to grammar school in Slough, too. The thing is, you only hear the people who went to grammar schools saying they should be brought back. You don't hear the people who went to secondary moderns — which took three times more kids than grammar schools — talking about how great it would be for selective education to return. Grammar schools reward a few enormously; they penalise a whole lot more. |
I went to grammar school - was in the 5th form in the last year before they went comprehensive. I've got 3 kids and they all went to grammar school - two in Slough and one in Reading. I am not sure that they or I've been 'rewarded enormously' quite honestly. It was hard enough to motivate myself at school let alone my kids. The two eldest came out with pretty poor qualifications compared to their ability, and that i think is the elephant in the room here. Whether you have more or less grammar schools, that situation won't change, so for me the current debate is a waste of time. What 'rewards a few enormously' much more is being self motivated and being able to work around disruption in class etc. But nobody ever talks about that. If you aren't that type of kid then you'll struggle wherever you go. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 08:33 - Sep 9 with 8737 views | nix |
One problem with grammar school education these days, which probably didn't exist to anything like the same extent in the old system is the tutoring culture. Those that get in are not necessarily the best but those that are tutored the most (in my area 3-4 hours a week). How can that be fair? Also it does not take into account the later developer. Lots of children have not reached anything like their potential by 11. 11 is a ridiculous age to decide which direction a child is going to: academic or more practical skills.
Also, grammar school tests imply intelligence involves skills across all subject areas. My elder son is, for instance, very strong in maths and reasoning subjects but much weaker in English. He's improved a lot in his written skills since age 11 but would never have passed eleven plus. The comprehensive system allows him to be one of the strongest in the top group in maths, while doing well in the middle group in Englush. There wouldn't be the same flexibility in the old grammar system. A large number of the best students overall would have been creamed off, and he would have had to be in a much more mixed ability maths group, hampering his progress,
The other issue is the way resources would naturally drift towards the grammar schools. The best teachers and facilities would go to the grammars, leaving those left floundering.
Another thing I've noticed is it's generally those who went to grammar schools, or whose children did, that say that the other children were fine about not having gone.
I do agree though that there should be more options within the comprehensive school system to do more practical subjects at an earlier age. Provided it was optional, rather than people being hived off, it might make school more relevant to a whole group of less academic but still bright children. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 08:33 - Sep 9 with 8735 views | Gloucs_R |
| Grammar Schools on 08:16 - Sep 9 by NW5Hoop |
I went to grammar school in Slough, too. The thing is, you only hear the people who went to grammar schools saying they should be brought back. You don't hear the people who went to secondary moderns — which took three times more kids than grammar schools — talking about how great it would be for selective education to return. Grammar schools reward a few enormously; they penalise a whole lot more. |
Which one? | |
| |
| Grammar Schools on 08:39 - Sep 9 with 8719 views | Discodroids |
Unfortunately I didnt cut the mustard and failed to gain passage to a grammar school.
I dont regret it for a second, I had a wonderful time at King David orthodox Lubavitch School in Gants hill, where i learned all the skills to be first class Political commissar quartermaster for the April the 19th movement and the shinning path. [Post edited 9 Sep 2016 8:40]
|  |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| Grammar Schools on 08:50 - Sep 9 with 8696 views | Northernr |
One of my mates went through a grammar school, now works in investment banking on a starting salary of 55k+. Absolutely no way in the world with his background, family, finances, circumstances he'd ever had ended up in a job like that in a million years without a grammar school. Prime example of social mobility.
On the other hand my personal experience of a comprehensive school in a small northern town basically destroyed my self belief and worth to a point that it's never recovered from. The kids with potential were basically taught to hide it, or you were bullied mercilessly. If there was anything remotely different about you - you could play an instrument, you could write, you could do public speaking, basically anything other than play football, smoke and piss about you were set upon so you learnt to hide it or give it up. People were abused for being gay, even if they weren't, and aren't. It never really came up what would happen if somebody there was actually having doubts about their sexuality. You'd have been signing your own death warrant to admit it.
We were taught next to nothing, other than how to pass exams and don't whatever you do be different or stand out. Our geography teacher spent about 75% of her lessons dictating to us out of a text book, and we had to write it out in exercise books as she said it - she could have given us the books to take home and read ourselves while she did some actual teaching, but she knew half the books wouldn't come back and nobody would read them, and anybody who did read them and therefore knew some stuff for the next lesson would be set upon.
The teachers were mostly scared of the pupils and let them get on with it. There were three separate fires during my five years there.
It was basically five years of keep your head down and if you got five C's or above they'd pack you off and think they'd done their job. After school clubs? Nothing other than the football team. Partly because the teachers were all marshalling after school detention, partly because as soon as the bell rang they were just as keen to get away from the kids as we were to get away from them and partly because nobody was interested. School concerts, plays etc - think they tried it once one Christmas, the people who'd strapped a pair on and gone up there to sing got heckled. I didn't have a single grammar lesson in English in five years. Not one. As you can probably tell reading my stuff now. We did however spend three lessons watching Mary Shelley's Frankenstein on video, because it was nearly the end of term and the teacher had given up.
Halfway through my time there the government came up with this idea that schools would become specialist centres for one subject. So Foxhills Comprehensive became Foxhills Technology College. This had two effects - 1 we all had to do two different technology subjects - whether that was where our talent was, whether that was where our career aims were, didn't matter. 2 - they installed a wind tunnel in one of the out buildings, so we could test our fcking aircraft designs presumably. Meanwhile the English department were working off copies of Shakespeare published in the 1960s - with all the missing pages and graffiti that only 40 years in that sht hole could do to a book.
I'm sure there are some really good comprehensives, but in general I find the concept well meaning and correct on paper, but doesn't work in practice. Lumping the really bright kids with potential and ambition in with the pond life isn't equal opportunities or enabling social mobility. The pond life stays where it is, and it drags the kids who do actually give a sht and want to amount to something down to its level. From what I can gather through the Facebook all but five of my (top set) maths and English class of 27 are still stuck in Scunthorpe, mostly punching out loads more kids who can amount to nothing at all in that festering pit.
I had all the fcking potential and confidence and optimism in the world when I went into that place, by the time I'd come out of it I hated everybody and everything.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 08:54 - Sep 9 with 8680 views | Brightonhoop |
If energies expended on the politics of education were instead put into educating children many more would leave at least being able to read and write. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 08:54 - Sep 9 with 8675 views | Discodroids |
East london Plaistow comprehensive schools 1979-1984..
Basically a crumbling flat pack piss house comprehensive dojo of violence, poverty , sexual assaults , drug taking and uber progressive doctrines , Our teachers never failed to attend this great seat of learning in anything but first class sartorial order.
Never without their carlos the jackal haircuts, 'Angry Brigade' badges on their biba Flares and Badder meinhoff posters on their blackboards.
Teachers had standards in those days ..
Woe Betide any pupil that was late for a double period in guerrilla warfare techniques against the tory junta and glue sniffing on a monday morning, before encouraging the children under his tutelage , to innocently explore each others naked bodies while he filmed it on his kodak 8 film projector to show his teacher mates down at the PIE exchange meeting that night.
East london comps..What examples to us all they were. | |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| Grammar Schools on 08:59 - Sep 9 with 8665 views | ElHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 08:50 - Sep 9 by Northernr |
One of my mates went through a grammar school, now works in investment banking on a starting salary of 55k+. Absolutely no way in the world with his background, family, finances, circumstances he'd ever had ended up in a job like that in a million years without a grammar school. Prime example of social mobility.
On the other hand my personal experience of a comprehensive school in a small northern town basically destroyed my self belief and worth to a point that it's never recovered from. The kids with potential were basically taught to hide it, or you were bullied mercilessly. If there was anything remotely different about you - you could play an instrument, you could write, you could do public speaking, basically anything other than play football, smoke and piss about you were set upon so you learnt to hide it or give it up. People were abused for being gay, even if they weren't, and aren't. It never really came up what would happen if somebody there was actually having doubts about their sexuality. You'd have been signing your own death warrant to admit it.
We were taught next to nothing, other than how to pass exams and don't whatever you do be different or stand out. Our geography teacher spent about 75% of her lessons dictating to us out of a text book, and we had to write it out in exercise books as she said it - she could have given us the books to take home and read ourselves while she did some actual teaching, but she knew half the books wouldn't come back and nobody would read them, and anybody who did read them and therefore knew some stuff for the next lesson would be set upon.
The teachers were mostly scared of the pupils and let them get on with it. There were three separate fires during my five years there.
It was basically five years of keep your head down and if you got five C's or above they'd pack you off and think they'd done their job. After school clubs? Nothing other than the football team. Partly because the teachers were all marshalling after school detention, partly because as soon as the bell rang they were just as keen to get away from the kids as we were to get away from them and partly because nobody was interested. School concerts, plays etc - think they tried it once one Christmas, the people who'd strapped a pair on and gone up there to sing got heckled. I didn't have a single grammar lesson in English in five years. Not one. As you can probably tell reading my stuff now. We did however spend three lessons watching Mary Shelley's Frankenstein on video, because it was nearly the end of term and the teacher had given up.
Halfway through my time there the government came up with this idea that schools would become specialist centres for one subject. So Foxhills Comprehensive became Foxhills Technology College. This had two effects - 1 we all had to do two different technology subjects - whether that was where our talent was, whether that was where our career aims were, didn't matter. 2 - they installed a wind tunnel in one of the out buildings, so we could test our fcking aircraft designs presumably. Meanwhile the English department were working off copies of Shakespeare published in the 1960s - with all the missing pages and graffiti that only 40 years in that sht hole could do to a book.
I'm sure there are some really good comprehensives, but in general I find the concept well meaning and correct on paper, but doesn't work in practice. Lumping the really bright kids with potential and ambition in with the pond life isn't equal opportunities or enabling social mobility. The pond life stays where it is, and it drags the kids who do actually give a sht and want to amount to something down to its level. From what I can gather through the Facebook all but five of my (top set) maths and English class of 27 are still stuck in Scunthorpe, mostly punching out loads more kids who can amount to nothing at all in that festering pit.
I had all the fcking potential and confidence and optimism in the world when I went into that place, by the time I'd come out of it I hated everybody and everything.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Very good. That's also still the truth as i understand it anyway - to a greater or lesser degree, even in most grammar schools. Obviously it's better or worse in different schools and maybe it's slightly less bad now than it used to be, but the 'discipline' word punishes far more less gifted and/or motivated kids than the words 'grammar school' ever could have managed to achieve. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 09:00 - Sep 9 with 8663 views | californiahoop |
My twins are 7 and the streamlining has begun for Grammer our secondary, my little girl is on the money academically, my boy is with the fairies but is as sharp as a knife.
I can already see that when he decides to conform he will wipe the floor with his contemporaries, the thing is, that might be to late, we are saying by the time a child is 11 that might be to late?
My academic life at that age was somewhat different, born in London, sent to Barbados as a two year old, came back and went straight to Holland Park school as an eleven year old, so didn't go the grammar school route.
What I will say is, between the ages of 2-11, I learnt more than between 11-16, this was because in Barbados, they maintained the old colonial way of teaching, when I came back to the UK at 11, I had already done things like algebra etc, in Holland Park, we where doing something called smile math, the system had been dumbed down, and this was back in the late 70's early 80's, so God only knows what state it's in now.
In Barbados, the literacy rate was around 90%+ in the UK, it was around 34%, I would take this to mean the secondary schools are failing in the UK as the majority of the population go to secondary schools.
So to sumerise, it's the academic standards within the schools that I believe is the problem, also, life patterns have changed and nowadays, both parents work, come home knackered and therefore that crucial 2-3 hrs after school coming home and doing home work with your mum has long been lost.
Apologies for the ramble, I am currently trying to find a solution to ensure my kids get as good a shot at life as possible. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 09:38 - Sep 9 with 8612 views | LadbrokeR |
| Grammar Schools on 09:00 - Sep 9 by californiahoop |
My twins are 7 and the streamlining has begun for Grammer our secondary, my little girl is on the money academically, my boy is with the fairies but is as sharp as a knife.
I can already see that when he decides to conform he will wipe the floor with his contemporaries, the thing is, that might be to late, we are saying by the time a child is 11 that might be to late?
My academic life at that age was somewhat different, born in London, sent to Barbados as a two year old, came back and went straight to Holland Park school as an eleven year old, so didn't go the grammar school route.
What I will say is, between the ages of 2-11, I learnt more than between 11-16, this was because in Barbados, they maintained the old colonial way of teaching, when I came back to the UK at 11, I had already done things like algebra etc, in Holland Park, we where doing something called smile math, the system had been dumbed down, and this was back in the late 70's early 80's, so God only knows what state it's in now.
In Barbados, the literacy rate was around 90%+ in the UK, it was around 34%, I would take this to mean the secondary schools are failing in the UK as the majority of the population go to secondary schools.
So to sumerise, it's the academic standards within the schools that I believe is the problem, also, life patterns have changed and nowadays, both parents work, come home knackered and therefore that crucial 2-3 hrs after school coming home and doing home work with your mum has long been lost.
Apologies for the ramble, I am currently trying to find a solution to ensure my kids get as good a shot at life as possible. |
It's interesting that you mention Holland Park i would inagine that there are quite a few Rs that have been there. I worked there for a while and soon realised that it was regarded as the Eton of comprehensive schools. This spoke a lot about the egalatarian nature and political leanings of the staff. Since then it's changed dramatically and is now an academy designed to achieve the very things that comprehensives supposedly couldn't achieve. I thought that it was a great place to work there was a real connection between the pupils and the teachers and like most schools there were badly behaved young people and some high achievers. The thing about this whole debate is that we are not on a level playing playing field. Therfore should we reward those that perfrom well in a one off exam (previously the 11 plus) and pursue a course that is designed to benefit the few whilst having far reaching negative consequences for the many. As a person that passed for Grammar and spent two years within that system and the last three within a comprehensive i would say that based on available evidence it's not a good idea. That said this raises questions about the standared of education across the board and that's a broader subject. Then there is private education which is a another story. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 10:31 - Sep 9 with 8558 views | californiahoop |
Exactly, the Grammer school principle has its merits, but the levels in secondary schools have to be risen, in order to provide the majority of our future society a higher basic education,this in turn could help advance the late bloomers.
Holland was indeed a great school, I was fortunate enough to have had great teachers and bright friends, I personally got a bit lost and did all my learning after school, in fact, I am still at it. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 10:33 - Sep 9 with 8554 views | stevec |
Some heartfelt stuff on here but it shows that people still manage to make a path despite the setbacks of schooling.
Was fortunate enough to go to Grammar school and, as LadbrokeR mentioned, mine was also 'converted' midway through to a Comprehensive by the c nts in the Labour party and ILEA. One of those who had to learn through hard graft rather than natural ability so the resulting influx of shit left wing teachers put paid to any grander thoughts.
Never understood peoples criticism of grammar schools. Sure the age thing is part lottery but if the changeover from primary to secondary is at 11 years old, what else to do? You have to start somewhere.
If I can throw a football analogy in, if your son was a decent player at 11 and a top professional club asked him to come train and play at their academy, would that be wrong? Would you insist on equal opportunity and keep him playing for the local sunday league side? Of course not. No one knows if he'll go onto being a pro or laying bricks but each and every one of us would be saying 'go for it'. Quite why it's considered somehow elitist to give the same opportunities for someone gifted academically rather than sporting is a bit strange.
Personally i'd close down every private school at the end of term and open them up as Grammar schools in the new term. Leave the payers paying and the new years come in under the Grammar system. If anything needs to be condemned it's the fckin disgrace that you can buy your offspring privilege, the foulest social division of all. |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 10:39 - Sep 9 with 8543 views | robith |
Grammar schools are the triumph of the anecdote over evidence. Behold this thread where everyone knows one person who did alright out of them, yet all the evidence from 1959 until today shows they don't work. Strange how education is so subjective - I doubt we've had evidence based policy in the field since, well, forever.
Between this and forced moves to academies (many of whom use exclusionary tactics to avoid taking poor students such as having application days on weekends so only parents with full time jobs can bring their kids - a common tactic in Hackney) where are the poorer students going to end up?
Don't agree with everything here - but a great precis. "Stressting about which kids go into the punctured lifeboat while everyone else goes down with the ship)
http://schoolsweek.co.uk/theres-more-to-worry-about-than-grammars/?utm_content=b |  | | |
| Grammar Schools on 10:53 - Sep 9 with 8513 views | nadera78 |
Every single piece of research into Grammar schools comes to the same conclusion - they entrench inequality. A handful of poorer kids get to to go to one, mix with an overwhelmingly middle class group, and get resources thrown at them. Everyone else meanwhile is left on the scrap heap.
The evidence really is overwhelming on this matter to the point that it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation. | | | |
| Grammar Schools on 11:03 - Sep 9 with 8487 views | ElHoop |
| Grammar Schools on 10:53 - Sep 9 by nadera78 |
Every single piece of research into Grammar schools comes to the same conclusion - they entrench inequality. A handful of poorer kids get to to go to one, mix with an overwhelmingly middle class group, and get resources thrown at them. Everyone else meanwhile is left on the scrap heap.
The evidence really is overwhelming on this matter to the point that it shouldn't even be a topic of conversation. |
I think that one 'point of the conversation' could be why there's still inequality and kids on the 'scrap heap' in areas without grammar schools, if that's OK with you. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
