Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
rollover

Theresa May’S Grammar School Revolution

Recommended Posts

I was wondering this. If we get a full blown Grammar School and secondary modern model then moving area becomes less important for the upper middle classes, if their kid doesn't pass the eleven plus then an independent school becomes a necessity. On the other hand it they do, may as well buy a cheaper house on the edge of the old catchment area. Overall i think it will even it out, as May seems to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the system in Kent. People just move for the decent primary schools instead.

And on the grammar school issue it is such a waste. Those who go to grammar schools do about as well as similar pupils do in comps. Those who go to secondary moderns do much worse than those similar pupils do in comps. So overall a negligible impact on those who make grammar schools and a big negative for those who fail the 11+. It is one of those issues where loads of data says it doesn't work but anecdotes dominate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one of those issues where loads of data says it doesn't work but anecdotes dominate.

Same thing with healthcare where the data shows you get better outcomes when difficult treatments are centralised into specialist centres which patients have to travel further to get to rather than the old district hospital being jack of all trades and master of none. Still, the general public would apparently rather be killed by the district hospital close to their house. MPs (including health ministers) know the truth, but they will still campaign against the closure of wards at the district hospital in their constituency because it will win them votes from uninformed idiots.

As a manager you're always told not to micromanage your reports but that's exactly what the general public want to do with politicians. The man on the Clapham omnibus is a terrible manager, demanding the right to micromanage politicians without having any of the facts at his disposal.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the system in Kent. People just move for the decent primary schools instead.

And on the grammar school issue it is such a waste. Those who go to grammar schools do about as well as similar pupils do in comps. Those who go to secondary moderns do much worse than those similar pupils do in comps. So overall a negligible impact on those who make grammar schools and a big negative for those who fail the 11+. It is one of those issues where loads of data says it doesn't work but anecdotes dominate.

If that is true why do parents go to such ridiculous lengths to get their kids into "good" comprehensives. Surely they should just buy a cheap house and send their kids to any school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is true why do parents go to such ridiculous lengths to get their kids into "good" comprehensives. Surely they should just buy a cheap house and send their kids to any school?

Most people are basically superstitious imitators who rarely try to figure out the truth of anything and just rely on received wisdom and rules of thumb instead. If everyone else is trying to get into the catchment area that is reason enough for most people to try to do the same.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are basically superstitious imitators who rarely try to figure out the truth of anything and just rely on received wisdom and rules of thumb instead. If everyone else is trying to get into the catchment area that is reason enough for most people to try to do the same.

So league tables are pointless, nothing you do about your choice of school will affect your childs educational attainment at all? I am not disagreeing just wondered what your take on it was?

Edited by debtlessmanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So league tables are pointless, nothing you do about your choice of school will affect your childs educational attainment at all? I am not disagreeing just wondered what your take on it was?

I'm sure choice of school matters to attainment, but the highly aggregated data used in league tables won't tell you how well a child of your child's academic ability will do which is the information you would need to make a rational choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure choice of school matters to attainment, but the highly aggregated data used in league tables won't tell you how well a child of your child's academic ability will do which is the information you would need to make a rational choice.

So if they are promising musically say than the local comprehensive would develop their skill just as well as Cheetham's music school in Manchester say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is true why do parents go to such ridiculous lengths to get their kids into "good" comprehensives. Surely they should just buy a cheap house and send their kids to any school?

If you look at areas where elitism is still allowed, you see that most of those Olympic athletes come from fee-paying schools. There is still value to be had for money, and that includes sporting facilities most of us will never see as well as probably an above-average chance of being noticed if you start to show real promise.

So if they are promising musically say than the local comprehensive would develop their skill just as well as Cheetham's music school in Manchester say?

Ah, yes. Another area where some schools matter. There's a choir in London that does most of the Hollywood soundtracks, because the 'merkins don't have a comparable group with the capability of those educated in cathedral schools to just pick up a new score and record it on first sight.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they are promising musically say than the local comprehensive would develop their skill just as well as Cheetham's music school in Manchester say?

For vocational subjects like art, music, theatre and sport you probably do want a specialist school from a fairly young age. For a general academic education the local comp can prepare an able student well enough to later go on to a life in academic research if that's what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a parent of two grown up children I can assure you that (within broad middle class limits) it is a waste of time to try and micro manipulate choice of school. My kids grew up just like their peers who went to the other schools. Of course they are completely outclassed by friends' children who went to private school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For vocational subjects like art, music, theatre and sport you probably do want a specialist school from a fairly young age. For a general academic education the local comp can prepare an able student well enough to later go on to a life in academic research if that's what they want.

Which is were I am, I'll be a little more open than usual. I am a professor of physics in a russel group university. One of the largest - out of all the academic staff of 100+ ( i have the opportunity to research this as I have seen their CVs for complicated reasons) there is not a single member of staff educated in the uk comprehensive system. Many from overseas of course but of the U.K. Cohort they are all grammar school or independently educated. My own background is direct grant school, I passed the 11+ and the corporation paid for me to attend an independent school which was paid to take us. My physics teacher was outstanding- he realised the strongest students and his lessons went way past A- level physic into maxwells eqns and relativity. The comprehensive system fails the top 1-3% of the population by educational promise. 100% for sure and that is the component of society that is the most important for the development of the economy, health service etc.

Edit to add

I suspect these studies (okay I should read them) compare the relative performance of kids In terms of the uk cohorts of student from in comps and grammar. What no studies would go near is the relative to

Other countries performance measures.

Edited by debtlessmanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Grammar School boy I am very opposed to Grammar Schools,

True, they offered a 'Public School' education to the less well off, but in later life, I found myself overtaken by Secondary Modern educated boys.

I think that both my children profited enormously by Comprehensive education. Both got degrees which I did not.

My son, 41 years old, Chartered profession openly states than he would have failed if offered a Grammar School education and that he would have failed at the 11 plus.

My daughter, thick as two planks until she was about 16, suddenly blossomed and got a 2a.

Turned out that she was practically blind in one eye. Nobody realised.

Call it Multi Lateral or Comprehensive, it is logical, sensible and provably effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Grammar School boy I am very opposed to Grammar Schools,

True, they offered a 'Public School' education to the less well off, but in later life, I found myself overtaken by Secondary Modern educated boys.

I think that both my children profited enormously by Comprehensive education. Both got degrees which I did not.

My son, 41 years old, Chartered profession openly states than he would have failed if offered a Grammar School education and that he would have failed at the 11 plus.

My daughter, thick as two planks until she was about 16, suddenly blossomed and got a 2a.

Turned out that she was practically blind in one eye. Nobody realised.

Call it Multi Lateral or Comprehensive, it is logical, sensible and provably effective

Indeed I am all for what suits the child and people develop at different rates. Any realistic system should recognise that and allow for it. All I am saying is that any system that fails the top few percent of academically able children fails their country enormously. Don't get me wrong. The grammar school system is unfair. The question is what make society wealthy, feed itself and provide healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is were I am, I'll be a little more open than usual. I am a professor of physics in a russel group university. One of the largest - out of all the academic staff of 100+ ( i have the opportunity to research this as I have seen their CVs for complicated reasons) there is not a single member of staff educated in the uk comprehensive system. Many from overseas of course but of the U.K. Cohort they are all grammar school or independently educated. My own background is direct grant school, I passed the 11+ and the corporation paid for me to attend an independent school which was paid to take us. My physics teacher was outstanding- he realised the strongest students and his lessons went way past A- level physic into maxwells eqns and relativity. The comprehensive system fails the top 1-3% of the population by educational promise. 100% for sure and that is the component of society that is the most important for the development of the economy, health service etc.

Edit to add

I suspect these studies (okay I should read them) compare the relative performance of kids In terms of the uk cohorts of student from in comps and grammar. What no studies would go near is the relative to

Other countries performance measures.

To what extent is this distorted by the ability of richer kids to pursue riskier goals?

There's a big pressure to get a real job as soon as possible if there's no one paying your bills.

I'd put physicist in the same category as acting or sport. It's a great job, but mostly badly paid, incredibly competitive and only a few will ever make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I think I will have with sending my children to state school is that about 30% of the children will have parents who are extremely poor role models. This means the school has to run around fire fighting instead of concentrating on the pupils that are there to learn. I witnessed this first hand when I went to school.

No matter what the state does with schools they will never be able to save people who do not want to be helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I think I will have with sending my children to state school is that about 30% of the children will have parents who are extremely poor role models. This means the school has to run around fire fighting instead of concentrating on the pupils that are there to learn. I witnessed this first hand when I went to school.

No matter what the state does with schools they will never be able to save people who do not want to be helped.

Elephant? Here? What elephant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a grammar school and if I wanted kids I'd try to send them to one. Hard to compare how I'd have turned out if I went to the local comp in hindsight - I can read and write and use grammar correctly though which puts me in a minority at my age. Or so it feels.

I don't think the less able benefit by holding back the more able either. If public schools didn't exist then I'd agree that grammar schools were unfair but we already have such a slanted education system it makes no odds.

Edited by spunko2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the system in Kent. People just move for the decent primary schools instead.

And on the grammar school issue it is such a waste. Those who go to grammar schools do about as well as similar pupils do in comps. Those who go to secondary moderns do much worse than those similar pupils do in comps. So overall a negligible impact on those who make grammar schools and a big negative for those who fail the 11+. It is one of those issues where loads of data says it doesn't work but anecdotes dominate.

I'd agree with this. I went to a comp, and along with 4 other pupils in my year (mostly in the same subjects) we all aced our 5 A-levels. The thing was we were all smart, but we also all worked hard and were suitably streamed. Whilst I like the idea of Grammar schools from an aspirational perspective, I am not sure they'd actually make a huge difference overall. I am also now much more aware of legal table manipulation. Schools at the top of the pile with the highest pass rate often don't allow more mediocre pupils to take the exam. This is particularly prevelant in some top performing private schools - as all they want is vanity grades. it is all rather the equivalent of my old comp saying that they'd only enter my tiny group into the exams and no one else, that way they'd average 5 As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the local comp but we had full streaming. It was telling that someone that got (for example) 51 streaming points and made that A stream would get on average 7 decent O levels. Their pal who scored 49 points and therefore spent 4 years in the B stream would get, at best, a handful of cse's. The difference was the A stream were taught. The B stream were controlled. It only takes two bad apples to destroy the crop.

I firmly believe that the person you end up sitting next to on your first day has as much bearing on your final results as anything else. The best a parent can do is try to reduce the odds of that person being a total scrote.

Edited by CunningPlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I think I will have with sending my children to state school is that about 30% of the children will have parents who are extremely poor role models. This means the school has to run around fire fighting instead of concentrating on the pupils that are there to learn. I witnessed this first hand when I went to school.

No matter what the state does with schools they will never be able to save people who do not want to be helped.

I'd also agree strongly with this.

I recall at school prior to GCSE being surrounded by a highly varied mix of abilities depending on the subject. Core subjects were fine, as enough people did them to set up proper streams, but then things like history, geography and Economics had smaller groups, and so the range of ability was massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the local comp but we had full streaming. It was telling that someone that got (for example) 51 streaming points and made that A stream would get on average 7 decent O levels. Their pal who scored 49 points and therefore spent 4 years in the B stream would get, at best, a handful of cse's. The difference was the A stream were taught. The B stream were controlled. It only takes two bad apples to destroy the crop.

I firmly believe that the person you end up sitting next to on your first day has as much bearing on your final results as anything else. The best a parent can do is try to reduce the odds of that person being a total scrote.

Strongly agree with your penultimate point. Really kids who are disruptive need to be removed and sent to borstel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.