Selective Schools

[Jockney]

May wants to lift the ban on creating new grammar schools and also allow grammar schools to expand.

Caveat to this, she says, is that the 'new' grammar schools won't be like the old ones coz 'we'll make quotas for poor kids innit'.

So in addition to state education already functioning like a neo-liberal production line, and the rich and privileged already benefiting disproportionately through postcode lotteries and private schools, May and Greening want to return the system to a two-tier system. This is an idea that is not popular uniformly in the Conservative Party, either, btw, which says something.

Really fucking worrying times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37311023

 

[Veggie Legs]

A terrible idea, it's been discussed in the background for a couple of months but it seems to have all come out this week. All the data available shows how bad selective schooling is the poorest children, but then why would we want policy that's based on actual evidence?

 

[Jockney]

A terrible idea, it's been discussed in the background for a couple of months but it seems to have all come out this week. All the data available shows how bad selective schooling is the poorest children, but then why would we want policy that's based on actual evidence?

Policy that many senior Tories disagree with, including the previous Education Secretary (although in the case of Nicky Morgan her position might be something of an unintended endorsement).

 

[SUTSS]

The more faith schools part of the bill is awful as well.

 

[MJA]

Hasn't the education system been one of the bright points of recent times with better Ofsted reports and kids leaving with better grades?

If the system is currently working then why change it?

 

[Craig]

If the system is currently working then why change it?

Too many peasants getting an education.

 

[Abertawe]

Hasn't the education system been one of the bright points of recent times with better Ofsted reports and kids leaving with better grades?

If the system is currently working then why change it?

I'm not sure the system is working, at least not to the standards we should expect. We're lagging behind Finland, Switzerland, Holland, Germany, Australia, Ireland, N Zealand, Belgium, Slovenia etc going off the OECD's rankings. The system does need a change in my opinion, our brightest pupils should have the opportunity to challenge themselves to higher standards and compete with their foreign peers. For those pupils who aren't academically ambitious studying for exams until the age of 16 seems a bit of a waste. Their last two years could be consisting of learning trades & honing skills that could see them compete in skilled job markets once they leave education. Schools need to examine their purpose to the development of society. It's no longer enough to be getting a certain percentage of pupils hitting good grades, those who don't should be taught crafts to enable them to prosper once they leave, mix in some education about the facets of being self-employed & running a small business they could be set up for life. I don't see why that can't be achieved under one school so long as the investment is there.

Splitting kids up is just bollox. It's an ideological policy veering on social engineering to fulfill a set agenda. Unchallenged we'll essentially end up with non-private private schools. The best grammer academies commanding large sums from sponsors who in turn will eventually lobby successfully for the right to see a 'return on their investment'. I can't see this getting through. I'm surprised they're plugging it tbh.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

We currently have a one size fits all state education system, which doesn't stretch the brightest nearly enough, they have to wait until A-Level or Uni until they get challenged. But yet doesn't teach the less academic folks (like I was) any trades or skills, it just bashes against their heads subjects they aren't interested in. I had to wait until I was 16 and could go to college before I could learn anything that was actually interesting or useful to me. Why? I could have started those skills earlier instead of wasting time on the generic curriculum, and ended up better skilled when I set out on my first jobs aged 18. The current mush of uniformity is a compromise that suits nobody just because it's deemed to be fair and equal and inoffensive.

We need far more diverse types of schools and are aimed at teenagers differing skillsets and interests.

As such I'm not against the ramping up of the grammar school type if they allow the most academic kids to focus and maximise those subject areas - obviously the crux of the matter is how kids get selected for them, that needs to be as much based on the suitability and wishes of the individual as is possible. And we also need more schools that focus on practical and vocational skills.

Yes there would inevitably some sterotype that the rich kids go to the more academic school and the poor kids go to the more practical school. But that societal stereotype doesn't mean we shouldn't set out with the best intention to make our school system as successful and suitable for as many different people as possible. And those sterotypes can be challenged and changed over time so long as the framework around the system is good enough.

 

[MJA]

Great posts Abertawe and AFCB_Mark and can't argue with any of the points you make.

Maybe instead of looking at creating a divide based on supposed intelligence maybe the standard structure of the compulsory schooling should be looked at. Instead of locking kids into the standard curriculum until they are 16/18 maybe this should just run until 14/15 and at this point give kids the opportunity to go into apprenticeship schemes that would give them the opportunity to have a trade behind them by the time they reach 18

 

[Jockney]

I'm not sure the system is working, at least not to the standards we should expect. We're lagging behind Finland, Switzerland, Holland, Germany, Australia, Ireland, N Zealand, Belgium, Slovenia etc going off the OECD's rankings. The system does need a change in my opinion, our brightest pupils should have the opportunity to challenge themselves to higher standards and compete with their foreign peers. For those pupils who aren't academically ambitious studying for exams until the age of 16 seems a bit of a waste. Their last two years could be consisting of learning trades & honing skills that could see them compete in skilled job markets once they leave education. Schools need to examine their purpose to the development of society. It's no longer enough to be getting a certain percentage of pupils hitting good grades, those who don't should be taught crafts to enable them to prosper once they leave, mix in some education about the facets of being self-employed & running a small business they could be set up for life. I don't see why that can't be achieved under one school so long as the investment is there.

Splitting kids up is just bollox. It's an ideological policy veering on social engineering to fulfill a set agenda. Unchallenged we'll essentially end up with non-private private schools. The best grammer academies commanding large sums from sponsors who in turn will eventually lobby successfully for the right to see a 'return on their investment'. I can't see this getting through. I'm surprised they're plugging it tbh.

I personally think the axioms that attempt to underpin the argument in your first paragraph are actually what need to be addressed rather than the symptoms themselves. I'd like to consider...

1) What metric are the OECD using for success? What metric should we be using for success? Is success strictly quantifiable and if one claims that it is, then isn't that problematic? Should we even be using success frames when talking about education?

2) Is the developmental division of 'practical' and 'academic' students into discrete categories inevitable, i.e. deterministic, natural, unchangeable, or is the larger issue that those who wield power in the education system either cannot, will not, or are not being allowed to implement reform that could support children in desperate socio-economic situations? Do you think that the internalisation of this success narrative into the pedagogic framwork of the state education system might actually be turning most young people off the more academic subjects (particularly the core subjects)? E.g. a return to competency-based teaching, rather than a critical and creative exploration of concepts; one that necessitates dialogue and intellectual flexibility on the learner's account.

3) Do you think grades should be objective markers?

4) What is the end-goal of structural reform? Is it stimulation of the economy, general economic productivity, national self-esteem? What is the philosophical end-goal? What ethical considerations should be made?

 

[Jockney]

We currently have a one size fits all state education system, which doesn't stretch the brightest nearly enough, they have to wait until A-Level or Uni until they get challenged. But yet doesn't teach the less academic folks (like I was) any trades or skills, it just bashes against their heads subjects they aren't interested in. I had to wait until I was 16 and could go to college before I could learn anything that was actually interesting or useful to me. Why? I could have started those skills earlier instead of wasting time on the generic curriculum, and ended up better skilled when I set out on my first jobs aged 18. The current mush of uniformity is a compromise that suits nobody just because it's deemed to be fair and equal and inoffensive.

We need far more diverse types of schools and are aimed at teenagers differing skillsets and interests.

As such I'm not against the ramping up of the grammar school type if they allow the most academic kids to focus and maximise those subject areas - obviously the crux of the matter is how kids get selected for them, that needs to be as much based on the suitability and wishes of the individual as is possible. And we also need more schools that focus on practical and vocational skills.

Yes there would inevitably some sterotype that the rich kids go to the more academic school and the poor kids go to the more practical school. But that societal stereotype doesn't mean we shouldn't set out with the best intention to make our school system as successful and suitable for as many different people as possible. And those sterotypes can be challenged and changed over time so long as the framework around the system is good enough.

The notion that any selective schooling infrastucture would be open to reform 'as long as the system is good enough' is completely fatuous. The inequalities of the system are inscribed in the very system itself. You can't clean the shit off of faeces.

 

[Abertawe]

I personally think the axioms that attempt to underpin the argument in your first paragraph are actually what need to be addressed rather than the symptoms themselves. I'd like to consider...

1) What metric are the OECD using for success? What metric should we be using for success? Is success strictly quantifiable and if one claims that it is, then isn't that problematic? Should we even be using success frames when talking about education?

2) Is the developmental division of 'practical' and 'academic' students into discrete categories inevitable, i.e. deterministic, natural, unchangeable, or is the larger issue that those who wield power in the education system either cannot, will not, or are not being allowed to implement reform that could support children in desperate socio-economic situations? Do you think that the internalisation of this success narrative into the pedagogic framwork of the state education system might actually be turning most young people off the more academic subjects (particularly the core subjects)? E.g. a return to competency-based teaching, rather than a critical and creative exploration of concepts; one that necessitates dialogue and intellectual flexibility on the learner's account.

3) Do you think grades should be objective markers?

4) What is the end-goal of structural reform? Is it stimulation of the economy, general economic productivity, national self-esteem? What is the philosophical end-goal? What ethical considerations should be made?

What's the word count and submission date for this?

 

[Jockney]

What's the word count and submission date for this?

I'm in no rush. It wasn't a challenge and it wasn't directed at you specifically, either. I think it's useful to define the terms of debate. I'm not really interested in engaging in a discussion that holds true the insidious rubric that state education should be a labour production line.

 

[Veggie Legs]

Six months on and this still hasn't gone away, looks like it's actually going to happen. It's ok though, because Justine Greening has a plan to ensure that children from ordinary working families are fairly represented in grammar schools - it's to define what 'ordinary working families' means in such a way as to make this true: http://schoolsweek.co.uk/government-consults-on-definition-of-ordinary-working-families/

This is of course despite yet more data (this time from the DfE itself) showing that it's the richest who benefit the most from selective education http://educationdatalab.org.uk/2017...schools-and-government-data-confirms-as-much/

 

[johnnytodd]

Faith schools should be banned imo and i mean all faiths.

 

[piézo]

That sounds cruel and tends to increase even more the inequality between rich and poor students (which is a wordly problem but the educational systems instead of trying to solve it just make it worse) even with the quotas. But the whole selective thing is worrying like the student can't choose at all his area of specialization and the selection will never be 100% correct because many students start bad at a subject but develop in it with time. I already saw the worst student of a subject to become the best with time and if this person never was limited to course this subject a great student and its will would be wasted.

 

[johnnytodd]

Grammar schools imo opinion are a great idea.

You get in if your clever enough and not because your rich.

Why should I for an example a highly educated person have to study with delinquents like Saltire.

There is no better system. In fact this should be the standard procedure for university's such as Cambridge, where I studied.

 

[markwwfc1992]

Had you down more as an Oxford man myself Johnny.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

Grammar schools imo opinion are a great idea.

You get in if your clever enough and not because your rich.

Why should I for an example a highly educated person have to study with delinquents like Saltire.

There is no better system. In fact this should be the standard procedure for university's such as Cambridge, where I studied.

*you're
*universities

 

[SALTIRE]

Grammar schools imo opinion are a great idea.

You get in if your clever enough and not because your rich.

Why should I for an example a highly educated person have to study with delinquents like Saltire.

There is no better system. In fact this should be the standard procedure for university's such as Cambridge, where I studied.

Cambridge my arse. I studied alongside your future king at uni and wanted to smash his face in anytime I saw him, but I'd probably go missing in the Tower of London had I done so.

 

[johnnytodd]

Sorry I meant strangeways

 

[Pilgrim Meister]

The problem with grammar schools is the selection process. In the past (even now for those that remain), wealthier families paid big bucks for private tuition to get their kids up to speed to pass the 11 plus while the poorer kids lose out.

The selection process would have to change to make it fair for all, judged by the child's academic achievements throughout primary school to date and not one exam. If they did that then grammar schools are a good thing.

Continuing with the 11 plus will gives those kids with parents who can afford private tuition the upper hand

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Those socio-economic advantages will generally have a significant bearing on educational performance no matter how you measure it. There are definitely problems with the 11+ but ditching it for non-exam forms of assessment wouldn’t make much difference, at least not in any broad egalitarian sense. The middle class kids will still have a significant advantage over their working class counterparts.

The thing is, some kids among the lower orders defy their disadvantage and display a higher level of academic acumen than kids who have had a much easier start in life. Grammar schools were/are a way of identifying and nurturing that talent. The thinking is that it would be daft – bad for Blighty, let’s say – to let talent like that go to waste. The intention has never been to achieve equality, be it material equality or even equality of opportunity, in any general sense.

If you’re coming at the whole thing as an egalitarian, then the mere idea of grammar schools should be a complete anathema.