Do you support Southend's Grammar Schools?

[Pubey]

Pubey, what does the evidence suggests happens to the results of pupils at the top end if there are no grammar schools?
Would it be expected that the same results would be achieved as would have been achieved had they gone to grammar schools?

Don't have answers for all your questions. The data I've seen is behind an FT paywall.

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths

You can get the bottom line here, in the comment by Rupert Baines which reproduces the FT report.

http://www.quora.com/Why-are-selective-grammar-schools-so-controversial-in-England

- Selective areas do worse than many non-selective areas, on average.

- Poor people are worse off in selective areas.

Also, what are the perceived causes of lower standards in a comprehensive / grammar school divided system? Finally, do those who advocate an end to grammar schools favour a division of classes based on ability in an all encompassing school?

No idea, I'm not an educationalist. I'm struggling to remember back to my module on education economics from my degree. Peer effect is a really big issue. Students learn best from each other, and 'smart students' can help bring up struggling students.

Yes I think selective classes with the opportunity to move around would be good. Students learn in different ways and selectivity/specialisation would in general be good. I think that's the norm in most schools.

Please note, for those of a defensive nature, this is a genuine enquiry and not
a loaded question in which to draw incorrect inferences.

You bigot!

 

[londonblue]

Pubey, what does the evidence suggests happens to the results of pupils at the top end if there are no grammar schools?
Would it be expected that the same results would be achieved as would have been achieved had they gone to grammar schools?

Also, what are the perceived causes of lower standards in a comprehensive / grammar school divided system? Finally, do those who advocate an end to grammar schools favour a division of classes based on ability in an all encompassing school?

Please note, for those of a defensive nature, this is a genuine enquiry and not
a loaded question in which to draw incorrect inferences.

Read the BBC article in the post above your one, it answers a lot of your questions.

 

[Pubey]

Read the BBC article in the post above your one, it answers a lot of your questions.

From what I can see, the BBC article is based on a report that's specific to maths performance, and focusses on selective classes rather than schools. The inferences are limited to a discussion about grammar school - but it is interesting. The level of numeracy in this country IMO is pretty terrible. We have to re-teach a lot of basics and fundamentals at degree level for the economics classes I teach, and these are students with at least an A in GCSE maths and many with at least AS level maths. They can't do basic calculus, simultaneous equations, algebra, statistics.

 

[Up the Shrimpers]

This is the only thing I disagree with (in your otherwise excellent post).

I did two periods of teaching practice (for my PGCE) at a so-called "comprehensive" in Kent.

Believe me, after selection at 11 (and then again at 14),there is precious little incentive for those pupils (the vast majority-80% as you say) to succeed in a system which has failed them (rather than the reverse).

Ah yes I can see that being a problem. Again I have not looked at the league tables but I bet the non-selective Kent schools compare poorly to the Essex non-selective schools.

I have not read the full story but front page of the Echo today is a headline that Southend High School for Boys needs to find £250,000 extra funding this year.

 

[Pubey]

Ah yes I can see that being a problem. Again I have not looked at the league tables but I bet the non-selective Kent schools compare poorly to the Essex non-selective schools.

I have not read the full story but front page of the Echo today is a headline that Southend High School for Boys needs to find £250,000 extra funding this year.

It's gonna be £25 quid to park there on a match day now:sad:

 

[londonblue]

From what I can see, the BBC article is based on a report that's specific to maths performance, and focusses on selective classes rather than schools. The inferences are limited to a discussion about grammar school - but it is interesting. The level of numeracy in this country IMO is pretty terrible. We have to re-teach a lot of basics and fundamentals at degree level for the economics classes I teach, and these are students with at least an A in GCSE maths and many with at least AS level maths. They can't do basic calculus, simultaneous equations, algebra, statistics.

It seems to use maths as an example, but I don't think it is based on maths...I may be wrong though...

 

[number11]

Thanks London, think you posted whilst I was typing. An interesting read but what I don't understand is why it is accepted that teachers cannot get the best out of pupils unless there are brighter students (ie those who otherwise would have gone to grammar school) alOngside them.

Also, I'd be interested to hear if it is known how the top end perform in a non divided system compared to at a grammar school....

 

[londonblue]

Thanks London, think you posted whilst I was typing. An interesting read but what I don't understand is why it is accepted that teachers cannot get the best out of pupils unless there are brighter students (ie those who otherwise would have gone to grammar school) alOngside them.

Also, I'd be interested to hear if it is known how the top end perform in a non divided system compared to at a grammar school....

I think it did answer your 2nd question:

None of the countries with a high degree of stratification, whether in the form of tracking, streaming, or grade repetition is among the top performing education systems or among the systems with the highest share of top performers.

i.e. the top performing education systems are ones with little or no streaming.

This is interesting. I'm starting to change my views. I was always supportive of grammar schools, but I think that was really because I saw how the pupils there (e.g. my brother) were pushed to achieve, and (being a lazy *******) know that I would have benefited in that kind of environment, as opposed to my school that allowed me to get away with doing less than the bare minimum.

I suppose you can be pushed to achieve within a comprehensive system, so really this comes down to the school, not the streaming.

(And before anyone points it out, yes I know I have to take responsibility for my own actions, and I have done. Nevertheless, I also know that had I been pushed I would have done so much better.)

However, does it matter now? Not really. I still passed my A Levels, and still got a degree, and am probably still doing the same job I would have ended up doing anyway...

 

[KAB]

Pubey, what does the evidence suggests happens to the results of pupils at the top end if there are no grammar schools?
Would it be expected that the same results would be achieved as would have been achieved had they gone to grammar schools?

Also, what are the perceived causes of lower standards in a comprehensive school in a divided system? Finally, do those who advocate an end to grammar schools favour a division of classes based on ability in an all encompassing school?

Please note, for those of a defensive nature, this is a genuine enquiry and not
a loaded question in which to draw incorrect inferences.

Research recently and in the past appears to indicate that social background is more relevant to success than the type of school. This suggests aspiration is key to future development of individuals and that can be achieved by higher funding of state comprehensive education. Cream generally rises to the top eventually, there may be a case to maintain current grammar school levels but I don't believe in it's expansion. I failed all education but found I developed at a much later age whereas some friends of mine with a finer set of aspirational values prospered much earlier.

 

[callan]

Do you think your education have been better if grammar schools in the area didn't exist? Lots of evidence to support the statement that grammar schools increases inequality - grammar school students do better, non-grammar school students do worse than they would have.

It's easy to say "I went to a grammar school and it did me well, so they are a good thing". But it's also a selfish position if people who aren't in a grammar school do worse because of it.

I can't think of anyway it impacted on me at all, I really wasn't that academic.
The fact that there were Kids that went to Grammar didn't make my situation less equal, or give me less opportunity.
I loved going to school (probably for all the wrong reasons).
It's interesting how the word 'selfish' is perceived...I certainly would feel selfish if I was denying the opportunity for Kids to do well, by them going to a grammar school.
My daughter attended a Comp, she's now at Cambridge....the fact that she didn't attend a grammar has had no effect on her.

 

[number11]

I think it did answer your 2nd question:



i.e. the top performing education systems are ones with little or no streaming.

.

We might be at cross purposes here. I'm looking at the hypothetical as to whether those students who would otherwise have gone to grammar school would do as well in a mixed system. A better indication for this would be areas with no grammar schools or where grammar schools have been abolished.

I'd always presumed the top end would do less well without grammar schools and the lower end better.....

 

[Pubey]

We might be at cross purposes here. I'm looking at the hypothetical as to whether those students who would otherwise have gone to grammar school would do as well in a mixed system. A better indication for this would be areas with no grammar schools or where grammar schools have been abolished.

I'd always presumed the top end would do less well without grammar schools and the lower end better.....

It's hard (impossible) to do the top end/lower end bit. But the data I posted earlier shows that 6 out of 9 non-selective areas do better overall (on average) compared to selective areas.

 

[Benfleet A1]

It's so much more dignified when people can ask a question and get a answer without being ignored. I've enjoyed the last couple of pages.

Bravo, Pubey, London Blue, Number 11 and Callan

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Say what now?






Of course they're anachronisms, the Guardian says so!

Edited, etc....

You seem to be implying, (and I'm sure I infer correctly), that I get my views about Grammar schools from The Guardian.

Quite frankly, you couldn't be more wrong.

In fact, I get my views about British education from personal experience and over thirty years experience as a teacher.

Granted, I did start reading The Guardian in the 6th form and have been a regular reader ever since.

However, any similarity between my views and those of The Guardian are,I assure you,entirely coincidental.

 

[Benfleet A1]

And then it all went wrong. Oh well, nice while it lasted.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Thanks London, think you posted whilst I was typing. An interesting read but what I don't understand is why it is accepted that teachers cannot get the best out of pupils unless there are brighter students (ie those who otherwise would have gone to grammar school) alOngside them.

Also, I'd be interested to hear if it is known how the top end perform in a non divided system compared to at a grammar school....

I'll give you one example from my own experience.

At Northfleet "Comprehensive" school in History classes, pupils' worksheets were colour coded (sorry can't remember the exact colours but IIRC they were Blue,Red and Yellow) in order of difficulty.

That of course didn't stop the "yellow" w/sheet kids from realising that they were perceived as thick.Nor did it give the so called brighter "Blue" kids any incentive to improve.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I sit here naked and just wonder if all these anti grammar school took and failed the 11+ and as for SBH that is some great work there.

I'm quite happy to admit I was a so-called 11+ "failure".

I'm also quite happy to talk about my academic qualifications,which extend from O/A levels to a (BA Hons.) Degree in Politics, (from Birmingham Polytechnic),a PGCE in Social Studies /Remedial Education (from Avery Hill College of Education,London) and a M.A. in T.E.S.O.L (from The Institute of Education,University of London).

 

[number11]

I'll give you one example from my own experience.

At Northfleet "Comprehensive" school in History classes, pupils' worksheets were colour coded (sorry can't remember the exact colours but IIRC they were Blue,Red and Yellow) in order of difficulty.

That of course didn't stop the "yellow" w/sheet kids from realising that they were perceived as thick.Nor did it give the so called brighter "Blue" kids any incentive to improve.

Thank you. Your example though seems to support segregation ie the yellow sheet kids won't be made to feel thick and the brighter kids would be incentivised to improve......

 

[Benfleet A1]

I'm quite happy to admit I was a so-called 11+ "failure".

I'm also quite happy to talk about my academic qualifications,which extend from O/A levels to a (BA Hons.) Degree in Politics, (from Birmingham Polytechnic),a PGCE in Social Studies /Remedial Education (from Avery Hill College of Education,London) and a M.A. in T.E.S.O.L (from The Institute of Education,University of London).

:zzzzz::zzzzz::zzzzz::zzzzz::zzzzz:

 

[Sam Jackson]

Just seen this thread pop up on the front of the main forum page, and thought it would be interesting to read. As a current WHSB student I really don't see why there is so much negativity surrounding grammar schools. I certainly do not agree with the idea that you have to be rich to attend either. I came from a very ordinary background, attending temple sutton primary school, and recieved no additional tutoring outside of school for my 11+. My parents (and I, to the extent that I actually had much of a say in the matter), decided that the grammar schools would be the better option for me. Why should the fact that some feel like these schools are full of snobs or whatever their argument is, mean that some students shouldn't be allowed to try to get the greatly beneficial education from these schools. I knew some people from my primary school who were very bright and could have done well in a grammar school, but were instead forced to attend cecil jones either by their parents or by peer pressure from their friends to go to the same school, be negatively influenced by those around them who were not committed to work and the poor standards that led to the school being put into special measures. This is considered as the local school in my area, and since some suggest that you should attend the school nearest to you, I don't like to think of how differently things could have turned out for me (now currently considering my offers for university) if I didn't have the opportunity to attend WHSB.