Separate Schools?

[*Bob*]

We could have every child's brain scooped-out at birth and replaced with a mixture of dry leaves and a tennis ball.

That way everyone would be just as useless at everything as everyone else and we could do away with inconvenient stuff like aspiration and all that jazz.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

  Quote

We could have every child's brain scooped-out at birth and replaced with a mixture of dry leaves and a tennis ball.

That way everyone would be just as useless at everything as everyone else and we could do away with inconvenient stuff like aspiration and all that jazz.

That would be pure overkill bob, GCSE's seem to be doing that job quite nicely.

[*Bob*]

Good point.

I did the second year of GCSEs and I'm sure they've got easier since then.

I only got 42 A*'s! Can you imagine? You can't even get a job driving a fork lift truck with that these days.

[James]

An interesting case study in the selection vs comprehensive debate is Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in New Cross. They have a banding system whereby a mix of all abilities is enforced and get outstanding results.

To answer Bob's suggestion that comprehensives make everybody adequate rather than better - this school could be taken as evidence that it doesn't have to be this way.

Perhaps all schools should be like this?

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I went to a mixed comprehensive on a big council estate in Birkenhead.

I got 6 o'levels and 2 CSE's and my brother got 8 o'levels without much effort and lots of psychotropic substances.

A mate of mine who actually bothered doing homework and revision got 10 grade A O'levels and 4 A's at A level at this hard as nails comprehensive.

We had a few really dedicated teachers who rammed knowledge down our throats whether we liked it or not!

It was heavily streamed with twice yearly assessments to see what class you should be in, so being in the top classes probably helped, but it was a good example of how comprehensive education can work.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Yeah, I can't see how a comprehensive with streaming is that different to the grammar school system.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Once you are rejected for grammar school you're stuck in a secondary modern.

with streaming if you are a late developer you still have a chance to move up to the top classes.

We had a lot of people come up to the top classes a couple of years into secondary school.

With the grammar school system they would not have had that chance.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

  Quote

Once you are rejected for grammar school your stuck in a secondary modern.

with streaming if you arw a late developer you still have a chance to move up to the top classes.

We had a lot of people come up to the top classes a couple of years into secondary school.

With the grammar school system they would not have had that chance.

I agree, also it is kinder to kids who are good in one area but poor in others. We had a couple of kids who were in the top sets for sciences but near the bottom for English, history etc.

[*Bob*]

James Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To answer Bob's suggestion that comprehensives

> make everybody adequate rather than better - this

> school could be taken as evidence that it doesn't

> have to be this way.

Is this the school with a waiting list as long as the channel tunnel that no-one will ever get into?

In a dream world (2068.. LibDems in power, Korea reunited, Dennis Norden still presenting IBAOTN) this would be just dandy. But alas this is some way off and shows no sign of arrival with the current course down the River Poop sans paddle.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

  Quote

Is this the school with a waiting list as long as the channel tunnel that no-one will ever get into?

Its not as hard as you think it is. If your kid is a grade 8 pianist with a Statement of Special Education Needs, and you live in Deptford, then its pretty much a formality.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

This is a fairly interesting site if you have time to waste: That'll teach 'em

Channel 4 recreated 1950s schooling and plonked a load of kids who'd just received pretty good GCSEs into a rigorous, academic setting. It certainly proved that academic standards have slipped (eg, none of them passed a 1950s 11 Plus exam) but there are good arguments/anecdotes for not continuing with this system.

However, we do seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. (See what a grammar school education does for one?)

[taper]

The c4 programme proved nothing of the sort. A recent report in The Economist (no left wing screed that) showed that standards and attainment were higher in countries where children weren't separated into ability-based schools. So in comprehensive Finland, which has the highest levels of attainment in the world, the differences between schools are remarkably small compared with the UK. So why are they good? The teachers are excellent, and have the flexibility to be entreprenuerial and flexible in what they teach. Impossible to mimic Finland, for various reasons, but segregation according to ability does not lift overall educational levels.

[James]

Good point Taper. This makes perfect sense.

I think the existence of 'sink schools' has made people think that comprehensives cannot get the best out of everyone. This is a flawed argument in my opinion. The only reason some schools are bad is because it is nigh-on impossible to teach when you are faced with all the most challenging kids at once. They all end up in the same place because faith schools, selective schools and popular so-called comprehensives in posh areas (whose intake is patently not comprehensive) suck out all the pupils that are easiest to teach and have the fewest social disadvantages.

In a school with a good mix of abilities and great teachers (like Haberdashers), everyone can do well. But there is a tipping point beyond which even the best teachers will struggle.

The government know this very well - but they don't want it to be common knowledge. Because once you acknowledge that you have to admit that selection is morally wrong - so you have to throw open the doors of all those faith schools, private schools, grammar schools and posh comps to everyone.

The floating voters would not be happy with that, so nothing changes.

[citizenED]

Fully in agreement with your suggestions on this, James. Our whole educational system should be comprehensive. Be a very brave government that would ever tackle that one, though.

[James]

Aha! So we agree on something :))

[????]

Aside from the arguments about personal freedom, in principle, James and CED are right, in reality you could argue that that would further exacerbate house prices in posher areas and increase ghettoisation between the majority and the poorest. It looks though like most of us are in agreement on some form of streaming based on ability should be applied to education...the Grammar school system, of course, failed lots of people, but I think the argument is that educational achievement among the poorest have slipped dramatically in recent years as the delayed effect of the mass social engineering that was Comprehensive Education has come through

[citizenED]

I think there is a price to pay for following through a principle that is right. Some people think that India is in more choas since the Brits left. Maybe, but so what, it is right that a nation has self-determination. It is right that we have comprehensive education.

(James, I'm sure there's plenty we agree on.;-))

[????]

But if that price is lowering educational achievement for the most disadvantaged doesn't that undermine the whole point of the principle in the first place?

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

I went to university in the early 1990's and didn't know one "working class" kid who went to a grammar school, knew lots of middle class ones though.

[????]

errr...that proves the point, Comprehensives got rid of the old style grammar schools in 1973/4...so what you're talking about is different to when all state school split into Secondary modern or Grammar Schools decided by your 11+ result...plenty of working class kids got into them then including a few on here.....

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

  Quote

errr...that proves the point, Comprehensives got rid of the old style grammar schools in 1973/4...so what you're talking about is different to when all state school split into Secondary modern or Grammar Schools decided by your 11+ result...plenty of working class kids got into them then including a few on here.....

errrrr, no it doesn't.....at all. There are still loads of non-fee paying Grammar Schools, you know, ones where you have to pass a test at 11 to get in. They are absolutely dominated by middle-class kids, you'll have to explain how this proves that grammar schools are great for poor kids.

[James]

>>in principle, James and CED are right, in reality you could argue that that would further exacerbate house prices in posher areas and increase ghettoisation between the majority and the poorest.

One thing you could do is have a system whereby kids are brought in from the nearest poor/rich area to even things out. Say you had a school in Dulwich and another in Peckham. To enforce it you'd have some kids from Dulwich being schooled in Peckham and vice versa so that the intakes matched in terms of ability and affluence.

[*Bob*]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

They are absolutely dominated by middle-class

> kids, you'll have to explain how this proves that

> grammar schools are great for poor kids.

I wouldn't deny this for a minute.

When my Dad went to a Grammar, someone said he had to take this test thing, and then they said he had to go to this school, so he went. His parents thought nothing of it, and that he'd hopefully get that job at the bakery like his Dad one day.

But parents these days are far more savvy, and know the importance of schooling more than they ever did. And of course the pesky MCs are more motivated (read 'pushy' if you will) and so..

[david_carnell]

If you make each child go to their nearest school it affects house prices causing the poor to be priced out of areas with good schools.

There seems a aconvincing argument that you shouldn't make the decision based on educational attainment at 11; ergo one school full of the brights and another the dims.

The easiest way would be a tombola. You get the "choice" of the three/four/five nearest schools to you and pick one out of a metaphorical hat (which would in reality be allocated by a computer somewhere). The number of schools could be increased/decreased according to population density:number of schools ratio.

I don't believe in choice. No one really wants a choice of schools because in an ideal world you wouldn't need one. All schools would be roughly equal and as long as the school was near to your home all would be well.

My real bugbear is league tables. It harks back to choice because it allows parents to see how certain schools are doing and "choose" a good school for their child. Of course not everyone can go to that school and so eventually some children have to go to the schools at the bottom. So what do they achieve? In reality it forces schools to teach children to pass exams - nothing more. No longer is education a higher purpose in itself but merely a means to an end. To me, this is a tragic state of affairs. If it won't help you pass an exam you don't learn it.

I was luck, I had excellent teachers who fostered learning environments where being more than an automaton was encouraged - but I'm aware I was lucky. I went to a grammar school which was near the top of the borough's league table. The pressure to maintain that place was high but taking only the speccy kids at 11 gave them a head start.

But now I've opened a whole other can of worms. I know there are some teachers on here (get back to work you idle swines!) so perhaps if they feel able they could put their side of the argument compared to a parents - or maybe they're both.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

  Quote

But parents these days are far more savvy, and know the importance of schooling more than they ever did. And of course the pesky MCs are more motivated (read 'pushy' if you will) and so..

So replacing the comprehensive schools system with Grammar schools will probably set most working-class kids back as their parents aren't going to spend hundreds of pounds on tuition fees to ensure that Jack passes the eleven+. It would, however, save some parents a fortune in school fees.