|
 |
|
A great experience, only slightly marred by the grammar schools row
17/05/2007
Finish teaching in Hull and travel to Blackpool for the Police Federation conference. I cannot praise the school more highly. They were incredibly helpful, friendly and accommodating. When, inevitably the LEA kicked up a fuss “why weren’t we told?” (Answer – because you would have found a thousand bureaucratic reasons to say “no”, or told the press or both) the head teacher was calm and reasonable. Given the results and the atmosphere in the school (and her ability to put up with me) she is clearly doing a great job.
The teaching is a great experience (more later), only slightly marred by the row about grammar schools.
I announced over a year ago that the party would not go back to a policy of opening new grammar schools or introducing the 11 plus and so am slightly surprised that the press has got so excited about this clear pledge being given all over again by David Willets.
The Telegraph coverage and comment is near hysterical. They simply don’t understand that the idea of introducing a few extra grammars says nothing to thousands of parents worried about children languishing in failing schools. In many ways, “bring back grammars” is a meaningless slogan, as the reason the 11 plus went in so many parts of the country is because it was so unpopular with parents. It is a classic example of fighting a battle of the past rather than meeting the challenges of the future. And it is politically naïve as it just says “we’ll help a few more escape failing schools rather than turn them round for all children.” The way to win the fight for aspiration is to put those things that worked in grammars – aggressive setting to stretch bright pupils, whole class teaching, strong discipline to name but three – in all schools.
What is sad is that the commentators miss all the things we’d do that would help standards and aspiration for all – synthetic phonics at primary school, zero tolerance of bad behaviour, unchallengeable rights for heads to exclude difficult pupils, enforceable home school contracts, saving special schools, setting and streaming, and expanding academies, allowing churches, voluntary bodies and others to open new schools.
Perhaps if I put the words “Bring back” in front of some of these policies they might just get it.
Anyway, back to teaching.
I found being a teaching assistant much easier in history than English. I helped a really bright set with a slavery project. Every single child in the class wanted to learn and succeed (see, setting works). However, as a result, my assistance – bit of spelling advice, an idea here or there – was probably of limited value. Helping the bottom set with “post 1945 reconstruction” on the other hand I was rushed off my feet. Personalised attention, assisting with plans for their presentations, advice about sources and information – I felt that I was really helping. That said it took me longer than it should to see that one boy was playing pacman rather than reading about the Yalta conference.
Posted by Jerome 17/05/2007 15:25:18
Subject: Being positive about Comprehensives!
It's sad so many people feel negative, rather than conservative about these essentially sensible suggestions. Comprehensive schools have been an established institution in Britain for more than 40 years now. What's being conservative about if not defending and improving the institutions we have, and what are these new proposals for more setting and streaming if not a conscientious attempt to improve our schools? Trying to replace existing schools with new Grammar schools would be the very sort of disruptive, scorched-earth policy that would depress teachers' morale even more than it's depressed today. I hope Conservatives press on with this new, positive policy, and here's a little suggestion to improve it a bit further. Streaming and setting's a good idea, but it often doesn't work well in schools with only a few hundred pupils as these are often too few to enable the necessary standards to be maintained in each stream or set to be maintained. With up to 1,000 pupils the chances of success are much better. If you're to make streaming and setting a success, you've sometimes got to encourage amalgamation between neighbouring schools, too. I'ld like to hear your view on that, David. Anyway, good luck with the new policy as it may have more chance than any other of bringing about the improvements in mass education Britain's going to need if it's to remain an advanced country in this new century.
Posted by 601 17/05/2007 15:44:21
Subject: Academic selection.
There is now little reason voting "Conservative" in the next election, by ditching academic selection the Tories are too similar to Nu Labour to make a difference.
What a shame.
Posted by bones 17/05/2007 18:20:57
Subject: academic selection
Why do politicians think that if you mix the good with the bad you will get decent schools? my daughter is starting grammar school this september.She would have gone to the local comprehensive school over my dead body.Why not have selective schools? We worked hard for the entrance exam (I couldn't afford to have her tutored).She now knows if you work hard in life you are rewarded. I want her to go to school with other kids who also realise this and who have parents who encourage their kids to want to make something of their life.
Posted by muratoa 17/05/2007 20:29:46
Subject: selection
not true 601 - if Britain is to prosper as a service economy, a quality education is vital for all, not just those appearing academic at 11. The question is how to raise the level and ensure secondary exams can become progressively harder as performance rises and that's where school discipline, authority and parental involvement come into their own. The system must work for all, not just for those parents who are determined for their children and then we will have a structure that beats the 11+ option hands down, something, despite all the cash thrown at the problem, NuLabour have failed to achieve.
Posted by muratoa 17/05/2007 20:29:53
Subject: selection
not true 601 - if Britain is to prosper as a service economy, a quality education is vital for all, not just those appearing academic at 11. The question is how to raise the level and ensure secondary exams can become progressively harder as performance rises and that's where school discipline, authority and parental involvement come into their own. The system must work for all, not just for those parents who are determined for their children and then we will have a structure that beats the 11+ option hands down, something, despite all the cash thrown at the problem, NuLabour have failed to achieve.
Posted by bmstutor 18/05/2007 22:16:40
Subject: selection
Grammar Schools are a beacon hope for the academic child. They allow them to learn and develop with like minded children. Send them to non grammar schools, even with streaming and some will just stop trying not because it is easy but to be a part of the social group dominant at the time. Being bright they could well become a teachers worst nightmare. A cleaver cocky kid who is out to cause trouble and be the big shot in school. We should not be numbing down our education as is happening now with process being more important than achievement with constant checking of the teachers when what needs to be checked, is if the teachers are getting the right support from management. This is the main problem within all schools at present. The rationale to get rid of Grammar schools is not based any good scientific fact. Just pure jealousy and the misconception that all children are born with the same abilities. So please keep the ones we have and if you really want to improve educational standards have every authority duty bound to have at least three within its boundaries. One Girls, one Boys and one mixed. Then we will see a rise in education standards.
For the record, I have had one child at a Grammar and one at a non Grammar. I teach the result of non correctly educated children at a FE College. I despair at the continuing lowering of standards just for political gain. Our kids are being damaged by the present system.
Posted by bmstutor 18/05/2007 22:20:42
Subject: Selection
Have just re read Para 4 and if that means getting rid of the OFSTED then great. I for one am all for that.
Posted by Barbara 21/05/2007 15:21:06
Subject: grammar schools
All I know about Grammar schools is that I failed the then scholarship and ended up in a private day school which was academically poor requiring all my education to be acquired via Adult education in later life. In those days there was only so many vacancies at the local Grammar School.
However, my husband, from a poor background and despite being an evacuee, passed the then know scholarship and ended up in a Grammar School which was the making of him. He sailed through his O levels and eventually went on to college to be an electronics engineer. For him, if the Grammar School had not been around his life might well have been poorer, with lack of opportunity.
So I am inclined to think that Grammar Schools, which consistently do well, should be supported as well as the academies. However, the academies are funded by business {as far as I am aware] and they will want a return on their investment. Education therefore is taken out of the local authorities hands.
Posted by ISMB 21/05/2007 15:21:43
Subject: Education and grammar schools
I agree with the comments of bmstutor on this subject. If we are to increase educational performance in a way which will both assist our country in the world of globalisation, whilst at the same time raising educational standards generally, we need a two pronged approach.
We need grammar schools to push the top group to achieve their potential, and provide the elite who are required for the top positions, and a well educated middle group. To constantly strive to improve performance of the bottom group, who do not wish to study, is a waste of effort. It is pointless to pretend that all young people can be educated together in a way which will raise standards. There will always be an elite and a tail, and they are best separated.
No party seems to have addressed the two real issues of; pupils leaving junior school without basic skills, and a shortage of teachers in secondary schools, to allow teachers to prepare for lessons and mark in school time, rather than work long unpaid hours at home.
Posted by texasfrank 21/05/2007 20:48:21
Subject: The error of this education policy
The reason there's been such a row about this policy is that you're widely held to be wrong.
Grammar schools were a fantastic engine of aspiration for ordinary folk until the forces of class envy all but destroyed them. Yes, perhaps those few examples that remain are less good at fulfilling that role, but that's probably because of what one should call the Prescott phenomenon: "the danger with good schools is that everyone wants to go there". The answer to that is not to set your face against them, but to find a way to make them work. If the eleven-plus is too crude a test, look for reforms. If it's too easy to coach, look for adjustments. If, as Two-Brains tells us, the trajectories of the able poor fall behind those of the less able rich by 11, then fix the desperately poor state of primary schools so this isn't true.
The thing that comprehensives will always struggle to do is to get the critical mass of bright children needed to make teaching harder subjects viable. I had no idea at the time, but I now realize I was immensely fortunate to go to a grammar school. Even back then (I left in 1987) my Further Maths A-level class was only six-strong. A comprehensive of the same size would never have scraped together two.
So grammar schools fulfilled the unique double role of allowing a ladder of aspiration for children from less privileged backgrounds, as well as stretching the able. Now across most of the country we have selection on ability to pay, not ability to learn.
I heard Mr Cameron describe support for selection as something that was weighing the party down. I don't know where he gets his figures from. An ICM poll 18 months ago showed 82% of electors in favour of grammar schools, and 47% in favour of building more, including 40% of Labour voters. Or just look at the results of the Rippon Grammar School ballot, where parents overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to turn it into a comprehensive.
So this seems to be a total failure of political will. The figures show that the country is already almost persuaded of the case for more grammar schools. In a world of personalized public services, what could be more appropriate than a tailor-made education? This would be reform and renewal of one of post-war Toryism's greatest successes.
Or if it's not a failure of political will, perhaps it's a botched attempt at a "Clause Four" moment. A bloody stupid one too, if so: the reason Clause Four had to go was that it was ridiculous and out of tune with everyone. In no way does support for grammar schools fall into this category.
Posted by texasfrank 21/05/2007 20:48:32
Subject: The error of this education policy
The reason there's been such a row about this policy is that you're widely held to be wrong.
Grammar schools were a fantastic engine of aspiration for ordinary folk until the forces of class envy all but destroyed them. Yes, perhaps those few examples that remain are less good at fulfilling that role, but that's probably because of what one should call the Prescott phenomenon: "the danger with good schools is that everyone wants to go there". The answer to that is not to set your face against them, but to find a way to make them work. If the eleven-plus is too crude a test, look for reforms. If it's too easy to coach, look for adjustments. If, as Two-Brains tells us, the trajectories of the able poor fall behind those of the less able rich by 11, then fix the desperately poor state of primary schools so this isn't true.
The thing that comprehensives will always struggle to do is to get the critical mass of bright children needed to make teaching harder subjects viable. I had no idea at the time, but I now realize I was immensely fortunate to go to a grammar school. Even back then (I left in 1987) my Further Maths A-level class was only six-strong. A comprehensive of the same size would never have scraped together two.
So grammar schools fulfilled the unique double role of allowing a ladder of aspiration for children from less privileged backgrounds, as well as stretching the able. Now across most of the country we have selection on ability to pay, not ability to learn.
I heard Mr Cameron describe support for selection as something that was weighing the party down. I don't know where he gets his figures from. An ICM poll 18 months ago showed 82% of electors in favour of grammar schools, and 47% in favour of building more, including 40% of Labour voters. Or just look at the results of the Rippon Grammar School ballot, where parents overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to turn it into a comprehensive.
So this seems to be a total failure of political will. The figures show that the country is already almost persuaded of the case for more grammar schools. In a world of personalized public services, what could be more appropriate than a tailor-made education? This would be reform and renewal of one of post-war Toryism's greatest successes.
Or if it's not a failure of political will, perhaps it's a botched attempt at a "Clause Four" moment. A bloody stupid one too, if so: the reason Clause Four had to go was that it was ridiculous and out of tune with everyone. In no way does support for grammar schools fall into this category.
Posted by Elin 22/05/2007 16:07:48
Subject: It's about EVERY child not just academic children
I think that your "What about failing schools?" question is a red herring which distracts from the actual issue of grammar schools. Grammar schools have nothing to do with failing schools. It's a separate issue, and it is more than possible to support both grammar schools AND helping failing schools.
Not having grammar schools is detrimental both to academic students and the less academically minded alike, and I think for fairly obvious reasons. Grammar schools play just as important a role as comprehensive schools and vocational schools. Children are different. They need different settings to flourish. What's wrong with celebrating these differences instead of going OTT PC and furthering the frankly ludicrous notion that NOT going to grammar school means you're thick? What's wrong with providing the right kind of environment for children based on what they are good at?
Streaming makes perfect sense - I'm sure you can agree with that. Grammar schools are a natural extension of that, so for me it is contradictory to support streaming and not grammar schools, and I also think you are alienating a lot of voters.
It's not about "those who appear academic at 11" - you can get into a grammar school in Yr 7, try again Yr 9, again in Yr 10 I believe and obviously also for Sixth Form.
Let me re-iterate, streaming benefits ALL children, not just the academic tiers- the vocational ones too. What could be more demoralising for a child than to have material that's too difficult and being in a room full of people much brighter than you? What could be more dull a "learning environment" for an academic child than having material far too easy and teachers focussing on helping those getting left behind instead of really challenging you? What a divisive and dangerous environment for bullying.
I think we need to change our attitudes. Academic doesn't mean "better than" vocational - it simply means "different from". What's wrong with that? Nothing.
This is a very disappointing stance to be taking. Once again - the gap between Labour and Tories is closing fast. When you meet in the middle and become one party what on earth will happen then? I guess it will make it easier for us floating voters but it's hardly desirable.
- Elin
Posted by jessc 22/05/2007 19:58:11
Subject: Grammar Schools
I was disappointed to read and hear reports that you were against Grammar schools as I have benefited from being educated at such a school. I believe Grammar schools need to be there for the more talented children as these schools can provide a more suitable environment and can offer more help and support than a State school. State schools concentrate more on supporting the struggling children rather than the children who have the ability to excel.
If I hadn’t attended a Grammar school, I would not have attained the high GCSE grades that I did, nor have the predicted A level grades in French, Economics or English Language that I am currently working towards. Due to my excellent education, I have been offered a conditional place at the University of Edinburgh. Because Grammar schools are of a higher standard, you are pushed harder and achieve the higher grades leading to the majority going on to university. This is not something you should quash, but something you should support.
David Willetts, your education spokesman, said in an interview that not many “bright (students) from modest backgrounds” get into Grammar schools. I would like to say however, that I am one of these students from a modest background and after only leaving my school on 18th May 2007, I can tell you that the amount of students attending from poorer backgrounds was not getting smaller, it was getting larger.
Posted by terjoha 22/05/2007 20:10:02
Subject: Grammar schools
I suppose I am of the generation that benefited from grammar schools. A child of poor parents in the 1940s, the grammar schools of the fifties gave me a splendid education that is unmatched today by even the top public schools. I know this because as a University Professor I have to correct the English and history and geography of undergraduates wherever they went to school.
Certainly our schools need to be improved. Perhaps academic selection at 11 is not the best way to discover the most able, but at the moment even the most able are poorly educated and the least able hardly educated at all.
It is important to recognise that not everyone benefits from an academic education. The difficulty of mixing the academically able with those who prefer to be taught how to service a motor car or add up a balance sheet, is that the bright child may be dissuaded from academe by the attractions of the opposite sex, football and acting the fool in class. An academically able student is a rare breed that needs molly coddling if he or she is to thrive.
So conduct your experiment. We will judge you on the results. However, you won't get elected if you alienate Tory voters.
Posted by MickGray 26/05/2007 17:03:55
Subject: Grammer Schools
I have never been able to understand the vitriolic feelings some people have about accademic selection and Grammer schools.
My parents were as working class as you can get. My father worked in a factory for over 40 years and my mother went out to work every day cleaning houses for various people in Chelsea. They were always hard pushed financialy and could not have even contemplated paying for my brother or myself to have had private education or tutoring.
Under the present system I would have been sent to the local secondary school ( good, bad or indifferent ). My education would have been a lottery depending upon the quality of the local schools. My parents would not have been able to move to a better area and did not have sufficient education themselves to have helped us with ours, despite their hopes that we would do better than they had done.
How lucky I was that when the time came for me to move on to secondary school, the 11+ was in operation. I had enough accademic skill to pass and was able to go to one of the five or six Grammar schools that were then in my area. This gave me a good educational background as well as teaching me manners and how to conduct myself in public. Although I did not go on to university I was able to get any job (within my capabilities) that I applied for and have never been out of work. I later became Director of a small company employing 20 people.
Far from being devisive I believe that the 11+ offered equal oppotunities, to children with ability from working class backgrounds,to achieve an accademic education otherwise denied to them by the inequality of the local comprehensive system. How else would I have had the opportunity to escape the postcode lottery of the present system.
Everybody would like to see the improvement, of all schools, so that all children can have an education suited to their needs and to enable them to reach their full potential, but mixed ability classes only produce the lower common denominator. The way to achieve better education for all is to raise the standards for teacher qualification and to pay teachers a high enough salary to attract those with the best qualifications. Teachers are our future and should be rewarded accordingly.
Selection or streaming enables the child to be in a class suited to their ability and enables them to work at the speed best suited to them, regardless of their social background or financial status.
Coming from a working class background my first vote was for the Labour Party but I soon learned the folly of my ways. Since that time I have always been a staunch Conservative party supporter but recently I have been increasingly disallusioned. The more that David Cameron insists on dragging the party further and further to the left, the more I feel inclined to change my vote to UKIP and I suspect that there are many more like me, thinking the same.
Mick Gray
Posted by sophiethecat 06/06/2007 15:02:46
Subject: schools
The 11+ wasn't actually compulsory. Neither of my parents took it, and they are not thick.
My mum was good at history and English, but only average at maths (she has never grasped algebra!), and my dad was good at maths and science but average at English, so they both went to good secondary moderns, and became a car mechanic and an office clerk.
My mum has been head of wages/payroll in several jobs, and my dad is due to retire soon from Bentley motors.
They never felt they were "thrown on the scrapheap" because they didn't go to grammar school, because they didn't want to be doctors, lawyers, architects etc.
They would have loved me to have had the opportunity though. I went to a good comprehensive and did well, but not as well as I should have. I spent a lot of time feeling bored and unchallenged, as well as underachieving to avoid being labelled a swot.
Nowhere in David C. or David W.'s speeches or interviews is it mentioned that teenagers have minds of their own, and that often, their friends and looking cool are more important than what job they will have when they're 30.
Setting and streaming are all very well, unless your friends are in the set below.
My sister went to the same school, and didn't try that hard either, but for different reasons.
She knew from an early age that she wanted to be a hairdresser, and she is very good. But, academic qualifications aren't much use for that, so she didn't bother.
A good secondary modern with opportunities for vocational training would have suited her, a grammar school would have been for me.
The Davids are right that we need a wide variety of schools, but they are wrong not to include academically selective ones. Some children need them.
Incidentally, it was also possible to move to a grammar school after 11 as my mum told me she remembers a girl in her class who was very clever being given the opportunity.
Sadly, the girl declined on the grounds that it was pointless because she would probably get married and have children soon after leaving school.
Gender attitudes have changed since 1960, I don't think that girl would say that today.
Finally, on the point made that fewer children from poor backgrounds going to grammars, I have two questions:
Do fewer children from such backgrounds apply? If so, why? Is it because the remaining grammars are in more generally affluent areas, so there are fewer poorer people anyway, or do they not bother, thinking they won't get in, or are they, like my parents, aspiring to be plumbers, mechanics or hairdressers?
The astonishing thing to me is that by attacking the selective system as throwing children on the scrapheap at 11, the Labour party deeply insulted all the people it was supposed to represent- builders, plumbers, factory workers, miners, mechanics, office workers, hairdressers, shop staff, care workers... I could go on, but the point is, an academic education isn't necessary for any of these jobs whereas good quality, practical core maths, English, science and history teamed with vocational skills are, and they are all respectable jobs without which this country couldn't function.
Labour seem to be saying that if you're not a graduate, you must be a nobody.
We need selective schools to really push the brightest kids, but we also need good schools for the practically skilled people I mentioned above.
Don't insult them by saying they are on the scrapheap, we couldn't manage without them: How many lawyers could fix your loo, cut your hair, service your car or serve you with a smile in Tesco's?
Posted by PeterR 11/06/2007 17:07:29
Subject: schools
It is about time education stoped being treated like a football by polititians.
Thr idea that 'one size fits all' comprehensive schools are a fair means of education is clearly false.
I also think the desision over what type of school they go to aged 11 is too early for pupils to know what they aspire to, instead of compusory education of subjects pupils neither want to do or have any use for (why would a hairdresser want to solve a quadratic equation) pupils could be given a choice to continue their statotory education in non academic means
|
|
|
|
Comments(17)
>>
