|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Educational elitism
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Both of those will have to go in a meritocracy. As will all private schools, private tutoring, and any notion of hereditary privilege.
So here's the thing. People being interested in the welfare of their children is a good thing. Trying to do a good job raising your kids so they can become the best people they can is a good thing. This ought to be encouraged - we want people to do that.
But a consequence of that is that the children of parents who give a shit are advantaged over the children of parents who don't. That's unavoidable.
But there are different kinds of parental shit-giving. There's the kind that encourages learning and education - which is a good thing, and ends up with better children - and there's the kind that attempts to purchase the privilege of success itself without actually doing the work to justify it (that would be things like slotting your golfing pal's son into a cushy job that his abilities don't justify.)
The former is a good thing - better, more able, more educated people are a good thing for society as a whole (even though the majority of the benefit accrues to the individual). The latter is a bad thing - there's no improvement of the individual, but merely an entrenchment of privilege and a freezing-out of more able but less well-connected candidates.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you genuinely want to 'enable people to achieve their potential regardless of their background', you have to realise that it undercuts every single thing you've ever said about you helping your children and getting to the point where they inherit your wealth.
I've sat on a few interview panels in my time, and I can't recall a single one where the wealth of the applicant (or their parents) was relevant to whether or not they got the job.
quote:
Do you honestly think that only 3% of the poorest kids are worthy of entering a Grammar school?
No, I think that a lot of them are failing (or more often not even sitting) the 11+ for reasons other than their academic ability.
The difference is I think that means we should do something about those other reasons, and you think it means we should abolish the exam.
quote:
quote:
And as I said in reply,
quote:
People moving up in the world only matters to you if other people are moving down? I find that quite sad.
You know that trickle down theory doesn't work in practice, yes? That a rising tide doesn't lift all boats, and in reality, people do drown.
To run with the "drowning" analogy: my position is akin to saying we can't do anything about the lifeboats that have already gone, but we can work to make sure we fill the ones we still have fairly. Yours is more like saying it doesn't matter how fairly we fill the remaining lifeboats if we don't also track down the ones that have already gone and throw some of their occupants into the ocean.
quote:
I know you know what a meritocracy is. I know you know what you're thinking about isn't one. Assuming that we'll need our houses painting, then why not the son of a barrister, as opposed to the son of barrista?
Why not indeed?
quote:
In an actual meritocratic society, as opposed to the one we have, he wouldn't now be sitting on billions in cash and property. Because his potential simply doesn't justify that.
Is him having familial wealth stopping a formerly poor person from getting a good job? No. Is it negatively affecting anyone else? No. You could strip him of every penny he owns and leave him in a cardboard box and our lives would still be exactly the same (except for some slightly unbecoming gloating about how the mighty are fallen on your part, perhaps).
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've sat on a few interview panels in my time, and I can't recall a single one where the wealth of the applicant (or their parents) was relevant to whether or not they got the job.
Simply to ignore the rest of your reply - this here is exactly the problem. You don't see how someone's wealth or their parents' wealth put them in front of you at an interview.
You don't get it. You actually don't have a clue. I'm actually embarrassed for you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think you should abolish any educational selectivity at 11 years old, but I come from a province where all schools are comprehensive. From K-12.
There are AcTal (academically talented) programs where parents agree for their 10 year olds to write an exam and then go into a special enriched curriculum. They are declining because the children in such programs show no more subsequent academic success than children in the regular stream, i.e., no greater university admission or success, no greater occupational attainment. The language immersion programs were thought to affect future achievement more, but they determined that it was social factors and expectations which were more important (motivated parents place their children in immersion, i.e., instruction in French, Ukrainian).
I do wonder if the grammar school and 11+ has as it's foundation the class system in the UK, and biases and ideals based on residual aristocracy. Where expectations versus actual ability (or merit) affect things far more than is realized.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Simply to ignore the rest of your reply
Classy.
quote:
this here is exactly the problem. You don't see how someone's wealth or their parents' wealth put them in front of you at an interview.
I presume from context that you mean "in front of me" as in on the other side of the desk while I'm interviewing. In which case I can assure you that the people I've interviewed have seemed to be from all walks of life.
I say "seemed to be" because we don't get to see what their backgrounds (other than work history, of course) are before we actually meet them. The reason being precisely to avoid choosing candidates based on social class.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But in the past, you've talked about the importance of handing down accumulated wealth to your children, and the importance of being able to use your current situation to better your children's position in the here-and-now.
Both of those will have to go in a meritocracy. As will all private schools, private tutoring, and any notion of hereditary privilege. I don't think you're actually arguing for a meritocracy. I think you're arguing for your own middle class privilege to be preserved.
What advantages do you think parents should be allowed to pass to their children?
You, for example, are a highly imaginative and skilful writer - I'm fairly confident that your children would only have had to be moderately attentive to you to grow up with more creativity, a larger vocabulary, and better spoken and written expressiveness than the norm. I don't imagine that anyone regards that as an unfair advantage. That's simply their good fortune.
Suppose there's another parent similarly placed to you, who doesn't have your eloquence, but does have the disposable income to take his kids to the theatre more regularly than would be normal, so that they can develop a love of wordage that way. Another parent, with less money but more free time sends his children to drama and creative writing groups, and listens to their reading and recitation. And then there's another, with a bit more cash, who hires a private English tutor. Those parents are all trying to do the same thing - use their resources to stimulate their children's imagination and verbal skills.
Morally speaking - what's the difference? Why is hiring a tutor to help your child learn a skill unfair, but having the skill yourself and trying to teach it simply good parenting?
Is it the fact that money changes hands that makes it unacceptable? Does that then make it fair on unfair to ask a friend to tutor your child for free? What if you offer to do their ironing, or cook them a meal in thanks? Is that unfair?
I don't think you're going to be able to work out a principled reason why some sorts of trying to help your children learn are unfair middle-class privileges to be eradicated, and others are laudable. If one's good, they all are.
As far as I'm concerned they are all good. They are all to be encouraged. A school system ought to encourage all parents to help their children in any way that they can AND be ready to support and assist the children whose parents can't or don't. I don't think there's any contradiction between saying that we should give EVERY child the opportunity to go to a school that's right for them (and that for some children, that can be a selective school) and saying that its a good thing when parents work hard to get THEIR child into the school that they think they'd do best at. It's OK for parents to do that - that's (part of) their job.
It's not the job of 'the system' to stop any parent helping their child - the job of 'the system' is to get more parents doing that, and to try to pick up the pieces when parents fail. Trying to screw over a privileged class helps no one. Giving people outside the privileged class the chance to make similar choices to those that the privileged make might help.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I do wonder if the grammar school and 11+ has as it's foundation the class system in the UK, and biases and ideals based on residual aristocracy. Where expectations versus actual ability (or merit) affect things far more than is realized.
I think (and this is subject to correction from better social historians than I) that it's more to do with economic history: when manufacturing industry was bigger than it is now, Britain needed a large workforce with some education, and a smaller and better educated class of managers. Hence the 11+, to give a sub-set of the people a more academic schooling.
The effect of this is that there's a significant section of the traditional working class (including, for example, all four of my grandparents) for whom grammar schools represented aspiration for their children. Getting a grammar school place meant better schooling, better jobs, and social mobility.
I don't think we need or want the entrenched factory worker/manager divide any more - hence I'm not a supporter of the compulsory 11+ test to determine a child's future. I do think that we still need aspirational schools, and to encourage parental involvement, and to give families meaningful choices, which is why I think there's still a place for grammar schools.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What advantages do you think parents should be allowed to pass to their children?
And that's a very pertinent question.
Before I start, though, a point of clarification: I'm not the sudden convert to egalitarian meritocracy. I was simply listing the things that a strict meritocrat would object to - handing down of wealth, contacts, and skills - giving their children, because everyone needs to make their own way in the world, as best as they are able.
I think most of us acknowledge that wealthy parents can buy privilege to increase their children's life chances, including access to education: whether it's paying a premium for a house in a good Comp's catchment, paying for a private tutor to boost chances at the 11+, or paying private school fees.
It's not a question of whether they should be allowed to do it, but what effect it has on less wealthy families. As you suggest, I could make up for the private tutor bit in many ways, with a science/engineering background, and the book thing. Other parents, likewise.
But this most recent argument (mainly between me and Marvin) revolves around whether it'd be a good idea for new Grammars to accept only children on the Pupil Premium. I think it would, and it fits well with your last paragraph: quote:
It's not the job of 'the system' to stop any parent helping their child - the job of 'the system' is to get more parents doing that, and to try to pick up the pieces when parents fail. Trying to screw over a privileged class helps no one. Giving people outside the privileged class the chance to make similar choices to those that the privileged make might help.
(I would take issue with 'Trying to screw over a privileged class helps no one', because the accumulation and sequestering of capital is one of the modern world's most pressing problems, but that's an issue for another day)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I feel this highlights a dilemma for the arguments in favour of selective schools, which is what proportion of the pupils in the area should be in selective schools?
That's a dilemma for a compulsory, two-tier system.
There's an easy answer for someone advocating grammar schools as one choice amongst many. That is, take the number of pupils whose families would like them educated at a school specifically teaching to their ability level, and try to make that many places available at appropriately selective schools.
I'd be less unconvinced if there weren't an obvious gap in selective provision between schools taking children who can pass exams and schools taking on children with specialist needs. You don't get many schools saying that they specifically teach to children in the lower half of academic achievement, and so they're afraid they're going to reject little Johnny because he's just too able.
The problems with making selection widely available as a response to demand seem to me exactly the same as making selection widely available by policy. The more selective schools there are, the less attractive comprehensive education will be, because more of the able or otherwise selectable pupils get taken up into the selective network. And that creates a feedback.
Furthermore, many of the proposed advantages of selection seem to me to be diluted when selection becomes widespread.
Also, and I'm aware I'm harping on at this, but it still seems to me a contradiction in terms to talk about selective schooling as a choice the families make. If the families choose which school to send their children to you don't have selective schools.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And that creates a feedback.
Furthermore, many of the proposed advantages of selection seem to me to be diluted when selection becomes widespread.
Depends what "widespread" means. If the top 15-20% are "selected" everywhere, then you have widespread selection with no dilution. If the top 50% are "selected" then I would expect to see fewer of the claimed benefits.
quote:
Also, and I'm aware I'm harping on at this, but it still seems to me a contradiction in terms to talk about selective schooling as a choice the families make. If the families choose which school to send their children to you don't have selective schools.
If you have an environment where a significant fraction of families prefer comprehensive education for their bright children, then you can talk about a family's choice between selective and comprehensive education. If most people prefer selective education, there isn't a choice.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Even a modest amount of selection has an impact on the able students who stay in the non-selective (of course no longer comprehensive) schools. They lose the benefits of having a cohort of similarly able students around them. There's a big difference between being one of 4-5 in a form group who expect to get top grades and go to a well regarded university and being one of 2. The peer pressure and group dynamics change, the composition of top sets in e.g. maths changes and that is likely to have an impact on attainment at the top end and behaviour throughout the school. I've taught in a school where this happened and the loss of about a sixth of the cohort from the top end of the attainment range had big impacts on the overall "feel" of the school. Yes, we could still do well by very able students, including getting a student into Cambridge NatSci while I was there, but the brighter portion of each year group was noticeable by their diminished presence.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Even a modest amount of selection has an impact on the able students who stay in the non-selective (of course no longer comprehensive) schools. They lose the benefits of having a cohort of similarly able students around them. There's a big difference between being one of 4-5 in a form group who expect to get top grades and go to a well regarded university and being one of 2. The peer pressure and group dynamics change, the composition of top sets in e.g. maths changes and that is likely to have an impact on attainment at the top end and behaviour throughout the school. I've taught in a school where this happened and the loss of about a sixth of the cohort from the top end of the attainment range had big impacts on the overall "feel" of the school. Yes, we could still do well by very able students, including getting a student into Cambridge NatSci while I was there, but the brighter portion of each year group was noticeable by their diminished presence.
I think this is actually an argument for grammar schools if you look at it another way. The situation you describe applies to children who are in the top (say) 10% of ability - in a comprehensive they find a group of similar people to themselves in the top set that would not be there if most of the rest of the 10% had gone to a grammar. However, if you're in the top 1% of ability then you only find that group of like-minded people in the top set of a grammar school (you need a bigger catchment area to find enough similar people to make a group). Possibly most people have no sympathy with people in the top 1% of IQ but it can be a very lonely, bullied place when you're on your own. Those top achievers may also be the ones who go on to rival the public school privileged kids for the top jobs so they are part of making society more diverse.
[ 23. September 2016, 08:35: Message edited by: Helen-Eva ]
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I was simply listing the things that a strict meritocrat would object to
I'm not a "strict" meritocrat then.
quote:
But this most recent argument (mainly between me and Marvin) revolves around whether it'd be a good idea for new Grammars to accept only children on the Pupil Premium.
I disagree with the only bit because grammar schooling has to be based on academic ability for it to mean anything.
I'm all in favour of finding ways to make the assessment of academic ability fairer for all kids, but without it you may as well just have separate schools for kids on PP and kids who aren't. There may be a few names for that kind of educational segregation, but "grammar schooling" isn't one of them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
It's good to see diversity mentioned but we need to note that there is more to education than a simple academic/vocational divide, based on a form of selection that isn't convincing and also dependent on where you live.
People have varied talents and if we are to assess the kind of education they should have then we do this immediately before they start the relevant courses or training, which would lead to assessment at 14 (year 9) when it could be decided whether, in year 10, they should continue in schools (which would probably be appropriate for anyone intending to go on to university) or go on to a Further Education college earlier than now as these are better suited than schools to provide most of the vocational training.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
People have varied talents and if we are to assess the kind of education they should have then we do this immediately before they start the relevant courses or training, which would lead to assessment at 14 (year 9) when it could be decided whether, in year 10, they should continue in schools (which would probably be appropriate for anyone intending to go on to university) or go on to a Further Education college earlier than now as these are better suited than schools to provide most of the vocational training.
That's not far off the Primary/Middle/Senior school system that has been discussed as one option on this thread.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I was simply listing the things that a strict meritocrat would object to
I'm not a "strict" meritocrat then.
quote:
But this most recent argument (mainly between me and Marvin) revolves around whether it'd be a good idea for new Grammars to accept only children on the Pupil Premium.
I disagree with the only bit because grammar schooling has to be based on academic ability for it to mean anything.
I'm all in favour of finding ways to make the assessment of academic ability fairer for all kids, but without it you may as well just have separate schools for kids on PP and kids who aren't. There may be a few names for that kind of educational segregation, but "grammar schooling" isn't one of them.
To be any sort of meritocrat, you'd be wanting to bring up the poorest and most disadvantaged, not trying to entrench already unearned privilege.
But every single statistic shows that where Grammar schools are available, they are overwhelmed by the middle classes, who both literally and figuratively elbow the poor aside to get a place. If your intentions are to raise the academic success of the poor-but-bright, you have to game the system in their favour, in order to counteract their already adept-at-playing richer fellows.
SureStart - for those who it was aimed at, and that certainly wasn't me - spent money in trying to raise the expectations and achievements of Early Years education and health for the poorest in our society. To that end, it was a modest success: by the time kids get to 11, the die is more or less already cast.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Very close. I'm trying to get away from the concept of grammar school v other school to a scheme closer to that envisaged by the 1944 Education Act, only the selection should be done later when talents and preferences ought to be clearer. In any event, proceeding on the vocational route certainly shouldn't bar one from university entrance, although you would do well to get into Oxbridge or Imperial.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If your intentions are to raise the academic success of the poor-but-bright, you have to game the system in their favour, in order to counteract their already adept-at-playing richer fellows.
[snip]
by the time kids get to 11, the die is more or less already cast.
I agree with this so long as you bring together the first and second sentences I've quoted above. By 11, as you say, the die is cast so 11+ is far too late to be doing whatever corrective action would help. I'd be all in favour of as much extra help and tutoring as possible to try and give the least advantaged equal chances with their middle class peers earlier on.
And a truly tutor-proof way of assessing academic potential in order to select the most academic for grammar schools (which I think was the original idea of the 11+).
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Germany has a much more widespread educational selection system. So why is the English educational system far more divided - and getting wider - between the rich (and even the middle class) and poor than the German one?
If selection was so terrible, wouldn't Germany have greater problems and wider divisions than England?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Germany has a much more widespread educational selection system. So why is the English educational system far more divided - and getting wider - between the rich (and even the middle class) and poor than the German one?
If selection was so terrible, wouldn't Germany have greater problems and wider divisions than England?
How and at what stage do the Germans select? Sounds like an interesting comparison.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Germany has a much more widespread educational selection system. So why is the English educational system far more divided - and getting wider - between the rich (and even the middle class) and poor than the German one?
If selection was so terrible, wouldn't Germany have greater problems and wider divisions than England?
How and at what stage do the Germans select? Sounds like an interesting comparison.
Germany has a more diverse education system, but you can't consider it in isolation from other aspects in which German and British society differ.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Germany has a more diverse education system, but you can't consider it in isolation from other aspects in which German and British society differ.
I see. So we can't consider England and Germany in isolation from other aspects, but we can consider selective education in isolation from all the other complex aspects that affect society.
Or maybe we can't.
[ 23. September 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To be any sort of meritocrat, you'd be wanting to bring up the poorest and most disadvantaged, not trying to entrench already unearned privilege.
Those of them who have merit, yes.
quote:
But every single statistic shows that where Grammar schools are available, they are overwhelmed by the middle classes, who both literally and figuratively elbow the poor aside to get a place. If your intentions are to raise the academic success of the poor-but-bright, you have to game the system in their favour, in order to counteract their already adept-at-playing richer fellows.
Like I said, I'm all in favour of finding ways to make the assessment of academic ability fairer for all kids.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I'd be all in favour of as much extra help and tutoring as possible to try and give the least advantaged equal chances with their middle class peers earlier on.
And a truly tutor-proof way of assessing academic potential in order to select the most academic for grammar schools (which I think was the original idea of the 11+).
Yes, this.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Thing is that in my view there is nothing particularly honourable or marvellous about being - or living - in a poor area.
And there is nothing saintly about the poor.
Of course, there is nothing saintly about the middle class or the rich either.
But there are some traits which are valuable from the middle classes, such as the wish to see your children succeed academically and the willingness to give them the support and tools to do that.
That's not exclusively a middle class trait - in many cultures poor people value education - but it is something that is lacking in poor communities in this country.
So the idea that one could put bright children from a poor area into a grammar school and see them succeed is a nonsense unless there is a corresponding change of attitude amongst their peers and parents. Indeed, putting them in with middle class students whose parents do have high aspirations for their children is only likely to lead to academic success where the parents are supportive. Poor children without parential support fail in the vast vast majority of cases whatever school they're put in and however much natural ability they have at 11.
If we want poor children to succeed they need support. If poor parents are not able or willing to do that, then the only way is for someone else to take on that role. Most schools do not have the resources (and most grammars certainly do not have the resources to give high levels individual support to children - maybe they should) so the choices are either to educate the parents or to gather community resources to provide that support in another way.
Incidentally, I think there are many traits that the middle classes could and should learn from the working classes - this is not about class superiority, it is about the reality in our time of the way different groups value education.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think that a lot of them are failing (or more often not even sitting) the 11+ for reasons other than their academic ability.
I failed the 11+ probably because my father died a few weeks before.
I'm so sorry you lost your father so young.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the idea that one could put bright children from a poor area into a grammar school and see them succeed is a nonsense unless there is a corresponding change of attitude amongst their peers and parents.
...Poor children without parential support fail in the vast vast majority of cases whatever school they're put in and however much natural ability they have at 11.
You're saying that loads of kids would do better if they had better parents ?
Schools can't do much about that. But a good school does give them a better peer group. And it seems pretty obvious that that has a positive impact on academic achievement.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the idea that one could put bright children from a poor area into a grammar school and see them succeed is a nonsense unless there is a corresponding change of attitude amongst their peers and parents.
...Poor children without parential support fail in the vast vast majority of cases whatever school they're put in and however much natural ability they have at 11.
You're saying that loads of kids would do better if they had better parents ?
Schools can't do much about that. But a good school does give them a better peer group. And it seems pretty obvious that that has a positive impact on academic achievement.
This is abundantly true if we look to places which have only comprehensive schools. But there are some things absolutely required within the schools: that there is receptiveness and welcome to those who are disadvantaged. This is occurring in many Canadian school districts, where provincial governments have mandated specific funding and promotion against racism which in many areas corresponds to elitism: elite being white, and disadvantaged being brown.
It is not enough for a school to have a student population from all levels and groups of society. The attitudes of parents and children which puff up people who are better off or worse parents have given them advantage have to be challenged.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Is it only me who is uncomfortable to read in the prospectus of one of the top "non-selective" state secondaries in the country something along the lines of "We are fortunate that an increasing number of parents have provided generous support to our development plans"?
How will that make those parents who know they'll never be among those donors feel about applying?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post but.... and what about the excellent "non-selective" state secondary whose blazer is only available from Peter Jones on Sloane Square?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is it only me who is uncomfortable to read in the prospectus of one of the top "non-selective" state secondaries in the country something along the lines of "We are fortunate that an increasing number of parents have provided generous support to our development plans"?
How will that make those parents who know they'll never be among those donors feel about applying?
I think this happens everywhere. Schools are always asking for parental donations far various things - including in some cases buildings, books and infrastructure.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Sorry to double-post but.... and what about the excellent "non-selective" state secondary whose blazer is only available from Peter Jones on Sloane Square?
We've also had this discussion with a school - apparently the line from the Department of Education is that schools simply cannot have a single, expensive supplier of uniform.
After a certain amount of hand-wringing and pressure from an alternative (much cheaper) supplier in our town, the school eventually capitulated under threat of legal action.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Germany has a much more widespread educational selection system. So why is the English educational system far more divided - and getting wider - between the rich (and even the middle class) and poor than the German one?
If selection was so terrible, wouldn't Germany have greater problems and wider divisions than England?
I have a simple answer to this one. Education in Britain generally divides according to an assumption that chidren are either academic (better) or non-academic (worse). In other countries, this division is either simply not made or non-academic education is not considered inferior. I expect Germany is a good example of this.
I think you have to get out of the UK to see it. For me, having done this, there is this very stark binary division in British people's minds when they discuss education. This is true at all levels, from parents discussing their kids' progress right up to educational theorists. I find it reminiscent of Plato's Republic, particularly as at the apex of the British education system we find Oxbridge graduates with PPE degrees being turbocharged up the political ladder into positions of extreme responsibility without ever having had a job outside politics. They are in theory the modern version of Plato's philosopher ruler.
I draw a comparison between England's education system* in which I was educated, and the New Zealand system in which my children are being educated. My observation is that in NZ there is more emphasis on ensuring that children have literacy and numeracy to a certain level absolutely nailed down. However, there is less of an emphasis on high level development, e.g. teaching Shakespeare or history. This is not to suggest that in NZ such things are regarded as unimportant. They just aren't seen as the things one needs to master in order to be considered clever. There is also the view in NZ schools that a child who doesn't advance in one subject will probably advance in another. While there may be particularly bookish children there simply isn't the view that a sizeable group of children are "academic" and therefore better at all subjects across the board than the rest. Consistent with this is the general view that an arts degree is a waste of time - very different from the UK where (at least until recently) a 2:1 in history from a good university was an established way into a blue chip job and the degree itself was considered more exalted than a degree in, for example, engineering.
I can also compare with South Africa where Mrs Cod grew up. Now, there was of course an academic divide there between white and non-white. I am sure I do not need to point out that I regard that divide as iniquitous. However, it is worth noting that the white children were viewed in exactly the same way as in NZ - some were good at some subjects, others were good at others, and therefore there was no need to shove a particular group of them into a special sort of school just for them. Mrs Cod was most confused when she came to the UK and encountered this Platonic divide.
This "academic versus non-academic" binary divide that prevails in UK discussions about education has much to be criticised. In public life and debate it causes elitism by creating the view that only those from a certain educational background and who can express themselves with a certain fluency are worth listening to. Radio 4, for example, has this attitude in spades (actually the BBC and the broadsheets generally suffer from this). The corollary of this is that those not from that background become alienated from intelligent debate about topics of the day. Having had my rant on this point it should be obvious that I think the UK gvt's proposal to reinstate grammar schools is a bad move that will reinforce these problems.
*I lived in Scotland too, and my observation is that compared to education systems abroad it is similar to England's in all relevant respects.
[ 29. September 2016, 22:12: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Is the debate here really about English culture ?
Imagine that the government of Ruritania decided to try to improve the performance of the country's athletes by creating a set of Sports Academy schools that:
- only accepted those in the top 10% of sporting ability & potential (to the best of their ability to measure)
- taught sport to a higher level than would be practical in all-ability groups
- had a culture and ethos where sporting success was the Big Thing.
What arguments might be made against such a proposal ?
1) that those who applied but didn't get in would be disappointed (true but not of great importance) or, more extremely, emotionally scarred for life by this rejection (not true)
2) that those who missed getting in by a narrow margin would lose out by being deprived of part of their peer group (true, but outweighed by the peer group benefits to those that get in)
3) that this would inevitably lead to a "puffed up" attitude in those who get in (false - such an attitude is undesirable but not inevitable)
4) That neither the parents not the children themselves are competent to make the decision to narrow the child's education in the direction of sport or anything else (unconvinced )
5) That the children who are accepted are getting a special consideration that others don't get and that this is Not Fair. (fulfilling one's potential includes those potentials that others don't share... ).
So in the hypothetical case of Ruritanian sports, I don't see much of a case why a specialised and selective education shouldn't happen.
And conclude that those who oppose this in the context of English academe have motivations outside the purely educational. That they want to deny bright pupils freedom of association in the cause of "social engineering".
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I don't think your analogy works. A school that has a particular emphasis on sport but is otherwise normal might make good sense for children who have a particular aptitude for sport. By contrast, a grammar school is designed to give a defined group of children an enhanced eduction across all subjects, not just one. The point I tried to bring out in my post above is that the assumptions used to define this group are possibly peculiar to British culture.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It's worth mentioning that even in egalitarian Scotland there still exist some specialist music schools to provide opportunities for high-level music tuition. We're talking about a fraction of a percent of the population, however, and there is a legitimate benefit to being able to play in orchestras and music groups that function at a high level. I could see a similar argument for the same in sport but that already happens with individual sports, particularly football, where clubs sign up young players and expect them to maintain certain academic standards along with their playing. In the case of the music specialist schools, the students aren't segregated, they simply have additional music tuition outwith normal school hours but attend lessons with the students from the local catchment.
The thing is, there's no need for a thought experiment or an analogy when it comes to grammar schools, because we know exactly what happens, both from the experience of the system when it was last in force nationally and from observing it in action.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So in the hypothetical case of Ruritanian sports, I don't see much of a case why a specialised and selective education shouldn't happen.
As I've remarked before, there are severe disanalogies between sports and academic education.
The main one is that being good at sports is, except for the few most talented athletes, irrelevant to someone's career. Only a miniscule number of people are ever going to be turned down for a job they want because they weren't quite good enough at sports.
On the other hand, for many many people there is a strong chance that their career opportunities will be limited by their academic performance. Perhaps that's unfair, and a wholesale readjustment of our education system would make academic achievement at school much less important to people's career prospects. But that's not how our society works at present or what is being proposed.
Likewise, many of us still have a presumption that subjects that are taught academically are not only important career-wise but also valuable for their own sake. The ideal of the liberal arts is still alive. We think people ought to have a basic grasp of science, both for its own sake, and to understand public policy debates; we think people should have a grasp of history and geography for the same reasons. I don't think any such ideal quite applies to sports. It's true this is less of an issue where the current justification for education is purely in terms of its contribution to the economy.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Dafyd,
Actually I think the purpose of most education in Britain leastways until recent times was justified in economic terms - for example, I doubt the pre-WW2 elementary schools' focus on reading, writing and arithmetic was designed to foster the love of learning for its own sake, although I am sure a great many teachers saw that as their role. It was - as its name suggests - elementary - allowing pupils to have sufficient basics to hold down a job.
Perhaps the grammar schools did attempt to foster a love of education - my grammar-educated mother would say hers did - but the reason was the view that a person in authority ought to have a well-rounded education including a grasp of science and mathematics, but also a form of moral instruction through the classics. In summary, academic education for the philosopher rulers, functional education for the rest. I'm not sure how fostering the love of learning fits in with this although I expect it does somehow.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Could the fostering of a love of learning to be part of widening horizons? Broadening horizons and expectations is something that was definitely an aim for grammar schools and is something comprehensive schools offer.
When I was part of running the preschool educational service in one of the rural (non-selective) counties, one of my predecessors reported that she had encountered an attitude that there was no need to invest in education in that county because the young people in the schools were destined to be plough boys and they didn't need to know much to do that.
Research into the London effect suggests that there have been a number of factors involved in the change - one of the major being the improvements in primary schools.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The main one is that being good at sports is, except for the few most talented athletes, irrelevant to someone's career...
...On the other hand, for many many people there is a strong chance that their career opportunities will be limited by their academic performance.
Isn't this the argument for social engineering? That education is too important to allow parents the freedoms that we would otherwise think they ought to have ? Who or what do we sacrifice for the greater good of society ?
quote:
We think people ought to have a basic grasp of science, both for its own sake, and to understand public policy debates; we think people should have a grasp of history and geography for the same reasons.
Yes indeed. But if you know you have a group of students with a real prospect of working in science, of being tomorrow's postdoc researchers, you might want to approach the task of teaching them differently than if you know you're aiming to give them the Good Citizen's Guide to Science.
Both are valuable aims. And depending on what stage in the educational process we're talking about, there may be courses that provide a moderately good foundation for both.
It just seems obvious to me that as a general principle tailoring the education to the pupil will do better.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The main one is that being good at sports is, except for the few most talented athletes, irrelevant to someone's career...
...On the other hand, for many many people there is a strong chance that their career opportunities will be limited by their academic performance.
Isn't this the argument for social engineering? That education is too important to allow parents the freedoms that we would otherwise think they ought to have ? Who or what do we sacrifice for the greater good of society ?
It's more the reverse. We refuse to sacrifice people from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from comprehensive schools for whatever benefits society as a whole gets from grammar schools.
Developing a small cadre of future postdoc reseachers in science, as you suggest later on, would be social engineering.
Banning private schools altogether would be refusing parents freedom. I don't see how the state choosing between comprehensive and selective systems is refusing freedom.
quote:
It just seems obvious to me that as a general principle tailoring the education to the pupil will do better.
The only reliable way to tailor education to the pupil, as I understand it, is to teach the pupil. Running the pupil through a test at 11 is not a reliable way of doing so.
I don't see why education cannot be tailored to pupils in comprehensives.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't see why education cannot be tailored to pupils in comprehensives.
Can be and is. I've taught up to four distinct levels within a class and differentiated within them. It's bloody difficult, and in larger schools would be split across different classes. The point is that the relative levels of those same students would be noticably different if you go from maths to English. Selective education doesn't know how to deal with the maths and science wizard who has a literacy difficulty, nor the literary genius who gets 3 As at Advanced Higher but takes multiple goes to get a National 5 maths pass. Add in those who get anxious about tests and you have a huge group who will be poorly served by selection that assumes uniform academic performance.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] Selective education doesn't know how to deal with...
The selective schools in which I worked dealt with the issues you raise in exactly the same way as a non-selective school deal with them. Setting works amongst more able pupils just as well as it works amongst less able or in a comprehensive system.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] Selective education doesn't know how to deal with...
The selective schools in which I worked dealt with the issues you raise in exactly the same way as a non-selective school deal with them. Setting works amongst more able pupils just as well as it works amongst less able or in a comprehensive system.
How do they cope with the maths genius who on the other hand has literacy skills two years below the expected average for his age group?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We refuse to sacrifice people from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from comprehensive schools for whatever benefits society as a whole gets from grammar schools.
Developing a small cadre of future postdoc reseachers in science, as you suggest later on, would be social engineering.
So you would rather have everybody average than some brilliant and others crap.
Personally, given the choice between (a) a policy that results in a cadre of brilliant postgrads who might find a cure for cancer or a solution to the energy crisis, but with comp pupils being slightly crapper than normal or (b) a policy that results in less brilliant postdocs who won't find the solutions, but with comp pupils being slightly less crap than normal I'd choose (a) in a heartbeat.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't think brilliant post-grads are made at school. They're made at university. I fail to see why both good comps and grammar schools should be any different at getting those who are academically able into university.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I fail to see why both good comps and grammar schools should be any different at getting those who are academically able into university.
The problem is academically able kids who get stuck in bad comps because their parents can't afford any of the alternatives. For them, grammars are the only escape.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I fail to see why both good comps and grammar schools should be any different at getting those who are academically able into university.
The problem is academically able kids who get stuck in bad comps because their parents can't afford any of the alternatives. For them, grammars are the only escape.
But being stuck in poor comps is OK for the other 90% who don't pass the 11+, right?
I get the impression you don't see underachievement of the majority as a problem. Only the elite matter.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But being stuck in poor comps is OK for the other 90% who don't pass the 11+, right?
It's better for 10% to escape than 0%.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
