|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Educational elitism
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ooh look. A black swan.
Right, so you're saying you wouldn't send your child to a grammar in Kent. I don't believe you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
The simple fact is that the vast majority of educated and intelligent people, including the majority of people reading this, wouldn't be living in a poor area - and if they were, wouldn't send their kids to the school in the catchment.
We were living in a poor area when our kids started school. There school was dubbed "the most violent school in Aberdeen" while they were there. (It wasn't that violent, though someone did try to set fire to the teaching assistant in my son's class). We had to move to a larger property when our son and daughter became too old to continue sharing a bedroom and we moved into a more affluent area.
What would we have done if we hadn't had to move? I don't know. When my son started he was one of five children with a parent who had or was doing a PhD. Only one of those five was still there by the end of primary school.
After we moved, my daughter remarked that the difference between the old and new schools was that at her old school they were taught that it's important to be kind, whereas at her new school they were taught that it's important to be clever.
I liked the first school. The staff were first rate. I din't think my kids were being held back, though I knew that was largely because they had the advantages of two graduate parents and lots of books at home.
Going to that school, I got to see close-up why some kids don't have a chance. My daughter's best friend's mother was dedicated to her kids. She wanted them to do well. But she was a single parent (widow) raising four kids in a small council flat, on benefits. Her four had a strict rota for homework at the only table in the flat, the kitchen table, which had to be cleared for meals etc. But there was little peace; the flat was crowded, the neighbours were noisy. There was one parent to supervise four lots of homework/ bathtime / bedtime. Parents had extra responsibilities. Once, when I set out a picnic on a rug for my daughter and her friend on our back lawn (shared with one other flat) her friend was horrified that I hadn't checked the grass for needles first. Apparently her Mum would never let them play in their back lawn (shared with seven other flats) without checking for needles first.
Things were harder in other ways. My daughter had an appointment at the eye clinic at the city hospital. My husband took the bus to work so that I could drive our daughter there. I picked her up at morning interval, returned her at lunchtime, and then picked both kids up after school to go into town with the prescription for the optician. Chatting to best friend's mother afterwards I found out that best friend had been to the clinic the week before. She didn't go into school that day - she and her mother caught a bus into the city centre, then a second bus to the hospital. They had to set off with enough time to spare to allow for busses running late. Then a bus back into the city, at which point it made more sense to go to the optician then, rather than pay another set of bus fares outwith school times. By the time they got a bus back back home, she'd missed the whole day off school.
The difference between my daughter and her friend - 90 mins off school, as opposed to a whole day, the extra time and effort her mother put in, compared to me.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
It's nothing to do with the system either. It's to do with the families and junior schools. It doesn't matter what system you have if they don't want to engage with it.
My very limited experience suggests that even families who do want to engage the system, good families, dedicated parents, face all sorts of hurdles and difficulties through poverty, poor housing, etc.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If it came to it, no matter what is being thrown around here, I believe the vast majority would send their kids to a grammar in Kent (if they passed the 11-plus) and most likely would send them to a private school if the only alternative was a violent and crap school.
This is surely irrelevant? As I've said earlier, and I think other people have too, it is one thing to try to do the best by your children in a bad system, and another to support or extend a system that you think is bad.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We were living in a poor area when our kids started school. There school was dubbed "the most violent school in Aberdeen" while they were there. (It wasn't that violent, though someone did try to set fire to the teaching assistant in my son's class). We had to move to a larger property when our son and daughter became too old to continue sharing a bedroom and we moved into a more affluent area.
OK, so you had the option of moving when your circumstances changed to a more affluent area. If your school situation had been worse, you'd probably have moved your child, moved property etc.
I don't see how having the choice and resources to move to a more affluent area is any better morally than having the choice to send your child to a selective school, a private school or any other kind of educational choice.
If there is a moral difference between decrying a system of education as biased/unjust and in making advantage of that system (and personal availability of personal resources) in a way that benefits your own child, I can't see what it is.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So do most secondary schools, leo. Lots of 11-16 secondary schools. Not that many 6th forms in schools in some parts of the country.
I have always refused to work anywhere without A'level. It encourages teachers to keep their knowledge up to date.
You'd struggle to find a place to teach around here.
So wouldn't go there!
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ooh look. A black swan.
Right, so you're saying you wouldn't send your child to a grammar in Kent. I don't believe you.
No, no. Hang on. I can't send my child to a Grammar in Kent. I'd have to first, enter them into the 11+ exam (set and administered by KCC, and nothing whatsoever to do with the schools): secondly, see if they'd passed: thirdly, see if they'd passed sufficiently to reach the arbitrary threshold dictated to by the limited number of spaces: fourthly, hope there was space in the Grammar in which we lived near. You don't send your child to a selective Grammar. Your child is chosen by the school, through the 11+ (of which they are the unwilling victims).
In contrast, in discussion with my children, we chose to send them to the local, bog-standard comp. We did have options. And we chose.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
May I ask a somewhat unrelated question? I've lived in Australia and Fiji for the last 30 years, and my detailed knowledge of the British system is not up to date.
But why is anyone, no matter how bright, taking 14 GCSEs? In the 1960s I went to a British grammar school, and no-one did more than 8 O levels - there was no point in doing more, for progression to A levels and university. In fact one of the odd things about the British education system - at least as seen from the rest of the world, is the obsession with exams which are taken 2 years before the end of schooling. My kids here didn't do any external exams until the final year of education (yr 12 or 13) - and they don't in many other countries either. I'm slightly surprised that GCSEs still exist - and certainly that they are seen as so important - more than in my day, I think
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
OK, so you had the option of moving when your circumstances changed to a more affluent area. If your school situation had been worse, you'd probably have moved your child, moved property etc.
I don't see how having the choice and resources to move to a more affluent area is any better morally than having the choice to send your child to a selective school, a private school or any other kind of educational choice.
We had the choice and resources to move, but we didn't really have the choice to stay, given that we needed separate bedrooms for our son and daughter. I liked the school.
I admit we may well have moved later for the reasons you suggest. However, we had no qualms in enrolling our children in that school for the first years of their school life. Our Big Issue seller's children are there now, and he agrees with me that it's a good school.
[ 20. September 2016, 12:00: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
We were living in a poor area when our kids started school. There school was dubbed "the most violent school in Aberdeen" while they were there. (It wasn't that violent, though someone did try to set fire to the teaching assistant in my son's class). We had to move to a larger property when our son and daughter became too old to continue sharing a bedroom and we moved into a more affluent area.
Not all that violent! What would be more so than trying to set fire to a teaching assistant? Trying to set fire to a full teacher?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[No, no. Hang on. I can't send my child to a Grammar in Kent. I'd have to first, enter them into the 11+ exam (set and administered by KCC, and nothing whatsoever to do with the schools): secondly, see if they'd passed: thirdly, see if they'd passed sufficiently to reach the arbitrary threshold dictated to by the limited number of spaces: fourthly, hope there was space in the Grammar in which we lived near. You don't send your child to a selective Grammar. Your child is chosen by the school, through the 11+ (of which they are the unwilling victims).
I see. For those reasons you'd send your child to a non-grammar in Kent. I still don't believe you.
quote:
In contrast, in discussion with my children, we chose to send them to the local, bog-standard comp. We did have options. And we chose.
Bully for you. If only you'd allow others to make a different educational decision.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marama:
But why is anyone, no matter how bright, taking 14 GCSEs?
It makes the school look good. That's it.
I've got 9 O levels (8 the usual way, 1 at 6th form college in preparation for the A level), 3 A levels, a BSc and a PhD. Friends of my son at the Christian-ethos academy were forced to do 13-14 GCSEs - he took 9, and had by far the better time of it. He got the grades he needed in the subjects he wanted: now in his final year of 6th form, no one cares how many GCSEs he got.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by GeeD
quote:
Not all that violent! What would be more so than trying to set fire to a teaching assistant? Trying to set fire to a full teacher?
The boy (aged 8 or 9) flicked a lighter on the hem at the back of her cardigan; fortunately it didn't catch.
He had more success when he set fire to a cardboard box outside the headmaster's room....
He left the school soon after that; there was some sort of social services intervention.
He was a poor soul. I hope his life improved.
[ 20. September 2016, 12:12: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We had the choice and resources to move, but we didn't really have the choice to stay, given that we needed separate bedrooms for our son and daughter. I liked the school.
I see. So you couldn't have bought a bigger property in the same catchment for a lower price than a bigger property in a more expensive area. And there was nothing else about the latter area that made it attractive to you. That seems.. odd.
quote:
I admit we may well have moved later for the reasons you suggest. However, we had no qualms in enrolling our children in that school for the first years of their school life. Our Big Issue seller's children are there now, and he agrees with me that it's a good school.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Okay then.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
We were living in a poor area when our kids started school. There school was dubbed "the most violent school in Aberdeen" while they were there. (It wasn't that violent, though someone did try to set fire to the teaching assistant in my son's class). We had to move to a larger property when our son and daughter became too old to continue sharing a bedroom and we moved into a more affluent area.
Not all that violent! What would be more so than trying to set fire to a teaching assistant? Trying to set fire to a full teacher?
One act of violence does not equal 'most violent'.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I see. For those reasons you'd send your child to a non-grammar in Kent. I still don't believe you.
You can't 'send' your child to a Grammar in Kent either. For all the reasons I've stated. The Grammar picks your child - only at that point do you have a 'choice'.
quote:
Bully for you. If only you'd allow others to make a different educational decision.
No, if only you'd allow others to make a different educational decision. You see, this is the crux of the problem. The mere presence of the 11+ shuts down choice for the vast majority. They can't choose a non-Grammar system, and you are literally inflicting it on them and their children, county-wide.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marama:
May I ask a somewhat unrelated question? I've lived in Australia and Fiji for the last 30 years, and my detailed knowledge of the British system is not up to date.
But why is anyone, no matter how bright, taking 14 GCSEs?
They're not. The brightest often take 10 or 11 (with a small number taking more), less able students take fewer.
quote:
In the 1960s I went to a British grammar school, and no-one did more than 8 O levels - there was no point in doing more, for progression to A levels and university. In fact one of the odd things about the British education system - at least as seen from the rest of the world, is the obsession with exams which are taken 2 years before the end of schooling. My kids here didn't do any external exams until the final year of education (yr 12 or 13) - and they don't in many other countries either. I'm slightly surprised that GCSEs still exist - and certainly that they are seen as so important - more than in my day, I think
Well, the issue is that school education has only been compulsory (well, kind-of - some people get away with homeschooling) up to 16. So people can and do leave school at 16 to a range of different destinations - including doing practical study like hairdressing and car maintenance, doing apprenticeships or work. So the GCSE is supposed to be a test of ability for the whole cohort of students across the abilities to determine which direction they go next.
If there were no exams until 18, a good proportion of students would leave with nothing. Well, a good proportion already leave with nothing.. but anyway.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can't 'send' your child to a Grammar in Kent either. For all the reasons I've stated. The Grammar picks your child - only at that point do you have a 'choice'.
You've a choice to co-operate with the system, you are free to refuse to and to choose non-grammar schools for your child without taking the test.
quote:
No, if only you'd allow others to make a different educational decision. You see, this is the crux of the problem. The mere presence of the 11+ shuts down choice for the vast majority. They can't choose a non-Grammar system, and you are literally inflicting it on them and their children, county-wide.
That's still bullshit however many times you say it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
I see. So you couldn't have bought a bigger property in the same catchment for a lower price than a bigger property in a more expensive area. And there was nothing else about the latter area that made it attractive to you. That seems.. odd.
Not easily. It was pretty much all flats. We were already in one of the larger properties; one of a block of four rather than tenements, with a garden shared with our downstairs neighbours, and not with the rest of a tenement block. We had a "low door" ie our downstairs neighbours had one front door and we had another, leading straight to the stairs to our flat. We weren't sharing a common stairwell, so we were already at the top end of the property ladder within the school catchment.
Lack of traffic was a huge plus where we are now. The kids could go out to play, they could ride bikes, they could have more independence. Houses here have driveways, so kids crossing a road don't have to come out between parked cars. It felt so much safer. Actually, a house with a drive was a big plus! If we do a big supermarket shop we can unload straight into the house! No risk of having to park a street away and lug everything. The air is cleaner, less traffic fumes.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
We were living in a poor area when our kids started school. There school was dubbed "the most violent school in Aberdeen" while they were there. (It wasn't that violent, though someone did try to set fire to the teaching assistant in my son's class). We had to move to a larger property when our son and daughter became too old to continue sharing a bedroom and we moved into a more affluent area.
Not all that violent! What would be more so than trying to set fire to a teaching assistant? Trying to set fire to a full teacher?
One act of violence does not equal 'most violent'.
It does if there were no acts of violence in all the other schools.
Besides, the phrase was "dubbed 'the most violent'". Which is a reflection of the fact that the perception of the quality of a school rarely matches reality - those schools perceived as "bad" are not going to be as bad as the local press makes out, nor as bad as local parents think they are. Likewise those schools perceived as "good" are not going to be the shining examples of perfection they're often portrayed as. The actual range of school quality is less than what the media make out.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I was picking up NEQ's parenthetic sentence, not the unattributed dubbing comment.
This sounds from the rest of the quotation to have been an infants/primary school. What would have happened at high school level?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]You've a choice to co-operate with the system, you are free to refuse to and to choose non-grammar schools for your child without taking the test.
You've no choice to pick a truly Comprehensive school in an area with Grammars. That's just a fact.
quote:
That's still bullshit however many times you say it.
It's still completely true every time I say it, because that's most people's experience of it. Those who get in are relieved. Those who don't - the 80-85% who don't - get put in what you yourself are calling crap schools. If you don't care what happens to those children, it'd be easier if you just said so.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
By way of explanation there was one poor kid, J.B. very out of control, probably on a perpetual sugar rush as he lived on sweets. He told one teacher that his horrendous diet was because his mother could shoplift bars of chocolate, but she couldn't shoplift bananas. Too bulgy. (JB was not the fire-raiser).
The school were trying to access help for him and started logging everything he did. Everything. Including incidents which were basically him careening around bumping into things and knocking / people / things over. The end result was that the local newspaper carried a front page story on "the most violent school in the city" which had had X many violent incidents in 6 months. The majority of these violent incidents were by J.B.
The story and the reality were two different things.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You've no choice to pick a truly Comprehensive school in an area with Grammars. That's just a fact.
Funny how academics distinguish and divide different areas with different amounts of grammars and that there is little evidence that a certain number of grammars makes any difference overall on schools, and this is by far and away smaller than the effect of geographic selection.
But, hey, I guess you know better. Because you can type something into a bulletin board.
quote:
It's still completely true every time I say it, because that's most people's experience of it. Those who get in are relieved. Those who don't - the 80-85% who don't - get put in what you yourself are calling crap schools. If you don't care what happens to those children, it'd be easier if you just said so.
No they don't and I haven't said that because it is rubbish. Almost everyone can appreciate that there is a difference living in an area where there is a widespread cover of grammar schools taking 30% of all students and an area where there is a much smaller spread taking less than 15%. And you've obviously got a better idea of people's perceptions of grammars than people who actually live in grammar school areas because there have now been two areas - Gloucestershire and Birmingham - introduced into this discussion which have comprehensives and grammars.
Non-grammars in Kent are almost always low attainment and are often are crap. Non-grammars in counties where there are a smaller number of grammars are true comprehensives and often are good with high attainment.
Hence it is no contradiction to say that the Kent system is the worst of all worlds whilst also saying that one way to promote social mobility in other areas might be to have more grammars.
Again, I apologise if that's an argument that is too complex for you to grasp.
[ 20. September 2016, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You've no choice to pick a truly Comprehensive school in an area with Grammars. That's just a fact.
(followed by disagreement with this obvious fact)
Just to repeat this again (though I've said it before).
Comprehensive schools take everyone from a catchment regardless of academic ability. That's the definition of comprehensive.
If another school selects pupils from that cathcment (either, as in the case of grammar schools, on the basis of academic ability judged by the 11+, or as in the case of private schools on the basis of parental ability to pay) then the "comprehensive" school is no longer taking everyone from the catchment. Therefore, the "comprehensive" school is not truly comprehensive.
Simples.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just to repeat this again (though I've said it before).
Comprehensive schools take everyone from a catchment regardless of academic ability. That's the definition of comprehensive.
If another school selects pupils from that cathcment (either, as in the case of grammar schools, on the basis of academic ability judged by the 11+, or as in the case of private schools on the basis of parental ability to pay) then the "comprehensive" school is no longer taking everyone from the catchment. Therefore, the "comprehensive" school is not truly comprehensive.
Simples.
No. A comprehensive is a school with a mix of abilities. If you have an area with a range of schools such that the brightest can (and do) choose to remain in a local comprehensive rather than travel to a grammar school, they retain the full spread of ability and are therefore comprehensive schools.
A school where a very large percentage of the brightest have been removed and where the remaining bright-but-poor students are not fully catered for is a true secondary modern.
There is an obvious difference.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Comprehensive schools take everyone from a catchment regardless of academic ability. That's the definition of comprehensive.
Also I note that according to this definition, schools in Glasgow are not comprehensives due to the number of students attending private schools in the city.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If another school selects pupils from that cathcment (either, as in the case of grammar schools, on the basis of academic ability judged by the 11+, or as in the case of private schools on the basis of parental ability to pay) then the "comprehensive" school is no longer taking everyone from the catchment. Therefore, the "comprehensive" school is not truly comprehensive.
I'm not sure I see what difference it would make to the comprehensive school to have the extra one or two smarter kids there.
OK, in areas where schools are funded on a "per pupil" basis they will get slightly more because they have slightly more pupils, but beyond that?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No. A comprehensive is a school with a mix of abilities.
From the Oxford dictionary
quote:
Relating to or denoting a system of secondary education in which children of all abilities from a particular area are educated in one school.
Thus, your "school with a mix of abilities" definition is incomplete (besides from the fact that it's useless, almost by definition any school with more than one pupil has a mix of abilities). The key points are
a) pupils from a defined area
b) all abilities
c) one school
Therefore a school ceases to be truly comprehensive when it does not take all abilities (eg: because a large proportion of children have been selected by another school based on the 11+), and/or where the area is served by more than one school (eg: there's a local grammar which some children go to).
quote:
If you have an area with a range of schools such that the brightest can (and do) choose to remain in a local comprehensive rather than travel to a grammar school, they retain the full spread of ability and are therefore comprehensive schools.
Yes, of course, because all the children in the area go to the same school.
quote:
A school where a very large percentage of the brightest have been removed and where the remaining bright-but-poor students are not fully catered for is a true secondary modern.
The name may vary, but yes that would not be a comprehensive school.
Though you now have me confused, because you start off saying my definition of comprehensive school is wrong, then give statements that support my definition of comprehensive. And, that last one in particular is in agreement with the statement Doc Tor made that "You've no choice to pick a truly Comprehensive school in an area with Grammars" which I thought you had disagreed with.
And, yes, I do recognise that since there are other schooling options (particularly for those with money), such as private schools and home schooling, and that most school catchments tend to have fuzzy borders (in many towns most people live within easy reach of more than one school, and it wouldn't be unusual for children from one catchment to go to the school of a neighbouring catchment) that there probably isn't a truly comprehensive school anywhere in the country. So, we're talking degrees of comprehensiveness - schools in which a large proportion of the local children go to a grammar school are less comprehensive than schools in which there isn't a grammar school taking some of the children.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
What Alan said.
It'd be ...ironic?.. if much of the disagreement stemmed from the fact that Grammar supporters don't actually know what a Comprehensive is.
I grew up, and went to school, in a rural area with one Comp. As that, it was truly comprehensive. Where I live now, and where my kids went/go to school, there are two Comps (ours and a Catholic comp) within walking distance, and bussing options for another two, plus the Christian-ethos partially-selective academy. As such, if you're within the LEA, you pretty much choose, and are accepted at, your 1st choice comp.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
If you have an area with a range of schools such that the brightest can (and do) choose to remain in a local comprehensive rather than travel to a grammar school, they retain the full spread of ability and are therefore comprehensive schools.
Yes, of course, because all the children in the area go to the same school.
A place like Gloucestershire has comprehensives and grammars. Some of the brightest students go to the comprehensives - and no, not all the children in a particular area go to the same school.
And yes, they are comprehensives.
Thomas Keble School is a mixed comprehensive school
From Gloucestershire county council admissions doc: Some comprehensive schools have a catchment area consisting of parishes, district or county boundaries.
From OFSTED: Cheltenham Bournside School and Sixth Form Centre is larger than the average-sized comprehensive school.
But obviously you two know better than the school, the county council and OFSTED.
quote:
quote:
A school where a very large percentage of the brightest have been removed and where the remaining bright-but-poor students are not fully catered for is a true secondary modern.
The name may vary, but yes that would not be a comprehensive school.
Wrong.
quote:
Though you now have me confused, because you start off saying my definition of comprehensive school is wrong, then give statements that support my definition of comprehensive. And, that last one in particular is in agreement with the statement Doc Tor made that "You've no choice to pick a truly Comprehensive school in an area with Grammars" which I thought you had disagreed with.
I do for reason described above. Gloucestershire has both grammars and comprehensives.
quote:
And, yes, I do recognise that since there are other schooling options (particularly for those with money), such as private schools and home schooling, and that most school catchments tend to have fuzzy borders (in many towns most people live within easy reach of more than one school, and it wouldn't be unusual for children from one catchment to go to the school of a neighbouring catchment) that there probably isn't a truly comprehensive school anywhere in the country. So, we're talking degrees of comprehensiveness - schools in which a large proportion of the local children go to a grammar school are less comprehensive than schools in which there isn't a grammar school taking some of the children.
Well then the degree you're using is wrong. It is clear that it is possible for both comprehensives and grammars to exist in an area.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What Alan said.
It'd be ...ironic?.. if much of the disagreement stemmed from the fact that Grammar supporters don't actually know what a Comprehensive is.
And wouldn't it be ironic if you didn't know what you were talking about it and if the schools, the county council and OFSTED used the term comprehensive for schools in Gloucestershire which has a small number of grammars.
Oh.
quote:
I grew up, and went to school, in a rural area with one Comp. As that, it was truly comprehensive. Where I live now, and where my kids went/go to school, there are two Comps (ours and a Catholic comp) within walking distance, and bussing options for another two, plus the Christian-ethos partially-selective academy. As such, if you're within the LEA, you pretty much choose, and are accepted at, your 1st choice comp.
Yeah well. If there were some in your area who went to any other school, it wasn't a comprehensive according to Alan.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Oh and let's see how the government define it:
quote:
Comprehensive schools largely admit pupils without reference to ability or aptitude and cater for all the children in a neighbourhood, but in some areas they co-exist with other types of schools, for example grammar schools.
funny that
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It does strike me that successive governments have created a most unholy and incoherent MESS of our education system.
At one time we had - apart from the private sector, which I won't even venture to talk about! - primary schools, Secondary Moderns and Grammar Schools. (According to the 1944 Education Act we should have had Technical Schools too, but that hardly happened).
Then Comprehensives came along - in most areas - and that should have been fine, for they were still all under the same LEAs. But in many places the change was made madly; the traditional "cachet" of formal Grammar Schools often remained and this became to a degree self-perpetuating.
But now we have all sorts of schools: the "rump" of LEA schools, the Academies and the Free School, all with different admission criteria and rules of operation. Some areas are over-schooled, some need more places; some schools have to follow the National Curriculum, some don't; staffing requirements vary ... and so on.
So now we're talking about new Grammar Schools too?
P.S. I confess: I went to a selective Independent School. But it was a "Direct Grant" school and so, like nearly 50% of the students, I was funded by the LEA. I was extremely fortunate; but philosophically I would stand with those who believe in Comprehensives, so long as they're good.
[ 20. September 2016, 14:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Whoops: not "madly" but "badly" - although you may prefer the typo!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh and let's see how the government define it:
quote:
Comprehensive schools largely admit pupils without reference to ability or aptitude and cater for all the children in a neighbourhood, but in some areas they co-exist with other types of schools, for example grammar schools.
funny that
And, that statement is self-contradictory. The government talking out of it's arse, funny that.
1) "Comprehensive schools largely admit pupils without reference to ability or aptitude and cater for all the children in a neighbourhood"
2) "in some areas they co-exist with other types of schools"
Sorry, but if there are other types of school in an area then (unless those other schools do not take pupils from the area) the comprehensive schools are not catering for all the children in the neighbourhood.
Of course, there's no indication of where that pdf file came from (it's not an official document with the departmental identifiers on it), but it's bollocks. I did a quick Google search earlier, hoping to find pages on the Department for Education website defining what a comprehensive school is, but there was nothing there (loads on faith schools, free schools, academies etc ... but not comps). Which is why I went with the dictionary definition.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QAnd, that statement is self-contradictory. The government talking out of it's arse, funny that.
1) "Comprehensive schools largely admit pupils without reference to ability or aptitude and cater for all the children in a neighbourhood"
2) "in some areas they co-exist with other types of schools"
Sorry, but if there are other types of school in an area then (unless those other schools do not take pupils from the area) the comprehensive schools are not catering for all the children in the neighbourhood.
Or it could just be that you're wrong.
School A has 6 sets for mathematics. Set 1 is for high flyers who take mathematics a year early at GCSEs, do further maths etc. Set 6 is for those who really struggle.
School B is a grammar school with 3 sets for mathematics. The worst students in set 3 are better than the best students in set 4 of school A.
School C is a school which is in the same district as School B. It has 6 sets, Set 1 is for high flyers who can, in exactly the same way as School A, excel at Mathematics.
School C is still able to cater for all the ability ranges in the district even though some of the highest ability have gone to school B.
In contrast school D has 3 sets with the best students being worse at mathematics than the worst students at School B. Without some kind of miracle, school D is not able to cater for all of the ability range.
quote:
Of course, there's no indication of where that pdf file came from (it's not an official document with the departmental identifiers on it), but it's bollocks. I did a quick Google search earlier, hoping to find pages on the Department for Education website defining what a comprehensive school is, but there was nothing there (loads on faith schools, free schools, academies etc ... but not comps). Which is why I went with the dictionary definition.
Yeah, that'd be fair except for the use by schools and by OFSTED of the term relating to schools in Gloucestershire. In that context it is fully consistent with the way that Gloucestershire's comprehensive schools are using the term.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, that's not what that pdf from whatever arse in government said. "Comprehensive schools ... cater for all the children in a neighbourhood"
That's not the same as "are able to cater for ...".
--------------------
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:
Sorry, but if there are other types of school in an area then (unless those other schools do not take pupils from the area) the comprehensive schools are not catering for all the children in the neighbourhood.
I still don't see what's so fantastic about having all the kids in a neighbourhood in the same school.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
And, just to underline the point, the 7 grammars in Gloucestershire got 97% A-C grades.
The top 5 comprehensives got:
83%, 76%, 74%, 74% and 74%
In Kent the top non-grammars got
72%, 71%, 68%, 66% and 64%
And that's not even a fair measure because most of those are RC comprehensives, and there are no RC grammars in Kent.
Taking out the RC schools, the top 5 non-grammars would be:
68%, 61%, 61%, 60%, 60%
The two systems are very different, even using that crude measurement.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I still don't see what's so fantastic about having all the kids in a neighbourhood in the same school.
Scottish schools are very rigid about having kids going to school in the catchment. In most of the schools in most of the areas in England, parents can choose between schools with overlapping catchment areas.
As a result, poor kids in many parts of Scotland have got no chance at getting a better education.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What Alan said.
It'd be ...ironic?.. if much of the disagreement stemmed from the fact that Grammar supporters don't actually know what a Comprehensive is.
And wouldn't it be ironic if you didn't know what you were talking about it and if the schools, the county council and OFSTED used the term comprehensive for schools in Gloucestershire which has a small number of grammars.
Oh.
Well, yes. I'm certain that the comprehensives in Gloucestershire would take a pupil of any ability, from the brightest to the dimmest - more than the Grammar do, of course. But the point stands - in an area with Grammar schools, the intake isn't fully comprehensive.
We know you don't like to admit it, but there's nothing we can do about that. If you take the best-performing pupils out of a school, you'll see the school fall down the league table. Grammars institutionalise that.
And interestingly, in this local newspaper article, they comment:
quote:
It will come as little surprise that the county's grammar schools which select children according to ability do exceptionally well with their GCSE results.
But when it comes to maximising pupil achievement Gloucestershire's comprehensive schools do as well as the grammar schools, with five of the top ten places, although none of Gloucester's non-selective secondary schools feature in the top ten for value added.
So the place in Gloucestshire with the most Grammar schools (Gloucester itself, with 4) seems to basically fuck it up for the town's comps. Who could have guessed that?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And, just to underline the point, the 7 grammars in Gloucestershire got 97% A-C grades.
The top 5 comprehensives got:
83%, 76%, 74%, 74% and 74%
None of those comps are in Gloucester where the main concentration of Grammars are. Your point is unequivocally debunked.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, yes. I'm certain that the comprehensives in Gloucestershire would take a pupil of any ability, from the brightest to the dimmest - more than the Grammar do, of course. But the point stands - in an area with Grammar schools, the intake isn't fully comprehensive.
The intake isn't, the school is not. Many more succeed in Gloucestershire's comprehensives than in Kent's non-grammar schools.
If you want to redefine how everyone is using a word and then exclaim "ah-ha! they've changed the definition", then you can, but don't expect anyone to see you as credible..
Comprehensive schools have students across the ability range even if local grammars exist.
quote:
We know you don't like to admit it, but there's nothing we can do about that. If you take the best-performing pupils out of a school, you'll see the school fall down the league table. Grammars institutionalise that.
Not sure what that is supposed to mean.
quote:
And interestingly, in this local newspaper article, they comment:
quote:
It will come as little surprise that the county's grammar schools which select children according to ability do exceptionally well with their GCSE results.
But when it comes to maximising pupil achievement Gloucestershire's comprehensive schools do as well as the grammar schools, with five of the top ten places, although none of Gloucester's non-selective secondary schools feature in the top ten for value added.
So the place in Gloucestshire with the most Grammar schools (Gloucester itself, with 4) seems to basically fuck it up for the town's comps. Who could have guessed that?
Or, you might argue from that piece, Grammars in Gloucester add a lot of value for their students from whatever background they originate. Which is what I've argued all along.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
But how far do the grammar school kids travel to school?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
None of those comps are in Gloucester where the main concentration of Grammars are. Your point is unequivocally debunked.
The top comprehensive school is in Cheltenham, which also happens to have the top performing grammar in Gloucestershire and sometimes the country.
Once again, you just don't know what you are talking about.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I still don't see what's so fantastic about having all the kids in a neighbourhood in the same school.
There are some practical issues. For a start, (by definition) if all the kids are from the immediate neighbourhood then they don't have so far to travel. That means, not many parents needing to drive the kids to school (good for the environment) - though in rural areas that will be different. All the children from the same family will go to the same school (at least once they've all moved up from primary to secondary) so no problems with trying to send children in different directions. With everyone in one school, it's easier to stagger holiday times (within constraints of external exams) so that different areas take their breaks at different times (easing the pressure on parents to take kids on holiday outside term time because the school holiday premiums would be reduced).
But, I think one of the biggest advantages is social. It means children will go up to secondary school with their primary class, so retaining their friendships as well as making new friends. Children on the same street will be at the same school, also good for forming and maintaining friendships. Because of overlapping catchments, I went to a different school than everyone in my primary school (at least, for that year) and none of the other children at my school lived on the same road as me - and virtually none in the same estate (the nearest friends from school to me were all on the other side of a dual carriageway which didn't have a pedestrian crossing - hardly the safest option for going to see friends).
There is also the scope for positive role models. If the boy next door, going to the same school, managed to get good grades and a university place then that sends a "it's possible for me to" message. That doesn't work if he went to a grammar school, you get the "I'm not at the good school, what hope is there for me?" type message. Since the aim (or one of them) is to encourage children to do their best, why do something discouraging like give a message like "only that other school is good enough for children to get to 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There are very few places in England where everyone in the street goes to the same school, Alan. It hasn't been like that for a long time.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are very few places in England where everyone in the street goes to the same school, Alan. It hasn't been like that for a long time.
Yes, I know. I did, afterall, go to school in England and that (as I said) wasn't the case more than 30 years ago.
But, I was answering a question about what is good about everyone in an area going to the same school. That answer doesn't depend on whether or not that is the actual practice anywhere.
But, we've already established that, in England at least, many "comprehensive" schools are not fully comprehensive - the overlapping catchments are part of that.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, we've already established that, in England at least, many "comprehensive" schools are not fully comprehensive - the overlapping catchments are part of that.
Certainly not according to your definition, but I doubt any would be anywhere outside of a Scottish island.
Of course, competition was a deliberate policy in England and resisted in Scotland.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
