quote:

---

All of this said, what do you see in your world regarding elitism in education?

---

quote:

---

Is education open to all?

---

quote:

---

What are the barriers?

---

quote:

---

Are their political moves afoot to educate the rich differently than the average person?

---

quote:

---

How on earth can it be justified?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I was listening to CBC Radio One rebroadcast of a BBC piece that sounded like a clear promotion of educational elitism by the government of the UK, where children at about age 11 are examined to get into "grammar schools" (I may have terminology wrong,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
OK, so in the UK:

The fee-paying "public schools" are called "public" because they are open to the children of the public - as opposed to church schools and guild schools, for example. The terminology significantly predates state-funded education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
They also discussed private schools (which are "public schools" I gather in the UK).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Many parents of children who would qualify for grammar schools (roughly the top 25% of ability) prefer selective education. Their reasons include, but are not limited to, a desire for their children to avoid disruptive classmates, a desire for more rigorous tuition from better teachers, a desire to avoid the children of the unemployed and working classes, and a desire to avoid black and brown people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The main issue with "academic selection" is that although in theory it's just based on academic ability, in practice it reflects wealth. It's a method to allow middle income and above families to get their children into a selective school (which generally will be "flagship" schools for the area, being better funded and resourced than other local state schools), especially those who can't afford private fees. That was illustrated on the news this morning, where a parent was interviewed outside a school where her child was sitting an 11+, paraphrased she said "you need to pay for tutors". Those parents who can pay for tutors can get less gifted kids through the 11+, for poorer families their only chance for getting into a grammar school is if their child is significantly above the academic bar - gifted enough to be noted by teachers and put forward to the 11+.

Of course there are other methods of selection that biases quality education against the poorer families in our nation. The obvious one being the elevation of house prices in the vicinity of what are perceived to be better schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The main issue with "academic selection" is that although in theory it's just based on academic ability, in practice it reflects wealth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Not quite. The things that are called "public schools" in the UK are the older, often more expensive, private schools. There are many other private schools that do not describe themselves thus.

---

Still not quite. Technically, a "public school" was an independent school which was a charitable foundation and whose Head was a member of the HMC. A "private" school was any other independent school i.e. a school that was run for profit. Age of the institution, cost etc were of no relevance to whether or not a school was a "public school" or not.

I say "was" because nowadays the term "public schools" is only used by people who don't understand public schools! Both "public" and "private" schools are all lumped together under the catch-all term "independent schools". I cannot think of a single "public school" in the country that still refers to itself as a "public school" and it's almost twenty years since the "Girls Public Day School Trust" dropped "public" from its title.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 


no_prophet has rate her fallen for an old Canadian tale: egalitarian education.

it is neither strictly true, in his sense, nor completely false.

Rev. Egerton Ryerson was (a) the leading Methodist evangelist in Upper Canada and (b) a leading reformer of education.

He explicitly rejected the private/grammar school model and implemented a universal or 'common' school model, which has held sway in Canada ever since.

Of course, when you discuss education in Canada you are really discussing the politics of community identity. Ryerson's vision was more universalist, even American than the perceived class-ridden British model. Ryerson's vision always had an anti-British/anti-Imperialist tinge to it.

Education debates in Canada are never really about the quality of mathematics education, the are really about community identity and its propagation. It's been that way for 200 years.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Elitism = wealth for the most part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Elitism = wealth for the most part.

---

So thinking elitism wrong means thinking wealth wrong ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Elitism = wealth for the most part.

---

So thinking elitism wrong means thinking wealth wrong ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:


no_prophet has rate her fallen for an old Canadian tale: egalitarian education.

it is neither strictly true, in his sense, nor completely false.

Rev. Egerton Ryerson was (a) the leading Methodist evangelist in Upper Canada and (b) a leading reformer of education.

He explicitly rejected the private/grammar school model and implemented a universal or 'common' school model, which has held sway in Canada ever since.

---

Ontario isn't the prairies. It is a unique and old part of Canada, which has a good measure of elitism. When I went to grad school, I was exposed to some of this, personally, for the first time 40 years ago. It is rather different out there.

You have fallen for the old tale of what's true in Ontario is also true in the rest of the country methinks.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The West doesn't have elites?
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
It is a matter of degree. And it is really different than out your way. But this is a tangent.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
We take the most physically talented kids and give them extra training for sports.

I don't see why we shouldn't take the most mentally talented kids and give them extra training for mental skills.

Having said that, I agree with Alan's point that often what we're measuring is wealth. But this is true of sports as well, as a look at an Olympics medal tally will tell you.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, we've had descriptions of Canadian and UK systems, so we might as well have the third--the U.S.

Here we make the basic assumption that everybody is entitled to a free education up to roughly age 18, which is twelfth grade (senior year in high school). Communities provide a public (local-tax-funded) school to make that happen. Which school you attend depends on your home address. It is usually not possible to switch designated schools except in the case of special schemes like desegregation bussing, magnet schools, and etc.

There are also likely to be private schools which normally charge tuition to parents. Some of these are religious in nature but quite a few are not. Some are set up in accord with particular philosophies of education, such as Montessori, "classical" schools (Latin and the trivium/quadrivium stuff), and various crunchy granola thingies. Each private school sets its own admission standards, although there are some state and federal laws which every school must observe, regardless. (These often have "teeth" added to them by way of threats to cut off funding, grants, whatever if the law is not observed.)

Then there is home schooling, un-schooling (as some call it), and other non-institutional or less-institutional schemes. Every state will have its own regulations for such things. Again, some of the people involved will be doing it for religious reasons, but quite a few will be doing it because of philosophy, desire for better education than is locally available, or special family circumstances. These are of course all up to the families to self-fund.

Returning then to the public schools--the tax-funded, community-supported ones which are free to attend. The biggest problem here is that these are mostly funded with local property taxes. If the school is located in a well-to-do community, then the school has more money available to hire good teachers, build buildings, get equipment, and so on. If not, then not. And state and federal funding do not make up the shortfall. So there is a great contrast between a school like the one my son attends (in a fairly well-off suburb) and the school he would have attended if we were living in our last home (border inner city). In fact, the contrast is so great that it becomes a major driver for families choosing a home to rent or buy. Unless they can easily afford private tuition (heh), they want to know right away how good the local schools are. And that is largely correlated with the wealth (or lack thereof) of the local community.

So you do get a kind of elitism based on wealth, though not intentionally so. But it works out that way. Probably the only way to avoid it would be to make school funding 100% federally handled (or, less effectively, state handled) instead of locally handled. But that's not how things developed historically, and it would be very very difficult to change the model now. Not that we shouldn't try. But can you see wealthy homeowners in Moneybags, MO agreeing to send their taxes to a central place to be divvied up and shared equally with kids in Slumville, MO? Most human beings seem not to be that generous.

There are, of course, any number of schemes for getting what they used to call "underprivileged children" into college or university. But these are usually merit based, at least in part, which means the child will have had to struggle upstream for 12 years to earn a place of this sort. And it's not easy at all to study in a room in the slums which is poorly lit and heated/cooled and shared with five other people, some of whom may be drunk, high, or criminals, or inviting friends in those categories to visit while you're studying. Not to mention issues with hunger and finding sufficient time away from poorly paid work or child-watching.

So yeah, we have elitism. It's very frustrating. And only the most motivated tend to overcome the barriers that are out there. I've tutored a lot of these during the last 30 years, but it still isn't enough.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Oh, I should have said--

All of our public high schools are in theory largely the same. I mean, we don't have an academic curriculum for one school and a technical / vocational curriculum for another. That kind of differentiation happens in elective courses (which are not the bulk of what you're taking prior to age 18) or after high school graduation, in adult technical schools.

But in theory, every kid is able to get their four years of English, three (or whatever the state mandates) of history, etc. math, sciences, foreign language... Of course, kids can drop out at age 16 if they choose. And four years of English at school X is not the same quality as four years at inner city school Y, largely for funding reasons. But theoretically the experience is going to broadly similar for everybody still in school prior to age 18.

There are usually different "tracks" as we used to call them--my own school had the AP (Advanced Placement) students, who were expected to go off to top universities; the college prep kids, just under those; the general studies kids, which was ordinary people plus bright students who just couldn't be bothered; and then various special needs groups. We got sorted into tracks based on how we did in the two or three years prior to high school (roughly ages 12 to 14). They would look at course grades, test scores, and special circumstances, like having been placed in gifted enrichment programs, or having attempted high school level math early. And you could switch tracks after you got to high school--I was forcibly switched in my junior year after the Powers That Be saw my PSAT test scores and had a hissy fit that I'd been sliding by in the general population. I was one of those who mostly couldn't be bothered. But by and large, if you didn't purposefully make waves, the track you entered with was the one you graduated on--and your high school accomplishments (or lack thereof) affected the colleges*/universities that were willing to take you on.

* Note: "college" in the U.S. does not refer to the same thing it does in the U.K. It is tertiary education that starts at about age 18 or 19 and runs for either two years (community college, associate degree) or four (called simply "college" with no modifier, and ends with a bachelor's degree). "University" is largely synonymous with "college"--the only difference between the two seems to be the question of whether your tertiary school can lay claim to a graduate program (master's level); if so, it can call itself a university. In practice, undergraduate students will still say "I'm in college" regardless of whether the school they're attending calls itself a university or a college. To say "I'm in university" sounds, well, snooty. Which is IMHO why so many small tertiary schools rush to establish master's programs, so they can use the posher name.
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Scotland has its own educational system; there is no such thing as a "UK system."

All state schools are comprehensive, with the exception of a couple which are specialised e.g. music schools.

There are fee-paying schools in the cities, but there are large areas where there is no alternative to the state comprehensive system. In Aberdeenshire, there are 152 state primaries, 17 state secondary schools, and one private school. Aberdeen City has 48 state primaries, 4 fee paying primaries, 11 1/2 state secondaries, 1/2 a secondary which is a centre of excellence for music, and three fee-paying secondaries.

The vast majority of children in the North East of Scotland, therefore, are in the state comprehensive system.

The state comprehensive system works well, IMO, in rural areas. It has certainly served us well. One of my children is very creative, but not academic. The other is academic. Both have done well from their education.

In the cities, the schools which serve the poorest areas have the poorest educational outcomes. Our children started their education in one such school. When my son started school he was one of five children with a parent who had, or was doing, a PhD, but there were also children in his class who came from chaotic homes, with issues of drug addiction, low level criminality, etc. The school itself was great, with brilliant, dedicated staff, but as each class progressed up, the studenty families moved away until by primary seven there were none. (We moved when our kids were 9 and 7).

I really don't know what would create a level playing field between, say, my daughter (two parents, lots of books at home, both parents taking an active interest) and her classmate C (single mother, working as a hostess at one of the clubs at the harbour, getting home at 3am, and hence not able to get up to provide a proper breakfast for C, who was expected to sort his own breakfast from a packet of biscuits, lots of "uncles", no books at home, mother migrated to more lucrative jobs in Spain each summer, so C had moved home several times by the time he was 7) I heard on the grapevine that C went into care at age 8.

So, to answer the OP:

quote:

---

All of this said, what do you see in your world regarding elitism in education? Is education open to all? What are the barriers? Are their political moves afoot to educate the rich differently than the average person? How on earth can it be justified?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Education is open to all. The barriers are that some children aren't able to benefit. There are no political moves to educate the rich differently; that would be political suicide in Scotland. Indeed, a fee-paying education is probably a barrier to election as a politician. Even the leader of the Scottish Tories, Ruth Davidson, was state-educated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
We take the most physically talented kids and give them extra training for sports.

I don't see why we shouldn't take the most mentally talented kids and give them extra training for mental skills.

Having said that, I agree with Alan's point that often what we're measuring is wealth. But this is true of sports as well, as a look at an Olympics medal tally will tell you.

---

quote:

---

It hasn't always been so. Donald Dewer, the first First Minister and architect of devolution, went to Glasgow Academy. Tony Blair went to Fettes College, Michael Gove went to Robert Gordon's. All private schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I was trying to say that I thought that a fee-paying education was now a barrier to election in Scotland. I think it should be obvious from context that I wasn't referring to elections in England. Neither Tony Blair nor Michael Gove were elected to Scottish seats.

Donald Dewar was elected to Aberdeen South in 1966, as part of Harold Wilson's government, which is going back quite a bit.

---

quote:

---

In the cities, the schools which serve the poorest areas have the poorest educational outcomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
We take the most physically talented kids and give them extra training for sports.

I don't see why we shouldn't take the most mentally talented kids and give them extra training for mental skills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've also heard that although Germany has a system of different types of school based on education attainment, there is much less of a concept of "elitism" because the status of craft and technical jobs are much higher in society

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
They also discussed private schools (which are "public schools" I gather in the UK).

---

Not quite. The things that are called "public schools" in the UK are the older, often more expensive, private schools. There are many other private schools that do not describe themselves thus. Many are in the grammar school tradition, seeing themselves as academically but not socially elitist.

State grammar schools offer an academically selective education to children of parents who might not otherwise be able to afford one. As a parent who can (just about) afford to pay for private schooling, I'm 100% in favour of them. They give people with less money than me the chance to choose the same sort of education for their children that, at the moment, I can only choose by paying for it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Many parents of children who would qualify for grammar schools (roughly the top 25% of ability) prefer selective education. Their reasons include, but are not limited to, a desire for their children to avoid disruptive classmates, a desire for more rigorous tuition from better teachers, a desire to avoid the children of the unemployed and working classes, and a desire to avoid black and brown people.

---

From my experience, the "desire for more rigorous tuition from better teachers" tops that list by several orders of magnitude. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which means that if the aforementioned child fails the 11+ they are denied access to the better teachers because they're all teaching at the grammar schools.

It inevitably means a second-rate option for the majority who are told they're a bunch of thicko failures at 11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which means that if the aforementioned child fails the 11+ they are denied access to the better teachers because they're all teaching at the grammar schools.

It inevitably means a second-rate option for the majority who are told they're a bunch of thicko failures at 11.

---

I think it is a mistake to think that grammar school teachers are the best. In fact my recent experience suggests that they're often pretty inadequate, young and liable to leave mid-term.

I also think geography makes a big difference to the quality of teachers, and not all grammars are in prestigious places to live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If the aforementioned child fails the 11+ they are denied access to the better teachers because they're all teaching at the grammar schools.

It inevitably means a second-rate option for the majority who are told they're a bunch of thicko failures at 11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
We take the most physically talented kids and give them extra training for sports.

I don't see why we shouldn't take the most mentally talented kids and give them extra training for mental skills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So from the mid-60s on, selective schooling tended to fall out of favour and was replaced in most, but not all, of the country by comprehensive schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[ I think an important driver of academic success at grammar schools is the (relative) lack of disruptive pupils. It doesn't matter how good the teacher is at teaching if they're having to spend half the lesson doing policing, psychiatry or social work instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[ I think an important driver of academic success at grammar schools is the (relative) lack of disruptive pupils. It doesn't matter how good the teacher is at teaching if they're having to spend half the lesson doing policing, psychiatry or social work instead.

---

I think for the most part the difference is the engagement of parents in their children's education.

Grammar schoolkids can be disruptive and unruly, but on the whole the knowledge that there will be hell-to-pay both from the school and the parents tends to put a lid on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
They won't be proper grammar schools anyway. I'll bet that none of them will have mandatory Latin and Greek lessons. They will just be the same old comprehensives with the riff-raff weeded out.

---

quote:

---

I think for the most part the difference is the engagement of parents in their children's education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think an important driver of academic success at grammar schools is the (relative) lack of disruptive pupils.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
Undeniably true but in my brief experience at the chalkface you can't separate out disruptive pupils by academic ability or affluence, only by actual behaviour. The Tories are forgetting the third tier of the grammar/secondary modern structure - the "approved" school. How long before they rear their ugly heads again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[ I think an important driver of academic success at grammar schools is the (relative) lack of disruptive pupils. It doesn't matter how good the teacher is at teaching if they're having to spend half the lesson doing policing, psychiatry or social work instead.

---

I think for the most part the difference is the engagement of parents in their children's education.

Grammar schoolkids can be disruptive and unruly, but on the whole the knowledge that there will be hell-to-pay both from the school and the parents tends to put a lid on it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And approved schools essentially already exist albeit with a more modern approach and different name.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
In a lot of LEAs they don't. Behavioural support is now done in-house rather than at dedicated centres. There are certainly no schools geared up to dealing with disruptive students outside of the justice system around here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Grammar schoolkids can be disruptive and unruly, but on the whole the knowledge that there will be hell-to-pay both from the school and the parents tends to put a lid on it.

---

Some parents engage with schools and some don't. The attitude of the school matters and the attitude of the headteacher is paramount. The status or kind of school is secondary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So from the mid-60s on, selective schooling tended to fall out of favour and was replaced in most, but not all, of the country by comprehensive schools.

---

Isn't it odd that at about the same time social mobility in the UK virtually ground to a halt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think for the most part the difference is the engagement of parents in their children's education.

Grammar schoolkids can be disruptive and unruly, but on the whole the knowledge that there will be hell-to-pay both from the school and the parents tends to put a lid on it.

---

Some parents engage with schools and some don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Unless your child fails the 11+ in which case you have no such choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So from the mid-60s on, selective schooling tended to fall out of favour and was replaced in most, but not all, of the country by comprehensive schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't it odd that at about the same time social mobility in the UK virtually ground to a halt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

But at present, in much of the UK, the only way to get a selective education is to pay for it. More grammar schools mean that more lower-income families get an option that currently you need money for. That's a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I was trying to say that I thought that a fee-paying education was now a barrier to election in Scotland.

---

quote:

---

Also, you need to unpack the figures re the number of privately-educated MSPs.

Elections to Holyrood aren't "first-past-the-post." There are two votes, one for a constituency candidate and one for a party. Many of the privately-educated MSPs were elected from the list, not as individuals. It would be interesting to calculate how many of those elected to a constituency seat were privately educated.

---

A quick glance through the lists provides a minimum figure; it's not easy to find where a lot of the MSPs went to school (do they not publish such information because they don't think it's important or because they are hiding the fact they were independently educated? Let the reader decide...) so it's not possible to produce more accurate figures without settling into some serious research (and this may be a slow morning, but it's not that slow!)

Of 129 MSPs, I can find 18 who went to independent schools. That's 14% of MSPs compared to a national figure for Scotland of c.4.5%.

Of the 18, 7 are regional MSPs. That's 5% of all MSPs, 39% of independently educated MSPs, and 12.5% of Regional MSPs.

11 are constituency MSPs. That's 9% of all MSPs, 61% of independently educated MSPs and 15% of Constituency MSPs.

As I say, these are minimum figures. One has to wonder why an MSP would list his primary school, polytechnic and Sandhurst but not mention his senior school. An Old Etonian in hiding, perhaps? There are also some who were almost certainly independently educated but I can't find it as fact so I've not included them (e.g. the woman who is the daughter of a Stowe-educated, MC winning, ex-Tory MP now a peer? Suspect she may have gone private, but can't be sure!)

Oh - and the list includes three MSPs who were educated at English independent schools, including one Etonian and one Harrovian.

A quick reading of some minimum figures would suggest that being independently educated isn't that much of a barrier to being elected in Scotland. I should think being English would be a much greater barrier. There aren't many English MSPs...
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

---

quote:

---

Lots of parents like - and would choose - selective education for their children.

---

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all schools have to be selective.

---

quote:

---

But at present, in much of the UK, the only way to get a selective education is to pay for it. More grammar schools mean that more lower-income families get an option that currently you need money for. That's a good thing.

---

quote:

---

But since, in the real world, some schools are going to be better than others (even if 'better' means only more suitable for a particular pupil), and since academic selection is perceived by a great many parents as potentially helping to make a school 'better' for their children, I'd rather not have all the selective schools as fee-paying ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't it odd that at about the same time social mobility in the UK virtually ground to a halt?

---

I've had a browse over here. I can't find anything that supports that view of the trend in social mobility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We've never had so many schoolleavers go on to university as we have today, including from impoverished backgrounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Social mobility is only meaningful when the son of a barrister gives me a quote for painting the outside of my house.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
What lower-income families get is the option to gamble on being selected or rejected. And higher-income families are able to pay to increase the chance of being selected. That option lower-income families do not have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How many people born in the lower social classes today do you think will do the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I still haven't found a corresponding UK chart but now a) I'd really like to know why this trend exists and b) the answer isn't to do with comprehensives because I don't think educational reform in the US coincides with the UK dates. Correlation really isn't causation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We've never had so many schoolleavers go on to university as we have today, including from impoverished backgrounds.

---

That's because there are so many more universities now, some of which will accept (and even graduate) virtually anyone regardless of ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

I still haven't found a corresponding UK chart but now a) I'd really like to know why this trend exists and b) the answer isn't to do with comprehensives because I don't think educational reform in the US coincides with the UK dates. Correlation really isn't causation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So from the mid-60s on, selective schooling tended to fall out of favour and was replaced in most, but not all, of the country by comprehensive schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Isn't it odd that at about the same time social mobility in the UK virtually ground to a halt?

---

I've had a browse over here. I can't find anything that supports that view of the trend in social mobility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My informed guess it has almost entirely to do with the GI bill.

Spikes in the 40s (WWII), 50s (Korea), late 60s/early 70s (Vietnam), early 80s (Iraq). The GI bill gives stipends to veterans going to college.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Regardless, I'm still convinced that grammar schooling provides more opportunities for kids from the lower social classes to improve their lot than comprehensive schooling. Firstly because in any system there are going to be better and worse schools, and in a non-selective system the deciding factor will be who can afford to live near the good ones. And secondly because it did exactly that for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IIRC, Marvin usually argues he'd have been beaten up for being a swot at the Comp.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Selecting those who do well in an arbitrary test at 11 will result in some academically less gifted students getting into the grammar schools

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Marvin cannot prove that he would not have done just as well in a comprehensive. He believes it, but he has no evidence to support it.

---

quote:

---

There is however evidence that those children who don't get in do worse than they would in a non-selective system. I'm not willing to shit on the less able.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which may be true, but isn't because it was a Comp, it was because it was a shit school that wasn't setting a good ethos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Marvin cannot prove that he would not have done just as well in a comprehensive. He believes it, but he has no evidence to support it.

---

I know which comp I'd have had to go to if there hadn't been grammars available (or if I'd failed the 11+). I also know that I was the only kid from its catchment area who went to a grammar (Birmingham only has five of them). This means I know exactly what facilities would have been available, who I'd have been in class with, and what the standard of teaching was like.

None of the three factors is in any way encouraging.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is however evidence that those children who don't get in do worse than they would in a non-selective system. I'm not willing to shit on the less able.

---

How can there be evidence that some will do worse without there being evidence that others do better?

---

quote:

---

A Tory, yes, a Tory, wrote

Over the past 20 years inner-London schools have gone from the stuff of tabloid scare stories to some of the best comprehensives in the world. The poorest children in Tower Hamlets and Westminster now do better than the average for all pupils in selective counties like Kent and Lincolnshire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
What lower-income families get is the option to gamble on being selected or rejected.

---

Then surely any move to expand the number of grammar school places - and therefore the number of families who "win the gamble" - can only be a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which may be true, but isn't because it was a Comp, it was because it was a shit school that wasn't setting a good ethos.

---

No, it's because it was a shit area that didn't have a good ethos. The school was shit because of the kids*, not the other way round.

.

*= OK, not all of them. But enough that no amount of "ethos setting" by the school was going to make a blind bit of difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So obviously the right thing to do is focus all the resources and good teaching on Marvin the Martian and fuck the rest. Including many who were just as clever as Marvin but weren't entered. Or for whom there wasn't room. Or who had a bad day when they did the 11+. I'm really not sold on that idea.

---

quote:

---

Well, if the fact is that the top don't do any better but the bottom do worse, then that's what we'd expect evidence to show. As it does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So from the mid-60s on, selective schooling tended to fall out of favour and was replaced in most, but not all, of the country by comprehensive schools.

---

Isn't it odd that at about the same time social mobility in the UK virtually ground to a halt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's all very well saying every school should be amazing and excellent and perfect, but it's never going to happen, because even if every school in the country had the facilities and teaching standards of Eton there are still too many kids out there that are just shitheads who don't give a fuck about anything academic whatsoever, and whose parents actively support them in that attitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which may be true, but isn't because it was a Comp, it was because it was a shit school that wasn't setting a good ethos.

---

No, it's because it was a shit area that didn't have a good ethos. The school was shit because of the kids*, not the other way round.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed. I'd particularly draw attention to this bit:

quote:

---

A Tory, yes, a Tory, wrote

Over the past 20 years inner-London schools have gone from the stuff of tabloid scare stories to some of the best comprehensives in the world. The poorest children in Tower Hamlets and Westminster now do better than the average for all pupils in selective counties like Kent and Lincolnshire.

---

In other words, Marv, it was the schools.

---

quote:

---

Children's attitudes can be moulded and changed by the right school environment. It was environment that moulded them negatively in the first place; it's environment that can mould them otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Grammar school places for everyone, you mean? I'd have no problem with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How do we improve a shit area? How do we improve the ethos of people so that they make the best use of the opportunities the local schools offer?

That would be more than just a magic bullet of taking a very small number of children to a grammar school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How do we improve a shit area? How do we improve the ethos of people so that they make the best use of the opportunities the local schools offer?

That would be more than just a magic bullet of taking a very small number of children to a grammar school.

---

If you solve those problems you won't need grammar schools any more. What's your plan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Grammar school places for everyone, you mean? I'd have no problem with that.

---

Not everyone, because then you'd still have all the same problems as comprehensive education.

---

quote:

---

But if the selective system was switched so that it got rid of the bottom 10% then that might work...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The whole British attitude to education is saturated in snobbery from top to bottom, and is borked. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
See how the entire debate always homes in on how or whether schools can contribute to greater equality, social mobility etc etc etc. How to provide schools that will result in children emerging at the end of their schooling actually better educated, more intelligent, having greater ability to think for themselves, or being better equipped with skills always seems to be regarded as far less important.

Objectively, children ending up better educated has to be the self-evident primary purpose of education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The whole British attitude to education is saturated in snobbery from top to bottom, and is borked. ...

---

Fair comment and a sad reflection on the whole subject. See how the entire debate always homes in on how or whether schools can contribute to greater equality, social mobility etc etc etc. How to provide schools that will result in children emerging at the end of their schooling actually better educated, more intelligent, having greater ability to think for themselves, or being better equipped with skills always seems to be regarded as far less important.

Objectively, children ending up better educated has to be the self-evident primary purpose of education. If that can be done in a way that is socially more beneficial, that's a useful secondary purpose. If it turned out that could only be done in a way that was less socially beneficial, that would have to be accepted as an unfortunate price to pay for better education. But nobody can have that secondary debate until they've accepted that the primary purpose is to produce better educated young adults, and reached some sort of persuasive conclusion of what would be the best way of doing that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
...children emerging at the end of their schooling actually better educated, more intelligent, having greater ability to think for themselves, or being better equipped with skills always seems to be regarded as far less important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Better education doesn't make children more intelligent. It makes them better able to use their intelligence in the ways you suggest, but it doesn't make them more intelligent. Nothing makes them more intelligent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How do we improve a shit area? How do we improve the ethos of people so that they make the best use of the opportunities the local schools offer?

That would be more than just a magic bullet of taking a very small number of children to a grammar school.

---

If you solve those problems you won't need grammar schools any more. What's your plan?

---

OK, if I was PM with the full support of a loyal cabinet (has any PM ever had that?).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Class size and funding per pupil are also reasons for wanting a child to go to grammar school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure if that research exists, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many of those educated in private or grammar settings do better at university than they might have done if they'd come from a comprehensive (with lower grades), just because they're more prepared for that type of educational setting and more ready for independent learning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, the research exists. It's a bit ambiguous, but it mostly shows that state school pupils (I'm not sure it differentiates between type of state school) do better (more 'value added') at university than private school pupils - and for exactly the reasons you state. State school leavers are better at independent learning.

---

quote:

---

Again, my anecdata from teaching 1st year physics labs reinforces this. Private school educated kids were far more often the ones that needed spoon-feeding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So obviously the right thing to do is focus all the resources and good teaching on Marvin the Martian and fuck the rest. Including many who were just as clever as Marvin but weren't entered. Or for whom there wasn't room. Or who had a bad day when they did the 11+. I'm really not sold on that idea.

---

You prefer a situation where all the resources and good teaching are focused on kids whose parents can afford to move into a good catchment area?

---

quote:

---

It's all very well saying every school should be amazing and excellent and perfect, but it's never going to happen, because even if every school in the country had the facilities and teaching standards of Eton there are still too many kids out there that are just shitheads who don't give a fuck about anything academic whatsoever, and whose parents actively support them in that attitude.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, if the fact is that the top don't do any better but the bottom do worse, then that's what we'd expect evidence to show. As it does.

---

You were just now saying that it's impossible to know how any given child's studies would have gone differently had they been at a different school. Is that what you think or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure if that research exists, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many of those educated in private or grammar settings do better at university than they might have done if they'd come from a comprehensive (with lower grades), just because they're more prepared for that type of educational setting and more ready for independent learning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, and I'm not sure how you got that from anything I said. Perhaps we should concentrate efforts and resources on schools based on the average parental income, or which have the highest proportion of children on free school meals, since we know it's children at those schools and those backgrounds who statistically are most likely to be failed by our education system.

---

quote:

---

And your solution is to leave them to it. And how exactly does your solution help those in those areas who do want to learn, have positive attidudes, but who aren't quite academic enough to get into the grammar school?

---

quote:

---

It is impossible to know what would happen to any one child. However, it is possible to compare groups - the bottom 25% academically or whatever - doing so shows little or no benefit to the top groups, but significant defecit to the lower groups.

---

quote:

---

Better education doesn't make children more intelligent. It makes them better able to use their intelligence in the ways you suggest, but it doesn't make them more intelligent. Nothing makes them more intelligent.

---

quote:

---

[Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory] proposes that children learn a larger part of their cognitive abilities from social interactions with adults or older children and people. He distinctly defines this as the Zone of Proximal Development. Older people provide scaffolding, or tools that help children improve their cognitive abilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But if you look at the level of the individual child then I think there is evidence that many above average students perform better in a grammar school than they would in a comprehensive school*

Now, the (or at least a) question is then whether that child performs better in subsequent education because they've been grammar school educated than if they'd performed worse in a comprehensive school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If that's the case, why is Oxbridge so full of the privately educated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:


I know from my two children that Oxbridge is now making - having to make - an effort at attracting state school pupils. Jesus College has an outreach link to schools in my area, and Master Tor is going down next week for a residential. On paper, he's exactly the candidate they need. In practice, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of him considering them.

Make of that what you will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suppose at the root of this debate is the thorny issue of the individual vs the whole student body.

As has been stated, it is perfectly true that there are some who succeed academically wherever they are educated, and it also seems clear that comprehensives can do better overall than a "total" grammar system.

But if you look at the level of the individual child then I think there is evidence that many above average students perform better in a grammar school than they would in a comprehensive school*

---

quote:

---

* which, I think, is an argument for a much wider intake at the grammar schools. It is instructive, for example, that the grammar schools in Dover (which due to a quirk of history have their own entry examinations) perform very well even though they have a "wider" entry than the other grammars in Kent. And the Northern Ireland grammars apparently perform well even though they're education around 50% of students in the province.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, the research exists. It's a bit ambiguous, but it mostly shows that state school pupils (I'm not sure it differentiates between type of state school) do better (more 'value added') at university than private school pupils - and for exactly the reasons you state. State school leavers are better at independent learning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd be unhappy with any split. For me, it'd mean explaining to my daughter that she's not considered clever enough to go to the same school as her brothers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, the research exists. It's a bit ambiguous, but it mostly shows that state school pupils (I'm not sure it differentiates between type of state school) do better (more 'value added') at university than private school pupils - and for exactly the reasons you state. State school leavers are better at independent learning.

---

"State schools" includes grammars, so this research doesn't say anything about the current debate. I'm not aware of any statistics that show a comparison between students from grammars and comps, as state school students are generally subdivided based on where they come from and which social class their parents are in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the split was more 50-50 between grammars and secondaries that would be far better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Being good at thinking is usually what we mean by "intelligent".

---

quote:

---

If I practice running, I get better at running. If I practice thinking, I get better at thinking.

---

quote:

---

A good diet and good sleep patterns will also make me more intelligent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In practice, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of him considering them.

Make of that what you will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
The real problem lies in the fact that I don't think we are really able to measure intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So yes, the research stands. Comprehensive, state educated pupils outperform equivalent privately educated pupils at university. If you don't like it, it's not my problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If that's the case, why is Oxbridge so full of the privately educated?

---

<snip>

It's also the atmosphere: I went to Oxford (University college) to have a look around and an informal chat with one of the tutors when I was 17. I came away with the impression that I'd fit in about as well as a pork pie at a bar mitzvah. I didn't apply.

<snip>

---

quote:

---

In this analogy, "intelligence", IMHO, is not the Skills, Knowledge or Understanding, nor is it the ability to transfer SKU in and out of your barrel; "intelligence" is the barrel itself. It doesn't matter how much we coach, "brain train" or otherwise teach children; it doesn't matter what we feed them or when we send them to bed; it doesn't matter to what sort of school we send them; it doesn't matter if we nurture them, bribe them or flog them into learning; no matter what we do, we can't change the size and shape of the barrel.

---

Did *anybody* bother reading this?

Originally posted by me, not all that long ago:

quote:

---

Actually, cultural context has quite a large effect on intelligence. The key point [quoted from Wikipedia article on intelligence] is this:

"[Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory] proposes that children learn a larger part of their cognitive abilities from social interactions with adults or older children and people. He distinctly defines this as the Zone of Proximal Development. Older people provide scaffolding, or tools that help children improve their cognitive abilities."

In other words, children whose parents read to them and talk to them and play with them have a huge advantage over children who are left to their own devices or stuck in front of the telly for most of the day.

Furthermore, there is quite a lot of evidence to show that the brain is much more flexible and adaptable than psychologists used to believe - they call this 'plasticity'. In effect, your brain rewires itself when you learn new things, so being in an environment where you learn a lot of new things does increase your cognitive ability (aka intelligence).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'd be unhappy with any split. For me, it'd mean explaining to my daughter that she's not considered clever enough to go to the same school as her brothers.

---

Might well be the other way round. AIUI girls generally outperformed boys on the original 11+ and the marks had to be adjusted, or to be brutally honest, fiddled. Children mature at different ages and girls mature, generally, more quickly than boys do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This thread is about grammar schools, not private schools. As such saying that state school pupils outperform private school pupils is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In practice, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of him considering them.

Make of that what you will.

---

I make of that that it might not be true. I had a similar experience to you. In fact I didn't even make it to the tour before I concluded that Oxbridge was not for me. But it could have been. The assumption that state school children can't go there (which was shared by my parents and teachers as well) is 90% of the barrier.

Click on school type then no breakdown, respectively, on the left two selectors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So yes, the research stands. Comprehensive, state educated pupils outperform equivalent privately educated pupils at university. If you don't like it, it's not my problem.

---

What the research says is that state educated pupils outperform equivalent privately educated pupils at university. Which I can well believe - there are a lot of idiots with rich parents and university is the educational point at which that money stops mattering.

What it doesn't say is whether grammar school educated pupils outperform comprehensive school educated pupils at university. Because both of those categories form part of the "state educated" category in the research.

This thread is about grammar schools, not private schools. As such saying that state school pupils outperform private school pupils is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The statistics show that, once at university, the 95% of state school pupils who didn't go to a Grammar can, and often do, outperform privately educated students.

Simply going on that metric: it ain't broke, and we don't need to 'fix' it with Grammars.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective. The function of a Prep school is to prepare pupils for the Common Entrance exam, or at least it was in my day; the exact form of selection may have changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective.

---

Then isn't it funny that the richest parents always seem to get their kids into a private school. Maybe parental wealth does correlate with child intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is why I don't find statistics about how well state educated pupils do compared to privately educated students particularly relevant to a discussion of which form of state education is best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective.

---

Then isn't it funny that the richest parents always seem to get their kids into a private school. Maybe parental wealth does correlate with child intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
...it does throw a lot of doubt on the idea that there's some sort of basic, hard-wired engine in the brain called "intelligence" that has a set, unchangeable quantity.

---

quote:

---

...it makes no sense to talk about a single thing called intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Do you have any evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is why I don't find statistics about how well state educated pupils do compared to privately educated students particularly relevant to a discussion of which form of state education is best.

---

Well, you wouldn't, would you, since it fatally holes your argument below the waterline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
But both private schools and grammar schools effectively select their pupils from the rich. Private schools via eye-watering fees. Grammar schools by favouring middle class households where the parents can pay for tutors, to coach their charges to pass the 11+. Both systems favour the well off at the expense of the middling and below. Both systems make it possible for expensively honed mediocrities to blag their way into positions in life that a fair contest would have held them back from. It makes it more possible to rig the game. And because the systems allow a few bright kids to pass the 11+ or to earn scholarships, people claim that they favour social mobility. Understandably, if you've done well out of something, you are going to see the best bits of it, but any scheme of social reform has to be judged on how it works across the board, not just how it works for it's beneficiaries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This is why I don't find statistics about how well state educated pupils do compared to privately educated students particularly relevant to a discussion of which form of state education is best.

---

Well, you wouldn't, would you, since it fatally holes your argument below the waterline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective.

---

Yes, they select the cleverest X% of those who are able to pay their fees. Where those individuals fall on the overall spectrum of ability is a different matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I have experience, but experience is not necessarily reliable evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Or, rather, I don't know of any such study.

---

quote:

---

From fitting a multilevel model including gender, age and the school context variables listed above, we found that the average estimated effect of attending a grammar school on pupils of all abilities (as measured by their KS2 scores) was 5.5 additional GCSE/GNVQ points (i.e. grades) compared to being at a comprehensive school. The effect of attending a secondary modern was on average 1 grade less at GCSE compared to a comprehensive school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, I'd expect them to have a higher mean and median than the larger set Those who areable to pay their fees. That there's selection by income doesn't negate the effect of selection by ability.

---

• The richest 20% of the population can afford private school, of which 5% of the population actually goes.
• The top 40% of state school pupils go to university.
• Virtually all private school pupils go to university.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
A significant proportion of private and public schools have entrance exams, Marvin. They are selective.

---

Then isn't it funny that the richest parents always seem to get their kids into a private school. Maybe parental wealth does correlate with child intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then isn't it funny that the richest parents always seem to get their kids into a private school. Maybe parental wealth does correlate with child intelligence.

---

Others have been more polite in their rebuttals, I shall not be. You statements reflect the myth promulgated by the privileged that they are in their place because they "deserve" to be.

---

quote:

---

The only factor affecting access to private education is whether the child's parents can afford to pay for it. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that private schools will have roughly the same mix of academic abilities as state schools (unless you assume that a parent's wealth correlates to their child's intelligence, which I do not).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

From fitting a multilevel model including gender, age and the school context variables listed above, we found that the average estimated effect of attending a grammar school on pupils of all abilities (as measured by their KS2 scores) was 5.5 additional GCSE/GNVQ points (i.e. grades) compared to being at a comprehensive school. The effect of attending a secondary modern was on average 1 grade less at GCSE compared to a comprehensive school.

---

As I think I said above, grammars benefit those who attend but disadvantage those who do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well, I'd expect them to have a higher mean and median than the larger set Those who areable to pay their fees. That there's selection by income doesn't negate the effect of selection by ability.

---

Assumptions:

• The richest 20% of the population can afford private school, of which 5% of the population actually goes.
• The top 40% of state school pupils go to university.
• Virtually all private school pupils go to university.

We start with 100 individuals, rank them by academic ability (with 1 being the best), and use a random number generator to decide which 20 of them are rich enough to go to private school (and thus which 5 actually will). We then take the top 40% of the 95 state school ones and the 5 private school ones and compare their average rankings.

When I did this, I got an average ranking for state school of 20.45 and an average ranking for private school of 20.80. That was much closer than I'd expected, but it's still a win for the state sector.

Granted, that was just one go with the random number generator, and I'd have to do it a lot more times to get results that could be published. But for the purposes of a bulletin board thread it'll do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

From fitting a multilevel model including gender, age and the school context variables listed above, we found that the average estimated effect of attending a grammar school on pupils of all abilities (as measured by their KS2 scores) was 5.5 additional GCSE/GNVQ points (i.e. grades) compared to being at a comprehensive school. The effect of attending a secondary modern was on average 1 grade less at GCSE compared to a comprehensive school.

---

As I think I said above, grammars benefit those who attend but disadvantage those who do not.

---

The conclusion I draw from this is that those who wish to see grammar schools abolished are perfectly happy for some kids to achieve 5.5 grades less just so that the rest can achieve 1 grade more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What were you trying to prove?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I draw the conclusion that you're willing to see the majority of children held down so a small number - who will do very well anyway - do even better. Why is that any more OK?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If grammar schools are so much better then doesn't it make sense for all schools to become grammar schools so that all children benefit from them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
However you cut it, it's still "we're taking the clever ones away to teach them better. You thickos wouldn't benefit so bye-bye".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I draw the conclusion that you're willing to see the majority of children held down so a small number - who will do very well anyway - do even better. Why is that any more OK?

---

A one-grade difference isn't significant. A 5.5-grade difference is.

And besides, as a nation I absolutely think we will be better off if some people are absolutely brilliant than if everyone is average, however much "fairer" the latter may be. Or to put it another way, a wider distribution curve with more students at the very top is better than a narrow one with virtually all of them in the middle, because the students at the very top are the researchers and inventors who will improve the future for everyone. We need to encourage and push them to achieve all they can, because then maybe 1 in 1000 of them will become the next Einstein or Hawking. If we tell them they'll do well enough to get by anyway, so we need to focus all our efforts on the people who might just possibly become supermarket middle managers rather than checkout workers then those opportunities for greatness may be lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
However you cut it, it's still "we're taking the clever ones away to teach them better. You thickos wouldn't benefit so bye-bye".

---

Bluntly, yes.

Not that that prevents the remaining schools from doing all they can to push their students, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that "you're thick and shit at this school stuff, but try anyway" is really a rather hard sell.

---

quote:

---

Tell me again why you can't push the most able in a top set in a Comp the way you can at a Grammar school, because since no-one's actually explained that, I believe it can.

---

quote:

---

as we've seen some comprehensives have done enough to produce children who end up with doctorates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Will they? Are you sure they won't merely make you better at using your intelligence? The rest of your post, I think, pretty much sums up what I said in my post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that "you're thick and shit at this school stuff, but try anyway" is really a rather hard sell.

Tell me again why you can't push the most able in a top set in a Comp the way you can at a Grammar school, because since no-one's actually explained that, I believe it can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

as we've seen some comprehensives have done enough to produce children who end up with doctorates.

---

The idea that there are comprehensives which don't do enough to produce children who end up with doctorates is startling to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Intelligence is capacity, ability. That other stuff is knowledge and practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

as we've seen some comprehensives have done enough to produce children who end up with doctorates.

---

The idea that there are comprehensives which don't do enough to produce children who end up with doctorates is startling to me.

---

Even the best workman needs suitable materials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

as we've seen some comprehensives have done enough to produce children who end up with doctorates.

---

The idea that there are comprehensives which don't do enough to produce children who end up with doctorates is startling to me.

---

Even the best workman needs suitable materials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Do you also believe "you're thick but try anyway" doesn't apply to the bottom set in a comp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the problem with statistical averages - they assume the top 1% (or whatever) are equally spread across the whole sample.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Both me and my brother went to a genuinely rough comp that we were in the catchment for. We both have PhDs. Our kids also go to our respective local comps. Our daughters are now at the same (Russell group) university. My son is in the top 0.1% of STEM students, according to his AS results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Before I get into this I think there is a moral difference between a) preferring selective education for your children in a set-up where selective education is clearly the better option if you have it, on the one hand, b) and on the other thinking that a system where selective education is better is a preferable system.
In short, I wouldn't think anyone morally wrong for sending their children to a private or grammar school. That doesn't mean I think the government morally right to expand them.

---

quote:

---

This is a bit like describing the lottery as an option to win a million pounds.
What lower-income families get is the option to gamble on being selected or rejected. And higher-income families are able to pay to increase the chance of being selected. That option lower-income families do not have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Why is it that selection at university level is uncontroversial? The criticisms of "elitist" universities on this thread seem to be criticisms that Oxford and Cambridge select (or possible, are applied to) on disproportionately class-based grounds, and don't select purely on ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

Why is it that selection at university level is uncontroversial? The criticisms of "elitist" universities on this thread seem to be criticisms that Oxford and Cambridge select (or possible, are applied to) on disproportionately class-based grounds, and don't select purely on ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Why is it that selection at university level is uncontroversial? The criticisms of "elitist" universities on this thread seem to be criticisms that Oxford and Cambridge select (or possible, are applied to) on disproportionately class-based grounds, and don't select purely on ability.

Saying that "everyone who wants to and can benefit from a place at a good university should be able to get one, and that our brightest students should be able to go to our best universities regardless of class or family background" would be most unlikely to generate much disagreement. But saying something about schools based on the exact same principles is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

Why is it that selection at university level is uncontroversial?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
One of the problems with selection at age 11 is that it's not very good. Setting aside issues with children of wealthy families being tutored for the test, and just looking at children from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, performance at age 11 isn't a great predictor of performance at 16 or 18. Sure - there's a correlation, and the kids who ace the 11+ are highly likely to ace everything else as well, but the chances of a 15% 11-year-old kid remaining better than a 25% kid when they reach age 18 aren't that different from 50:50.

---

quote:

---

Selection at 18 is better (but still not perfect - I know PhDs with international reputations who got Ds and Es at A-level, barely scraped in to a degree course at a low-status university, finished with a good degree, and then got a PhD from a high-status university. It's uncommon, but not unheard-of.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

Why is it that selection at university level is uncontroversial?

---

1. There is a very strong element of self-selection. The student chooses to go to university (as opposed to not going to university), chooses a particular course, chooses a particular university to apply to (OK, in practice initially a small number of universities to keep options open)
2. University courses are highly specialised, whereas schools provide a broad education.
3. Assessment for university admission are (usually) based entirely on the same assessed exams as those used by employers. We can, of course, argue about the extent to which exam results reflect ability. But the combination of course work and exams taken over a four year period (assuming the English pattern of GCSE + A level - Scotland, of course, has a different system), with the exams becoming something pupils are familiar with (contra 11+ where it may well be the first exam they've sat) and hence less stressful, exam boards having mechanisms to account for external circumstances (eg: being ill on exam day) all add upto an assessment that is much more objective than the 11+.
4. There are significantly greater restrictions on university places. There are enough school places for every child, though individual schools may not be able to accommodate all who apply. There are not enough university places for all school leavers, or even all school leavers who want a university place.
5. Failure to go from school to university does not rule out a university education. There are options to re-sit A levels/Highers. There are options to attend a FE college and get some additional qualifications. There are options of entering the work place, doing some voluntary work or otherwise gaining life-experience that will aid one getting into university as a mature student. There are no similar options of resitting the 11+ at 13, and starting school two years older than the other children in the class.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are no similar options of resitting the 11+ at 13, and starting school two years older than the other children in the class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So it is entirely possible for a child who failed the 11-plus to do well in the school where they've ended up and to move later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But, let's face it, unlikely - given the state of secondary moderns in Kent.

---

quote:

---

Whereas progression into a higher set at a comprehensive doesn't involve moving schools and can be done at any time in any school year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So it is entirely possible for a child who failed the 11-plus to do well in the school where they've ended up and to move later.

---

But, let's face it, unlikely - given the state of secondary moderns in Kent.

Whereas progression into a higher set at a comprehensive doesn't involve moving schools and can be done at any time in any school year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wouldn't describe it as entirely possible because here are fewer grammar school places and possibly (often?) too few to cater for those who would benefit from that kind of education, but I have known it happen; Mrs Sioni saw quite a bit of it at her secondary modern in South Wales.

---

quote:

---

What I saw very little of was 11+ passes who were manifestly unsuited to grammar school education being reallocated to secondary moderns. I suppose their mummies and daddies would raise a huge stink.

---

quote:

---

In a comprehensive administration is easier but more importantly it's better for many children (says another A stream maths, sciences, history and geography, C/D stream English & languages type).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are no similar options of resitting the 11+ at 13, and starting school two years older than the other children in the class.

---

Actually this is also a myth, grammar schools are required to accept children to enter the school at year 8 or above - and it is relatively common because of the natural flow of people moving in and out of areas.

Some schools have an "11-plus" exam set for each year group which an entrant would have to sit, others base it on the previous school results and an interview.

So it is entirely possible for a child who failed the 11-plus to do well in the school where they've ended up and to move later.

---

quote:

---

Actually performance at 16 and 18 can be predicted for most children before the age of 11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually performance at 16 and 18 can be predicted for most children before the age of 11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I throw in a compromise which I think might answer some of Marvin's and Eliab's points whilst also being more palatable for those of us who tend to oppose grammar schools? It's a pure thought exercise because I'm not Secretary of State for Education. But I've said that I'm not satisfied with the current system if it disadvantages the most able, but also unwilling to move to a system which disadvantages the least able, so it perhaps behoves me to have an alternative in mind.

Firstly, restructure to a three stage system, lower schools up to 9, middle schools 9-13 and uppper schools from 13+. This was the system that was in use in some LEAs years ago and a lot of people found it softened the transition from Primary (single teacher for most subjects, schools usually 50-200 children) to Secondary (specialist subject teachers, 1000-2000 children) which can be rather abrupt.

Lower and Middle schools are mixed ability.

Upper Schools are also mixed ability, but at 13 an assessment is made, based on two factors:

1. A student's absolute achievements;
2. A student's relative achievements, based on their level at entry to lower school, their level at entry to middle school, and their level at the end of middle school
3. Subject to both 1. and 2. meeting a predetermined value; AND a factor combining them ALSO meeting a predetermined value, they are allocated to an accelerated programme within the Upper School. The Accelerated Programme acts as a school within a school with its own head, its own curriculum, but sharing sports, arts and science facilities with the main school.
4. At the end of each year, it is possible for students who have improved markedly to enter the Accelerated Programme. It is also possible for students who have not shown the expected improvement, over two years, to move out of it. At the end of the first year of underachievement, you'd have a bit of a chat - "Is there something interfering with your work? Do you just need to buck your ideas up?"
5. It would also be possible for students in either programme to access the other programme for specific subjects where they have particular struggles or particular talents that aren't spread across their subjects.

Discussion point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would probably prefer accelerated programmes. So, an accelerated programme for maths, anotehr for science, a third for humanities, a fourth for modern languages, etc. Rather than assume that someone good at maths and sciences should be in the accelerated programme across all subjects.

But, isn't that setting?

---

I think I addressed that in point 5. I'm trying to steer a middle ground between the two entrenched positions. Inevitably it's going to be close in some ways to both of them
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think that would only be practical in huge schools, Karl, and we don't have too many of those in the UK due to other factors.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


There seems to just have been something in the grammars' DNA in the town which meant that 3 decades later they were still working with higher aspirations for their pupils than the secondary modern - which is *still* not great even since being forced through Special Measures to become an academy. To be clear, there is no bussing in the town, and almost everyone goes to the closest high school - yet the school in the poorer area with the social housing is still the one to go to if you can.

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would probably prefer accelerated programmes. So, an accelerated programme for maths, anotehr for science, a third for humanities, a fourth for modern languages, etc. Rather than assume that someone good at maths and sciences should be in the accelerated programme across all subjects.

But, isn't that setting?

---

I think I addressed that in point 5. I'm trying to steer a middle ground between the two entrenched positions. Inevitably it's going to be close in some ways to both of them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think that would only be practical in huge schools, Karl, and we don't have too many of those in the UK due to other factors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It doesn't have to be huge schools. Any school with more than 30-40 pupils per year in a given subject will have to have two classes anyway. That automatically allows for an "accelerated programme" for one of the classes. There are not that many schools with less than 300 pupils (60 per year group = two or three classes for compulsory subjects).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It doesn't have to be huge schools. Any school with more than 30-40 pupils per year in a given subject will have to have two classes anyway. That automatically allows for an "accelerated programme" for one of the classes. There are not that many schools with less than 300 pupils (60 per year group = two or three classes for compulsory subjects).

---

Well the problem is that if you want streaming then this might be possible - but then you'd end up with people who were good at science being put in the best sets in English etc.

If you want multiple sets in different subjects and have the sets filled most efficiently, then you'd have to have a large school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Obviously, as I think streaming is a really bad idea, that's not what I'm suggesting.

If you did it in sets, why would you need a large school? If numbers mean that you have to split a year group into two or more classes, why not do that on the basis of the ability of the pupils in that subject?

---

quote:

---

My school (about 1200 pupils, so probably on the large side) divided the school into four houses with (usually) two classes per year in each house for compulsory subjects. The house system made time-tabling a bit simpler (there would have been insufficient teachers to have all 7-8 classes at the same time, same with labs for science), and we setted subjects within houses. But, it wouldn't have been impossible to have a mixed-house top set class in maths or English. Lower pupil:teacher and pupil:classroom ratios would, obviously, make timetabling easier. But, I don't see how a bigger school makes much difference.

---

quote:

---

Of course, the best system is for each pupil to have their own, individual, programme of study with small classes (and, individual tuition as needed). But, that's also the most expensive option. Though I think we do need to spend more on education, including having more teachers and schools with more rooms available for teaching smaller classes, there has to be a balance somewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It doesn't have to be huge schools. Any school with more than 30-40 pupils per year in a given subject will have to have two classes anyway. That automatically allows for an "accelerated programme" for one of the classes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
restructure to a three stage system, lower schools up to 9, middle schools 9-13 and uppper schools from 13+.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
restructure to a three stage system, lower schools up to 9, middle schools 9-13 and uppper schools from 13+.

---

That means that KS3 kids miss out on specialist subject teachers and make misguided choices for GCSE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
restructure to a three stage system, lower schools up to 9, middle schools 9-13 and uppper schools from 13+.

---

That means that KS3 kids miss out on specialist subject teachers and make misguided choices for GCSE

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's what puzzles me about setting. Doesn't this give the grammar enthusiasts what they want?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No. They want completely separate schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No. They want completely separate schools.

---

If you want setting and small(ish) schools, you would be drawn towards a selective-school model. You then have to decide whether large schools are worse than the hard boundary between schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's what puzzles me about setting. Doesn't this give the grammar enthusiasts what they want?

---

No. They want completely separate schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's what puzzles me about setting. Doesn't this give the grammar enthusiasts what they want?

---

No. They want completely separate schools.

---

Schools are judged based on how many of their kids get five or more GCSEs at grade C or better. Head teachers' jobs can literally depend on that figure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I throw in a compromise which I think might answer some of Marvin's and Eliab's points whilst also being more palatable for those of us who tend to oppose grammar schools? It's a pure thought exercise because I'm not Secretary of State for Education. But I've said that I'm not satisfied with the current system if it disadvantages the most able, but also unwilling to move to a system which disadvantages the least able, so it perhaps behoves me to have an alternative in mind.

[details of scheme]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems to me that the principle that students learn better in groups of broadly similar abilities seems to be accepted on all sides. Selective schools represent one way of working that principle out in practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Except, it doesn't do that. Selective schooling is basically streaming. It puts together pupils who have exceeded the requirements in an exam, nothing more. You'll still have some pupils good at maths but useless at humanities mixed in with those good at humanities and bad at maths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Except, it doesn't do that. Selective schooling is basically streaming. It puts together pupils who have exceeded the requirements in an exam, nothing more. You'll still have some pupils good at maths but useless at humanities mixed in with those good at humanities and bad at maths.

---

Which is why I'm not saying that every school should select.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


You can't have some schools being selective - they either all are, or none are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


You can't have some schools being selective - they either all are, or none are.

---

Sorry, that's wrong as well. See Gloucestershire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


You can't have some schools being selective - they either all are, or none are.

---

Sorry, that's wrong as well. See Gloucestershire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You can't have some schools being selective - they either all are, or none are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, for those of us who are not privy to the details of the education system in Gloucestershire, can you expand on that? If you're going to assert that my statement is wrong you're going to have to be clearer as to why you think I'm wrong.

---

quote:

---

I will admit that if selection only accounts for a very small minority of pupils (say 1%) then the impact on forcing selection on all other schools would probably be insignificant. If that's what you're saying then you're right that I'm wrong. But, if you can show how selection of 10-20% of pupils doesn't force all local schools to be selective by default then I would like to see that argument expanded on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You can't have some schools being selective - they either all are, or none are.

---

Why? There are plenty of people on this thread with a positive preference for non-selective schools. They would, presumably, continue to send their children to comprehensives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I am becoming increasingly frustrated by all such debates, because they are not interrogating their own terms. My charge is that none of the above is really about the education of children at all. It's about parents wanting to attain status by proxy - that seems to me to be the entire and sole purpose of every aspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Instead of guff and myths, it'd be quite nice to have a debate with someone who actually knew what they were talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


But I can tell you that there is definitely a choice to go with selective education (or not) unlike the places with "full" grammars - like Kent, Buckinghamshire and the Wirral - where you'd have to have totally dropped the ball as a parent to send your child to a non-grammar if they were capable of passing the test.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some comprehensives in Gloucestershire are very good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
as per Karl, my late 80s early 90s Midlands middle school had separate subject teachers (and setting for maths and english). In fact, we had them from the age of 9, so you could argue that we were better off than those who only get them post 11, and thus *better* able to make the right GCSE choices...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I am becoming increasingly frustrated by all such debates, because they are not interrogating their own terms. My charge is that none of the above is really about the education of children at all. It's about parents wanting to attain status by proxy - that seems to me to be the entire and sole purpose of every aspect.

---

I think, on the contrary, that this discussion has focussed almost entirely on the educational merits of different systems and been mercifully free from ulterior motivations (and accusations thereof) on both sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, I don't know the details of one country in England. Sorry, but if it was required that we know the details of the educational systems every English county (not to mention Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other nations) then you'd also be butting out of this discussion.

---

quote:

---

But, what I'm talking about is elementary statistics. If you have a distribution of ability and have two education systems. One system is comprehensive, and each school has the same distribution of ability. The other system has selective schools who only take the top 15% of that distribution, with other schools taking the rest. It's obvious, IMO undeniable, that the distribution of ability in the "non-selective" schools will be different than it would under a comprehensive system. There has been a selection for the lower 85% of the distribution in the so-called "comprehensive schools". The effect of selection by grammars has forced selection on the entire system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This must be one (but obviously not the only) reason why some middle class parents might be angry about the creation of new grammar schools. If your own children are attending a very good comprehensive school, new grammars could be viewed as an unnecessary and disruptive complication.

---

quote:

---

To be admired are middle class people like Boogie above, who send their children to struggling comprehensives. That takes real commitment. It probably also involves great optimism in your children's natural ability, or an optimism in your ability as an educated parent to cover any deficiencies in their schooling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I don't agree, and this is why.

Selectivity is said to be desirable because it improves the education of a certain proportion of pupils. I simply don't believe that this is the real motivation; there is no more thought about the actual process of education than there is about healthcare, since in both cases the professionals (having been stripped of their professional freedoms by government fiat) are than expected to deliver "the results" within the chosen framework. Selection is desirable because it then fuels the inevitable competitive merry-go-round of house purchasing, coaching, tiger parenting etc. etc. etc.. All I hear is salivation at the thought of league tables, house prices and other complete distractions.

---

quote:

---

There is a disclaimer to be entered, in that I'm not certain that this is the case among the specific people debating the situation here and now. It may be that hearing it debated as a proxy for the above time after time after time has just dulled my intellectual senses to the point where I can't hear anything else.

---

quote:

---

There is one definite charge, though: schools are being talked about as if they operate by some kind of magic, performing a standard process on every unit input into them. This is so far from being the case that I don't know where to start.

---

quote:

---

I don't expect to change the course of anything. I just needed to register a protest at this whole series of consumerist fantasies being projected onto a complex series of relational and developmental processes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:


I see no concern for the welfare of the children going through the experience of education above. I see, as in mr cheesy's recent post, concern for the output and the effect of that on subsequent life and life chances, but I see no concern for the process. Selection can lead to an environment in which only the pointy-elbowed, aggressive and obnoxious get anywhere. This may seem like life outside education, but we are supposed to be building a genuinely plural society, and this is one anti-plural element (in that it allows only one psychological type to thrive) that selective education perpetuates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
<snip>

I'm sorry if I've not been clear enough: the school system in Kent is crap. Sending my child to a grammar was the best of a very bad system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

My view has always been that my child's education is one of the most important things for me to try to get right as a father. I appreciate the argument about the generality of children, but my main responsibility is to the best for my child.

I would under no circumstances put my child in a struggling comprehensive. If it came to it, I'd spend limited resources I have moving to another area or paying for private education if I thought that the only alternative was a poor (determined by a range of factors) school. My child is not an experiment or a project and I'll not use them as a way to improve a borked education system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Need to be very big middle schools - my experiencfe in Leeds was of 'faculties' - so a mishmash of History, Geography and RE subsumed under 'Humanities- ditto for the sciences - bad for all subject specislisms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And another thing: unlike Kent, the grammars in Gloucestershire are not evenly spread across the county. Hence it is a perfectly respectable decision to send your child to a local comp rather than sending them on a long-and-difficult journey to a grammar. Hence some comprehensives in Gloucestershire are very good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I'm sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

And I bored of talking to someone who looks at statistics and think that tells you the whole story of an educational system despite the plain evidence of places that have mixed selective and non-selective schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm sorry if I've not been clear enough: the school system in Kent is crap. Sending my child to a grammar was the best of a very bad system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I.e. comprehensives are not intrinsically poor, but are made poor in areas where a selective school creams off the most academically able pupils?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, the Kent school system is crap. Are you actually wanting that situation to continue, or to work to improve the school system in Kent, and elsewhere?

---

quote:

---

Obviously all good parents want the best for their children. But, all good citizens want the best for all children. The question is, what helps improve the education of all children - investing in all schools, or just concentrating on a small number of elite schools? I would have thought the answer to that is obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I don't have any children. I still have to work and live alongside the products of the education system. I also, as a human being and (dare I say it) a Christian, am interested in the furtherance of human flourishing. For these reasons, I will continue to make comments, with or without mr cheesy's permission.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I don't have any children. I still have to work and live alongside the products of the education system. I also, as a human being and (dare I say it) a Christian, am interested in the furtherance of human flourishing. For these reasons, I will continue to make comments, with or without mr cheesy's permission.

---

That's fair, but I think someone who is a parent makes the best choices for their child in the circumstance that they're in and not for the generality of children in society. I think you have to be parent in that situation to understand how you would deal with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, let's wait and see the choices you make when your children need to go to school. Then you can legitimately contribute to this conversation based on the choices you've actually made rather than choices that are just theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I think the whole State system is c**p these days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
However you cut it, it's still "we're taking the clever ones away to teach them better. You thickos wouldn't benefit so bye-bye".

---

Bluntly, yes.

Not that that prevents the remaining schools from doing all they can to push their students, of course.

---

Except that "you're thick and shit at this school stuff, but try anyway" is really a rather hard sell.

Tell me again why you can't push the most able in a top set in a Comp the way you can at a Grammar school, because since no-one's actually explained that, I believe it can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Selectivity is said to be desirable because it improves the education of a certain proportion of pupils. I simply don't believe that this is the real motivation; there is no more thought about the actual process of education...

---

quote:

---

Selection is desirable because it then fuels the inevitable competitive merry-go-round of house purchasing, coaching, tiger parenting etc. etc. etc.. All I hear is salivation at the thought of league tables, house prices and other complete distractions.

---

quote:

---

There is one definite charge, though: schools are being talked about as if they operate by some kind of magic, performing a standard process on every unit input into them.

---

• one smaller highly academic stream sitting up to 14 GCSEs;
• another larger academic stream that offers 10 GCSEs with some vocational offers;
• a vocational stream that offers City and Guilds or BTEC qualifications alongside GCSEs so the students can gain industrial engineering or art and design qualifications with the core subjects (maths, English, science, ICT, citizenship, PE, humanities and RE);
• a supported stream for students with learning difficulties working towards fewer GCSEs and some vocational qualifications plus life skills
• an alternative education group who study core subjects alongside work experience and vocational qualifications. These students' timetables may include a day studying motor mechanics or construction, a day or two of work experience in a garage or a building site (insurance is a problem for under 16s), two or three days in school studying maths, English, ICT and citizenship plus PE, RE, humanities and science, not all of which will be sat as qualifications, but accredited in other ways.

• personal finances,
• sex and relationships,
• drugs education,
• healthy lifestyles,
• making informed career choices and applying for jobs and courses.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If there's a large selective school in the area (whether fee-paying or state grammar) that takes a large portion of pupils then the "comprehensive" will no longer be representative of the local population - by default the distribution of pupils will be biased by the absence of those who satisfied the selection criteria of the selective school. Having one or more school being selective forces all local schools into a form of selection by default.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Except that "you're thick and shit at this school stuff, but try anyway" is really a rather hard sell.

Tell me again why you can't push the most able in a top set in a Comp the way you can at a Grammar school, because since no-one's actually explained that, I believe it can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
If you can't make a sufficiently good case on the merits to keep the most able pupils in comprehensive schools, then the argument for compulsory comprehensive education fails.

---

• Maintaining, as far as possible given the local area, classes where class is not a factor (sorry, couldn't resist the pun). It is good for children from different backgrounds to mix, to become friends, to know how others live. This is especially true for those from the more wealthy end of the spectrum. Ultimately this should lead to a reduction in some of the nonsense in British society about the poor being lazy scroungers etc. It also means the poorer kids can see that richer kids are people just like them, and that they can aspire to more.
• Being able to put each individual child into classes suitable to their ability for that subject. Classes which will push all pupils to achieve their best, and with options to move between sets as needed. A selective school would usually be smaller, so those who were generally good enough to get in but still struggle (or, even excel) in a given subject would be less likely to be part of a group of pupils that could form a functional lower (or upper) set.
• Non-selective schooling will almost always ensure siblings go to the same school, which makes family life better. Also, most children from primary school will go to the same secondary school, so friends would stay together. That continuity of family and friend relationships will make transitions between schools easier, and with most kids from one area going to the same school then school transport becomes easier as well.

quote:

---

A system that only works by compelling large numbers of families to accept a system that they would not choose for themselves is (almost by definition) a bad system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
It is good for children from different backgrounds to mix, to become friends, to know how others live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
We have a friend in Kent who was educated in a Scottish comp. He would like a similar education for his children, but feels compelled to pay for tutoring for his children to get them through the 11+ because the options for those failing the 11+ in his area are dire. His children are having a more stressful childhood than ours because of this pressure. But he feels compelled to accept the system, even though it is not one he would choose for himself.

By your argument, that makes the selective system a bad system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, what is the corresponding list in favour of selective education (keeping to the same scenario where there's no difference in exam grades)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
originally posted by Eliab;

quote:

---

A system that only works by compelling large numbers of families to accept a system that they would not choose for themselves is (almost by definition) a bad system.

---

We have a friend in Kent who was educated in a Scottish comp. He would like a similar education for his children, but feels compelled to pay for tutoring for his children to get them through the 11+ because the options for those failing the 11+ in his area are dire. His children are having a more stressful childhood than ours because of this pressure. But he feels compelled to accept the system, even though it is not one he would choose for himself.

By your argument, that makes the selective system a bad system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
A system that only works by compelling large numbers of families to accept a system that they would not choose for themselves is (almost by definition) a bad system. If you can't make a sufficiently good case on the merits to keep the most able pupils in comprehensive schools, then the argument for compulsory comprehensive education fails.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Need to be very big middle schools - my experiencfe in Leeds was of 'faculties' - so a mishmash of History, Geography and RE subsumed under 'Humanities- ditto for the sciences - bad for all subject specislisms.

---

I don't agree at all, because I have a different experience (of what sounds like a similar setup). My middle-school age experience is with a teacher for "Science" rather than the separate teachers for Physics, Chemistry and Biology that we had at senior school. And that's just fine. You don't need a degree in Physics to teach Physics to 11-year-olds. Chemists and Biologists can usually do a good job, too. Maths teachers just taught Maths, and English teachers just taught English, but the other teachers mostly taught a couple of different subjects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Choice in this area is not possible. If you have selective schools then, by definition, you cannot have comprehensive schools. The two are mutually incompatible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It seems reasonable to think the government ought not to pay for selective services except on the basis of allocating scarce resources to the most needy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, what is the corresponding list in favour of selective education (keeping to the same scenario where there's no difference in exam grades)?

---

• As I've said before, grammar schools can guarantee that they will focus on academic excellence rather than just getting as many C+ grades as possible.
• Grammar schools don't have as many disruptive students.
• Especially round here, grammar schools have far better facilities for sport, music, drama, etc. And no, extra funding for the comps wouldn't change that because if a school doesn't have a sports field then it simply doesn't have one - you can't just buy up all the houses nearby, level them and put in a cricket, rugby, football or hockey pitch. The nearest comp to me didn't even have sports teams.
• Grammars often have more variety of subjects available, because by concentrating the top whatever percent of pupils in one place it becomes possible to offer classes such as Latin, Classics, Geology, etc. that are usually only of interest to the smart kids. If those kids are split around all the comps there won't be enough of them in ant one place to make such classes viable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, what is the corresponding list in favour of selective education (keeping to the same scenario where there's no difference in exam grades)?

---

Since my reason for choosing selective schools is precisely because I think my children will get better results, that's not an easy question to answer. All my reasons - the school focussing efforts at the level appropriate to the vast majority of pupils, the sense of achievement and investment of earning a place, the ease of setting appropriately high but achievable aspirations, are valuable mostly because I would expect them to improve results (not just in terms of exam grades, but including that).

---

quote:

---

We have handed over the job of providing 90%+ of formal education of minors from families to the state. That's not a safety net. That's a transfer of responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, what is the corresponding list in favour of selective education (keeping to the same scenario where there's no difference in exam grades)?

---

That's ridiculous, because the difference in exam grades is the principal benefit of grammar schools.

---

quote:

---

As I've said before, grammar schools can guarantee that they will focus on academic excellence rather than just getting as many C+ grades as possible.

---

quote:

---

Grammar schools don't have as many disruptive students.

---

quote:

---

Especially round here, grammar schools have far better facilities for sport, music, drama, etc. And no, extra funding for the comps wouldn't change that because if a school doesn't have a sports field then it simply doesn't have one

---

quote:

---

Grammars often have more variety of subjects available, because by concentrating the top whatever percent of pupils in one place it becomes possible to offer classes such as Latin, Classics, Geology, etc. that are usually only of interest to the smart kids. If those kids are split around all the comps there won't be enough of them in ant one place to make such classes viable.

---

quote:

---

But again, academic excellence is reasons 1, 2, 3 and 4 why I think grammars are better. To arbitrarily exclude that as a reason to support them is to make a tacit admission that they are indeed better in that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It seems reasonable to think the government ought not to pay for selective services except on the basis of allocating scarce resources to the most needy.

---

Given that the state is now responsible for education, it seems to me to be unreasonable to say that it must provide a one-size-fits-all scheme for all but the most needy. It has inherited the responsibility that would naturally (absent a sufficiently resourced and organised society) fall onto parents to provide the best it can for the children in its care (that is, almost all of them). That means that it is properly within the moral competence of the state to make the same sort of decision for a child's education as a responsible parent would make had they the means to make it. Since very many responsible parents clearly would choose selective education as their preferred approach, it follows that the state is morally competent to make selective education available.

---

quote:

---

While I concede that "the most needy" have, by reason for their need, a special claim on state provision, I certainly do not think that this is the only basis on which the state can properly allocate resources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, obviously, if you select those pupils most likely to get better exam grades then by definition that school is going get a higher proportion of better exam grades. Which, of course, doesn't mean those children wouldn't have got as good grades at a comprehensive school.

---

quote:

---

Not that school should be a grades factory where the only thing that matters, or even the most important thing, is the grades.

---

quote:

---

"Guarantee"? Is anything in life guaranteed? And, academic excellence is but one part of education (see above), so are you admitting that grammar schools are unbalanced in equipping children to be rounded adults in our society?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Grammar schools don't have as many disruptive students.

---

Is that just because they can simply expel anyone who doesn't fit the pattern of academic excellence, knowing that someone else will pick up the pieces?

---

quote:

---

But, the only reason grammar schools have better equipment is because they have been better funded. Why did some comprehensive schools have to sell off their sports fields? Was it, perhaps, because they didn't have enough money to keep on teaching what the government deemed to be the essentials? And, the grammars didn't have to sell their sports fields because they had extra money.

---

quote:

---

But, the question being asked isn't "are grammars schools better than inadequately equipped comprehensives?", the answer to that is obvious. But, "if we equipped all comprehensives properly, would 'grammar school pupils' do just as well there?". Which is why I wanted to level the playing field and compare good grammars with good comprehensives.

---

quote:

---

I was just recognising that pupils in good comprehensives are capable of getting academic qualifications comparable to those in grammar schools.

---

quote:

---

And, if you're going to do a decent comparison then it needs to be between good grammars and good comprehensives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, obviously, if you select those pupils most likely to get better exam grades then by definition that school is going get a higher proportion of better exam grades. Which, of course, doesn't mean those children wouldn't have got as good grades at a comprehensive school.

---

Mr cheesy posted some research on page 4 that found that the average estimated effect of attending a grammar school on pupils of all abilities was 5.5 additional GCSE/GNVQ points compared to going to a comprehensive school.

---

quote:

---

After taking account of the cost factors and grant entitlements that influence funding per pupil, secondary modern schools in the years 2000/01–2002/03 were funded around £80 less per pupil while grammar school pupils received over £100 more per pupil compared to comprehensive schools. Secondary modern schools were more likely to be in financial deficit than comprehensive and particularly grammar schools. Thus, students are academically disadvantaged by attending secondary modern schools, which in most selective LEAs do not receive sufficient additional funding to offset the depressing effects on attainment of the increased social segregation arising from a selective system

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Re-reading that I realise I wasn't quite as clear as I thought I was. The linked report compares grammars and secondary moderns to comprehensives, showing the effects of selective education compared to non-selective. But, it's comparing relatively well funded schools (selecting brighter pupils) and relatively under-funded schools (selecting less-bright pupils). The comparison isn't between equally well funded schools (selective or otherwise). Is that any clearer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:


We're within an easy journey from a good boys independent school and we can afford it. But I can't get myself comfortable with it. I was at an independent school myself - selective but not particularly academic - I imagine they took candidates that scored below the common entrance pass mark to fill the places. I was a high achiever. I was unhappy.

But most of all, I'm not sure how I would tell my son that he is going to a school that his primary class mates couldn't even consider because their parents don't earn as much money as me.

---

quote:

---

And while I have 5As at A level and a Cambridge degree, I get told what to do every day by people who are thicker and less well qualified than me. So.... does it matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The issue of playing fields is a different one. many of the grammars were originally set up by foundations several hundred years ago, and hence it was not so easy for the LEAs (pre Academy days to force them to sell off playing fields. So it may indeed be true to say that the grammars retained fields and sports facilities when others did not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, it doesn't really matter why more grammars have sports fields than comps. The fact of the matter is that they do. No decision we make now can undo the past, or magically regenerate all the lost playing fields of yore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The picture is patchy and any suggestion that grammars are somehow always better funded and with better facilities is a myth. Particularly when it is repeatedly paraded here without any actual evidence to show that it is the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It isn't my fault that the paper you linked to reported on grammar schools that were better resourced. You've also made clear, from information on Gloucester, that where grammar schools don't receive a significant resource advantage that the local comprehensives are considered the better schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But in that case, you're not heaping disadvantages on those who can't afford it. Most of us here are arguing - actually just stating, since there's no real counter-argument - that Grammars deliberately disadvantage those who, for whatever reason, can't get in.

---

quote:

---

Also. Terrible analogies. Talk about the actual thing. It's not difficult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, the examples don't have to do with the state of education in England. They're not difficult: they're irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

But t's not difficult to see how the presence of a Grammar deliberately - knowingly and in measurable ways - affects the education of the children who don't get in. Either you acknowledge that, and say you don't care, or you deny the facts and we can draw our conclusions thusly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It isn't my fault that the paper you linked to reported on grammar schools that were better resourced. You've also made clear, from information on Gloucester, that where grammar schools don't receive a significant resource advantage that the local comprehensives are considered the better schools.

---

It certainly isn't my fault that you can't find studies which meet your idiosyncratic standards for comparison, particularly given I found the paper in question in response to your claim that you didn't know of any relevant studies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

But t's not difficult to see how the presence of a Grammar deliberately - knowingly and in measurable ways - affects the education of the children who don't get in. Either you acknowledge that, and say you don't care, or you deny the facts and we can draw our conclusions thusly.

---

Just making the same argument again - without any recourse to facts or anything resembling reasoning - is not helping.

The only data presented in this debate was by me and which suggested that grammar school children improve by 5 grades and non-grammar school children slip by one grade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

If someone was to come along and demonstrate that better resourced schools (better buildings, more books, smaller classes, more motivated and generally happy with their job teachers etc) produce better exam results (as a proxy for educational quality) than poorer resourced schools I wouldn't expect anyone to go "wow! that's a surprise". It is pretty much undeniable that better resourcing leads to better schools.

---

quote:

---

So let's try to unpack this idea that one shouldn't be considering one's own child over-and-above everyone else's child.

---

quote:

---

Imagine you are in an African village...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't need to. In the (English) village I live in, there's effectively a choice of three secondary schools. The one we're in the official catchment area for has a very bad reputation and has just been reorganised after going into special measures. Most parents try to get their children a place somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some of the "best resourced" schools are the worst. Because of the whole Academy programme which poured money and resources into failing schools.

---

quote:

---

But it must also be true that a child who is able to get to a grammar school from a deprived estate has a better chance at upwards social mobility than being forced to attend a poor local comprehensive that all the middle class parents are avoiding. What argument are you using against that point?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, perhaps you were objecting to the "deliberately - knowingly and in measurable ways", which I agree is more difficult to prove. The motivation behind an action is a lot harder to demonstrate than the effects of that action.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think that once someone's pointed it out - using the other person's data - then it does become 'deliberate'.

Where we live, we don't have Grammars. But we do have a partially-selective 'Christian ethos' Academy. The CE Academy is officially allowed to select about 10% of its pupils, and unofficially it excludes a lot more of the problem kids, both at entry and throughout the years. Consequently, its demographic make-up is quite unlike the area it serves.

---

quote:

---

32% of pupils of secondary age in the area attract the pupil premium. The CE Academy has just 8% of pupils on PP. My kids' school has just over 50% because the CE Academy won't have them. Why won't they have them? Because their presence might affect their status as an academically high-performing school.

---

quote:

---

This is pretty much exactly how Grammar schools work now, and would work in the future. We pick off the kids from the middle class families, plus a few of those from the poor families who actually make it on merit. And then we can act all surprised when the school does well in a league table based solely on exam results.

---

quote:

---

This is not rocket science, mr cheesy. This is simple statistics, and they're exactly the same statistics you're using.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No grammar school I know actively selects against children on the pupil premium. In fact I know of several who would be a lot better off if they could get more children on the pupil premium.

---

quote:

---

The issue is that children on the pupil premium and free school dinners either don't get to sit the grammar school test or don't pass the test when they should pass on merit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

The issue is that children on the pupil premium and free school dinners either don't get to sit the grammar school test or don't pass the test when they should pass on merit.

---

*boom*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, you're the one making it. You tell me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, seriously. You say "Grammars don't exclude on the basis of pupil premium", then give the exact reason why the system that splits children at age 11 is prejudiced against children on the pupil premium.

I am in awe of your cognitive dissonance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The system is biased

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes! Yes it is!

The only reason Grammars exist is because of the biased system. Grammars literally wouldn't exist if the incredibly divisive and biased 11+ system didn't exist. Therefore, if you have Grammars, you have a biased system.

(I can keep going, but saying it's not the school's fault, it's the system, when the system results in the school, is... interesting.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes! Yes it is!

The only reason Grammars exist is because of the biased system. Grammars literally wouldn't exist if the incredibly divisive and biased 11+ system didn't exist. Therefore, if you have Grammars, you have a biased system.

(I can keep going, but saying it's not the school's fault, it's the system, when the system results in the school, is... interesting.)

---

Err... no, selection by attainment is not inherently biased against poor people, unless you are trying to make out that poor people are thick.

Whereas selection by geography is, almost inevitably, always biased against poor people.

I guess that must be too hard for your massive brain to compute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(Protip. If you want to personally insult me, call me to Hell.)

You've already just argued that the 11+ system is biased. You've already just acknowledged that it's biased against the poor. You have nowhere to go after that, but backwards. If you want to now argue otherwise, go ahead. But those are your words, and you're free to re-read them at your leisure.

---

quote:

---

Selection by geography - catchment areas - are, for the very great part, nothing to do with the school, and to do with the council who draws up the catchment areas. It is, however, solved by extending the school, changing the catchment area, or bringing all the local comps up to the same high standard.

---

quote:

---

But if you're arguing that the 11+ is better than a network of good, local comps? No. For all the reasons you've previously stated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
grammars don't have to be biased against the poor.

---

quote:

---

I'm sorry to break it to you, but it is Kent County Council which sets and administers the Kent 11-plus. Not the schools.

---

quote:

---

It is certainly better for a smart-but-poor brainy child with supportive parents to go to a grammar than to a crap comprehensive that all the middle-class parents have abandoned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But they are, and no amount of magical thinking will ever change that. The system is biased. You said that.

---

quote:

---

The only reason the schools exist is because of Kent County Council. The schools are the result, and the evidence of, the biased system you acknowledge exists. And you're not "breaking it to me". Unsurprisingly.

---

quote:

---

Because of Grammar schools. Grammar schools, and the 11+ test, are the problem. But you've already said that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But they are, and no amount of magical thinking will ever change that. The system is biased. You said that.

---

I don't think there is anything inevitable about it. It is perfectly possible for poor people to value and push their children's education up the agenda. If more of them in a place like Kent did that, then more of them would get into the grammar schools and the bias would reduce.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Funny that. Grammar schools don't set the test in Kent, so obviously they're at fault. Grammar schools don't prevent people from taking the test, so obviously they're at fault. Grammar schools do not select against people who are on the pupil premium, so obviously they're at fault.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The bias between poor and middle class would reduce. The bias between those who pass and those who fail the 11+ would be just the same.

---

quote:

---

But, what would happen if more poor kids sat the 11+, and more of them achieved the grade to get to grammar school? Well, there are a limited number of places in the grammar schools, and the middle class parents who somehow feel their kids are entitled to a "proper education" at the grammar school will be squeezed out. How will they respond? By paying more for tutors to coach their little darlings through the 11+ most likely, whatever it takes to prevent their kids ending up in the other school. The poor parents won't be able to afford tutors, so the bar for the poor kids has just gone up. Apart from a windfall for tutors, what has changed?

---

quote:

---

Or, maybe those middle class parents will get vocal and demand that there are more grammar school places so their kids have a chance of the education "they deserve". Which is, of course, what the Tories have now decided should happen. So, more children go to grammar schools. But, at what point does it then become pointless? Grammar schools were designed to select the academic elite. The top 10-15% of kids certainly count as an elite. What about 20%? 30%? when more than 50% go to grammar school, is that still an elite? Perhaps at that point you need to rethink the 11+ - instead of an examine to test academic ability for the minority of grammar school places you need a test for practical abilities to select for the minority of secondary moderns to make sure that they have the good pupils for their courses aimed at the next generation of plumbers, electricians and hairdressers. Is that getting absurd? Of course, but the 11+ as it stands is absurd already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If it is a true and fair assessment of ability, that's not a bias. A child who is selected on ability to join a county athletics team is not preferentially biased against the child who is not providing the assessment is not based on spelling ability (or some other irrelevant factor).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to you, they ought to sit on their hands and wait until someone, somewhere provides them with a good comprehensive rather than applying for a grammar (or grant to attend a independent school) if one is available.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what would happen if more poor kids sat the 11+, and more of them achieved the grade to get to grammar school? Well, there are a limited number of places in the grammar schools, and the middle class parents who somehow feel their kids are entitled to a "proper education" at the grammar school will be squeezed out. How will they respond? By paying more for tutors to coach their little darlings through the 11+ most likely, whatever it takes to prevent their kids ending up in the other school. The poor parents won't be able to afford tutors, so the bar for the poor kids has just gone up. Apart from a windfall for tutors, what has changed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

But, what would happen if more poor kids sat the 11+, and more of them achieved the grade to get to grammar school? Well, there are a limited number of places in the grammar schools, and the middle class parents who somehow feel their kids are entitled to a "proper education" at the grammar school will be squeezed out. How will they respond? By paying more for tutors to coach their little darlings through the 11+ most likely, whatever it takes to prevent their kids ending up in the other school. The poor parents won't be able to afford tutors, so the bar for the poor kids has just gone up. Apart from a windfall for tutors, what has changed?

---

What has changed is that poor children have gotten the education that they otherwise wouldn't have. According to you, they ought to sit on their hands and wait until someone, somewhere provides them with a good comprehensive rather than applying for a grammar (or grant to attend a independent school) if one is available.

---

quote:

---

See even this is a non-argument compared to the inbuilt inequalities of a system that allows students who happen to live in the tiny catchment of the Jordanhill School in Glasgow to have an excellent education whilst down the road at Drumchapel it is objectively worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If the children who are selected for the county team all have running coaches who have spent lots of 1 on 1 time with them working on their form, run in new high-tech running shoes, and have the benefit of a couple of years of targeted coaching to increase their endurance, then despite the fact that those were the fastest children in the qualifying competitions, you might reasonably ask if there are not other children whose families don't have the time and money to provide them with new shoes and coaching, who might be as fast or faster than the ones who won the qualifiers if they had the proper coaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would you care to address the point I actually made? I never said anything about sitting on hands and waiting. I said that if the poor kids put in the effort to take 11+ one of the effects would be that parents of richer kids would pay for tutors to increase the chances of their kids passing the 11+. Yes, a very small number of poor kids would get in on the basis of exceptional ability. But, the result would be the majority failing - while well-coached but probably less able middle class kids get in. End result, not much of a change from the situation now. Except for some wealthier tutors and a larger number of poor kids who now think of themselves as failures before they even start secondary education.

---

quote:

---

As you'll know, I've consistently stated on this thread that there needs to be improvements in many schools. So, you can squeak all you like about how some Glasgow schools are better than others. You could say the same about virtually every city in England as well. That isn't the issue. [/qupte]

No. Sorry, it isn't the issue that you want to talk about but it is very much an issue that reflects on this debate. Some kids in some parts of Glasgow are condemned to go to bad state schools because of geography. That's a fact.

And in my view being selected by educational ability is far fairer and gives far more of a chance to poor bright children than selecting by geography.

Now you can say all you like that all comprehensives should be better. Bully for you. And by that token I can also say that the 11-plus should be reformed and far more effort should be made to include the poorest children in the grammar system.

To me yours is an impossible pipedream whereas including more poor children in grammars where they exist is entirely feasible.

[quote]The issue is how to improve education across the board, so that all children get a good education, and in the process reduce the house price premium on properties near the good schools - because there would be no bad schools (only reduce, because no matter what you do some schools will always be seen as better than others).

---

quote:

---

What I've been saying all along is giving yet more money to selective education, and letting those who fail the grade just sink, is not the answer.

---

quote:

---

Simply throwing money at failing schools isn't the answer either, although more money well spent targeting real issues will help. Giving parents and children in poor areas reasons to value an education is essential, which will certainly need to include places on training courses and real jobs for those who have put the effort in at school (note: reward effort, rather than necessarily grades - judge by attendance and behaviour if you need an objective measure). Improve the general social environment, remove the stigma of certain areas which creates un-escapable ghettos (the sort of thing which has local employers looking at an address and saying "I'm not employing someone from there"). I gave a fuller list earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what would happen if more poor kids sat the 11+, and more of them achieved the grade to get to grammar school? Well, there are a limited number of places in the grammar schools, and the middle class parents who somehow feel their kids are entitled to a "proper education" at the grammar school will be squeezed out. How will they respond? By paying more for tutors to coach their little darlings through the 11+ most likely, whatever it takes to prevent their kids ending up in the other school. The poor parents won't be able to afford tutors, so the bar for the poor kids has just gone up. Apart from a windfall for tutors, what has changed?

---

Actually the situation in Birmingham, which has just a handful of grammar schools gives us an insight of sorts into the situation you describe. A large majority of the schools in the city are comprehensives and the grammars are too few and too small to snaffle more than a small proportion of the most academically able children in any year group.

There are some terrible comprehensives in the city, of course, but most are rated good or outstanding. Nevertheless, the grammars remain breathtakingly popular with parents. All of them could fill their year 7 classes at least 10 times over.

And they are at least as popular with first generation immigrant parents in inner city areas as with snobbish middle class parents in the leafy suburbs. I'm a governor at a primary school in the inner city (>90% are from immigrant families, >65% never speak any English at home, >75% qualify for free school meals). I can tell you that plenty of our parents are keen on their children trying for the grammar schools even though, as it happens, the nearest comprehensive has a shiny new campus, an Ofsted rating of Outstanding in every category, and is a National Teaching School. Their local school is first rate but plenty of them want their children to go to a school where the absolute priority is academic excellence, and somehow they find the money for tutoring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:
Actually the situation in Birmingham, which has just a handful of grammar schools gives us an insight of sorts into the situation you describe. A large majority of the schools in the city are comprehensives and the grammars are too few and too small to snaffle more than a small proportion of the most academically able children in any year group.

---

quote:

---

There are some terrible comprehensives in the city, of course, but most are rated good or outstanding. Nevertheless, the grammars remain breathtakingly popular with parents. All of them could fill their year 7 classes at least 10 times over.

---

quote:

---

And they are at least as popular with first generation immigrant parents in inner city areas as with snobbish middle class parents in the leafy suburbs. I'm a governor at a primary school in the inner city (>90% are from immigrant families, >65% never speak any English at home, >75% qualify for free school meals). I can tell you that plenty of our parents are keen on their children trying for the grammar schools even though, as it happens, the nearest comprehensive has a shiny new campus, an Ofsted rating of Outstanding in every category, and is a National Teaching School. Their local school is first rate but plenty of them want their children to go to a school where the absolute priority is academic excellence, and somehow they find the money for tutoring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
None of this selection improves education; it's sheer snobbery, and should be abolished forthwith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Correct. So that's not a true and fair assessment of ability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
None of this selection improves education; it's sheer snobbery, and should be abolished forthwith.

---

I'm not sure snobbishness explains why poor ethnic minority parents are wanting grammar school education for their children in Birmingham, does it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Does anyone really think secondary modern schools are better than comprehensives? That is the other side of selective education and something like four or five times as many will attend these as will be able to attend a grammar school.

I've yet to see any arguments in favour of secondary moderns, but I'd like some advocates of grammars to provide some by way of evenhandedness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
None of this selection improves education; it's sheer snobbery, and should be abolished forthwith.

---

I'm not sure snobbishness explains why poor ethnic minority parents are wanting grammar school education for their children in Birmingham, does it?

---

Yes, in that I mean purely social, non-educational one-upmanship.

Snobbery is not a purely caucasian activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I said that if the poor kids put in the effort to take 11+ one of the effects would be that parents of richer kids would pay for tutors to increase the chances of their kids passing the 11+. [...] End result, not much of a change from the situation now. Except for some wealthier tutors and a larger number of poor kids who now think of themselves as failures before they even start secondary education.

---

quote:

---

What I've been saying all along is giving yet more money to selective education, and letting those who fail the grade just sink, is not the answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I said that if the poor kids put in the effort to take 11+ one of the effects would be that parents of richer kids would pay for tutors to increase the chances of their kids passing the 11+. [...] End result, not much of a change from the situation now. Except for some wealthier tutors and a larger number of poor kids who now think of themselves as failures before they even start secondary education.

---

You recognise that one effect of selection is that it might make parents, rich and poor, take an active involvement in their children's education and don't see that as a good thing?

---

quote:

---

And preparing a child for the 11+ doesn't need to be beyond anyone's means. Specimen papers can be found on line for free. We still have public libraries in some parts of the country. You can fill a carrier bag with children's books for a fiver in most charity shops. Time and encouragement and aspiration are no less available to the poor than the rich.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What I've been saying all along is giving yet more money to selective education, and letting those who fail the grade just sink, is not the answer.

---

Straw man. No one is suggesting that we let those who fail to make the grade sink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The system is biased. Poor families often believe that grammar school "is not for them". Junior schools in poor areas often do not put their students in for the test. Poor parents often lack the educational aspirations for their children.

That's nothing to do with the grammar school

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
there's a big difference between being allowed to sit an exam for your preferred school, and being prevented from meaningfully applying for it at all because your parents could never afford to move into the catchment area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


Most places in the country have had comprehensive education for fifty years and it hasn't happened yet, so why should we believe that it will ever happen? And if it never happens and there aren't any grammars, then you will be left with a selective system whereby the only means of selection is the ability to buy a house in a good catchment area. Yay equality!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Ooh look. A black swan.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marama:
But why is anyone, no matter how bright, taking 14 GCSEs?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Okay then.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Bully for you. If only you'd allow others to make a different educational decision.

---

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?

---

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

---

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'.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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'.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

That's still bullshit however many times you say it.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:


Comprehensive schools take everyone from a catchment regardless of academic ability. That's the definition of comprehensive.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No. A comprehensive is a school with a mix of abilities.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---