Is "Selection" such a dirty concept...

[John K]

Desperately hoping this doesn't turn into a political mudslinging match but hey ho... Does a bear crap in the woods... 

 

And the context / catalyst for the post is the current Grammar school debate (and you can tell I didn't go to one because I originally spelk it "Grammer School"), but I believe its a wide issue that boils down to...

 

"Are some people better at somethings than other people..?"

 

And the "something" could be running, swimming, driving, Lego, thinking, cooking, baking etc

 

Would we be happy to admit that genetics plays a part in fitness so some folk can sprint a 100mtrs and others can run for 10,000mtrs. A case in point is imagining Mo Farrah and Usain Bolt competing in both of their disciplines (that would be funny)

 

Being unemotional and logical, if we are prepared to admit some folk are better at sprinting than running, why can't we admit that some people are better at holding my head down the toilet than they are at learning...

 

I was a bright kid in certain narrow areas of expertise . Last year (last not first, I wasn't that bright) of primary school I got 49/50 on the reading test given to 16 year olds (I can still remember I only got one wrong and that was the use of the word "conflagration"), but at the end of the Comprehensive experience I was barely above average. I certainly hadn't made the most of a potential 'head start'. Whose fault was that? Well if you get beaten up everytime you pass a test, it ain't really an incentive to learn (added this bit)

 

And despite what folk hope for and I genuinely believe the best in their intentions, but any class gets taught down to the worst level and the worst level does not get raised to the best level. And BTW, best and worst have NOTHING to do with how rich your parents are. A privately educated rich moron will still be a moron - they will just have good connections which help them get on.

 

So the best get pulled down and the lowest stay where they are. 

 

So what is wrong in separating out kids into appropriate schools and teaching them to a level that is comfortable for them?

 

The world needs scaffolders as much as it needs neurosurgeons.

 

We just need to be careful that folk who on the surface seem to be heading for the lower stream but if given the chance would be really high achievers and give them the opportunity.

 

But I thought that was the reason for the 11 plus...

 

Getting off my high horse now...! 

[AdamR]

I agree entirely.

[DamperMan]

I went to a non selective non grammar school. I'm perfectly dyslexic. Some subjects I was in the top off the top groups others bottom of the bottom groups. I'd have never made it to grammar school and the old system would have failed. I went on to have a honours degree in mechanical engineering and a decent job. I believe in streaming kids and giving them every opertunity but I can't see why kids of different abilities need to be in different schools. It creates even more social seperation. I don't believe in any selective school wether academic, religious or !. Academic education is just a small part of school life...

Pew I wait to be shot

[John K]

... but I can't see why kids of different abilities need to be in different schools. It creates even more social seperation ...

 

 

Good point, and the Comprehensive I went to had streams so in theory all should be OK.

 

And BTW, congrats on getting the Honours in a proper subject like Engineering..! 

 

But... The "Munch Bunch" as we referred to the more disruptive kids had such a de-stabilizing effect on the rest of the school that their influence crossed the streams (ooh, anybody get that 80's reference?) and screwed it up for everybody.

 

They were allowed to pull the rest of the school down.

 

And there is a different argument around discipline / liberal standards etc.

 

But I still sort of think its easier to set a mood / expectation / goal for a whole school rather than streams within it.

 

So I still fall into the separate schools with the opportunity to get into the higher expecting ones camp, rather than streams in the one school.

[Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman]

It's interesting how even now, we still seem affected by the propaganda that the alternatives to grammar schools are automatically inferior.

A part of the same policy that saw the denigration of Technical Colleges, Apprenticeships and a variety of other vocational learning establishments.

Instead we had the degrees for all policy beloved of so many politicians of both left and right leanings.

[CraigHew]

Not my area of expertise, nor interest really but the current system seems fine. if you can afford to send little Johnny to private school in the belief it's best then fine. I came through the comprehensive system, was above average but not great. I think it's good to have a few thick tw*ts in your class as it gives Mr average more scope to shine. You get out of school life proportionate to what you put in, and not just in academic terms.

if you seperate out "the best" and throw them together, all that happens is a quick and relative reassessment of who now is the thickest and who is the brightest and the teaching level is then raised to the new thick-level (albeit higher than before) and the brightest kids still stagnate.

I think the question is rhetorical, although most of the thick tw*ts I went to school with couldn't spell that, let alone use it in a sentence.

No offence intended to anyone either, I actually like thick tw*ts which is good, as I meet new ones quite frequently.

[Onliest Smeg David]

I've worked with literally every 'sort' of young person from all backgrounds ( very high personable achievers / those with 'disabilities' / seasoned criminals) through Duke of Edinburgh's Award and Youth Work.

And I was regularly amazed at the achievements of those mixed 'abilities' and backgrounds when put together, everyone's abilities contributing to a greater than sum of the parts result.

[Rhett Turner - Black Country AO]

The real trouble is there are huge resources thrown at the "thick tw*ts" to try and make them less "thick" generally with little of no benefit, if that same resource was thrown at the average kid we as a country would benefit to a far greater extent. 

[Stuart]

">http://

[Kevin (Mr T)]

I can't say I have an objection to either system, but would make this point.

Albiet some years ago, as a council house kid at a junior school in the centre of a large council estate, I passed my 11+ and gained entry to King Edward VI Grammar in Chelmsford.

At the time it was ranked in the top 5 schools in the country.

Now here's the thing. There were no thick tw*ts at the school, but believe me there were plenty of tw*ts, many of whom were also disruptive.

I undoubtedly benefited from being there, but at the time, I was the only pupil from a "working class" background.

So my conclusion is that the "selection" really happens a long time prior to arriving at the exam desk and the 11+ paper!

[jeff oakley]

The problem with this is that those who hanker after it have a rosy view of them. My preference is to have streaming in the same school otherwise we will end up with the Grammar schools hoovering up the best kids and the best teachers forcing the less able at 11 to have a worse education.

 

The biggest single issue in schools today is the lack of meaningful options for teacher to deal with those who don't want to be taught. In France you are not allowed to leave school until you can do everything to an acceptable level and teachers do appear to have more control so there is no advantage to be disruptive, you will be there much longer if you don't pass..

 

I failed the 11 plus and was deemed so thick I couldn't go to the comprehensive so it was Northcliff secondary modern for me, but we had great teachers who instilled the fear of god in all the "bad" kids so classes worked. I ended up with O levels and went on to do Okay in motor engineering. 

 

My daughter is also dyslexic and even though we wanted her to go to private schooling, she and the school convinced us that there was no need, she got a fist full of GCSE and A levels follwed by a degree in Biomedical science , and went on to study Medicine and is now starting her third year as a Dr working to become and anesthetic consultant. If the school has a good head, good staff and good rules even the most difficult kids can exceed many of their parents aspirations for them. Her school was first class engaged with parents and pupils.

 

We do need to accept that manual work is not a dirty word. I was asked to do a presentation at a local school about the opportunities in the motor trade. I was introduced to the class that I was going to speak about being a mechanic. I corrected the lady and then went on about all the varied things electrical, mechanical body repairs sales development racing etc. At the end she summed up with these words, there class if you don't do well enough to go to uni then there is always something else!!

 

I waited till the kids had gone before I tore her a strip off. Her view was clearly if you don't go to uni you have failed and that is one that has driven kids to do meaningless degrees with no use in gaining employment to end up with mountains of debt. 

 

This policy is all about pandering to what they see as core voters, thats all.

[Greenstreak-Andy D]

[tisme]

My older brother passed his 11+ and went to a Grammar School -  I failed mine and went to a (good) Secondary Modern school. Both of us have grown up fairly equally in terms of ambition and intellect (I think) though I have a slightly better mechanical hands approach to things (a lot of that down to the school I went to as well as my fathers engineering background). I also had friends at my school that went on to universities and the last time I saw them, most were struggling to maintain their "aspirational" jobs (and for a few, their marriages as well, though I suspect that applies to all regardless of your schooling !!).

 

My son went to a local secondary school and enjoyed his time there before leaving with some good GCSE's and getting his first job working for Jedi (racing cars). He has the same approach as me in terms of practicality and problem solving (cars, caravans, lorries etc).

 

I have no objections or anti feeling about Grammar schools, what I do object to is the "social engineering" that was started by Blair back in 1998 - as mentioned, one size does not fit all, and trying to obtain some form of "socialist utopia" by standardising the level of education and achievement to almost the lowest denominator (and remember the "no-one is allowed to lose philosophy" ..... my   !!).

 

It is hardly surprising we have just about the least qualified young people in the whole world and for many, they are trapped exactly where Blair wanted them to be trapped (and I suspect Corbynista's want the same as well).

 

In my opinion, what we need to change is the expectation from just about every youngster that after school they will go on to university as a "right". It should be that when you get to 16 you should be looking to what you'd like to do for a career - at least for the next 10 years of your life - not which university you can get into so you can have as much fun as you can get away with (after doing your "gap year" trip around the world of course  ).

 

Bring back career advisers, bring back apprenticeships in ALL industries (especially manufacturing rather than "media studies") and let's get this younger generation thinking for themselves for a change - state, grammar or private.

 

As for all those luvvies who are whinging .......

 

// rant mode off <as well> //

 

 

     

[dombanks]

One thing I would say is when you watch the UG population after the bs of freshers week and when the work kicks in, hangovers have turned into freshers flu, and the dear darlings have not had the luxury of home for a while you can tell the private schooled kids a mile off.

I'm not saying either system is better. One system does not fit all. Some people have it others don't. Time helps.

But private schooled kids seem to cope better.

Grammars/comps/academies whatever will always pump out the same. Good catchments will always outperform bad. Good schools will take the best teachers.

One thing is for certain all public schools are hamstrung by policy and that at the moment is more harmful than any variant of selection.

[John K]

I guess I'm a little biased because (and no guessing from the tone of my post) I felt I was a kid who might have benefited from streaming a little more than being in the general mix.

 

HOWEVER... And I have just realised this so there might be some eating of words here...

 

Genetically I'm good with technology. And if I were sectioned off to a 'posh geeks school' I would almost definitely be a silicon valley Internet Dweeb guy right now with zero social skills and no friends (but probably be a zillionaire having been in at the start of the tech boom).

 

However going to a mixed comprehensive and getting beaten up a lot and then learning how not to get beaten up did teach me some valuable people skills.

 

So even though my genetic leaning meant I still ended up in a tech industry I do have a slight ability to stand out because I like people and seem to be able to get on with them (and all of you can shut right the hell up right now  )

 

So I guess I have sort of done OK in my own way.

 

And there is no way I would have gotten these life skills from a selective school...

 

Crap... I've just pulled my own theory down...