Do you support Southend's Grammar Schools?

[southendkid]

Ignoring the 11+ entry requirement having the schools be gender specific seems outdated, why would you want your kid growing up in an environment where the opposite gender is basically an alien species?

 

[OldBlueLady]

Ignoring the 11+ entry requirement having the schools be gender specific seems outdated, why would you want your kid growing up in an environment where the opposite gender is basically an alien species?

What a load of bull! Never did me any bloody harm!!!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What a load of bull! Never did me any bloody harm!!!

Times have changed Kay.

While research proves that young girls do better academically in same gender schools, (while boys don't), there is (I would have thought), an overwhelming case for boys and girls to be educated together in terms of social cohesiveness.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Times have changed Kay.

While research proves that young girls do better academically in same gender schools, (while boys don't), there is (I would have thought), an overwhelming case for boys and girls to be educated together in terms of social cohesiveness.

Ok, well one of my oldest friends, also ex WHSG....all three of her children (2 girls and 1 boy) have gone through the Westcliff schools, the youngest now being in her 2nd year at uni. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm either!

 

[IronMike]

To my knowledge, after the two grammar schools in The London Borough of Redbridge, (Ilford County High for boys where Sir Trev went - and Woodford County High for girls) there is nothing till you hit Westcliff. When I moved out to Romford my neighbours mentioned that if a boy passed his 11+ it was either Ilford or Southend and as the latter has such a great reputation, that's where they'd send them.
On the train home from work in the mornings (Night man), at both Barking and Upminster there are loads of kids who get on, going through to Chalkwell, though not sure exactly where they're going.
I didn't pass my 11+, some of my mates did, therefore going to Ilford. I didnt give a toss and was quite proud at the time I attended a 'normal' school, I didn't meet anyone that felt inferior. They were the bright kids, the 'boffs' and we weren't, it's good to accept 'harsh truths' at a young age I think.
I'm a very short walk away from Southend High yet if my two boys don't pass their 11+ and there are East London kids coming in 'instead of them', then so what, good luck to them. There's always Chase High round the corner!
The older one, being high functioning autistic, bit like a professor, is probably nailed on to pass his 11+ and with the younger one, if needed, yes I will pay for tuition to help pass the 11+ exam. I certainly won't be putting on any pressure though, it is what it is, just wanting the best for your kids within reason.
Now I look back I wish I'd have attended Ilford, state grammar schools in my opinion are to be commended and praised.

 

[RHB]

Of my two cherubs, one went to a comprehensive and the other went to grammar school, both in the borough. Both did very well in their respective schools at an educational level but there is no doubt in my mind that the one at grammar school had a far more 'rounded' education.

The fact that Southend supports 4 grammar schools is a huge plus when encouraging people to move into the area, and we are also 'blessed' with some very good comprehensive, church and private schools. I'm all for choice and Southend and area provides that. Keep grammars I say.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Of my two cherubs, one went to a comprehensive and the other went to grammar school, both in the borough. Both did very well in their respective schools at an educational level but there is no doubt in my mind that the one at grammar school had a far more 'rounded' education.

The fact that Southend supports 4 grammar schools is a huge plus when encouraging people to move into the area, and we are also 'blessed' with some very good comprehensive, church and private schools. I'm all for choice and Southend and area provides that. Keep grammars I say.

Please explain what a "rounded" education at grammar school consists of.

Having attented WHS in the 6th form I've really no idea of what you mean..

Perhaps you could also explain what sort of "choice" there is for kids in the Southend area, who don't pass the 11+?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

http://ow.ly/I9baz


Ok, so the 4 elite schools do well BUT they have 85% of pupils from outside of the borough.

Are they now "past their time?"

Is it 85% from outside the borough?:unsure:

It use to be the other way round.

Echo this - my eldest daughter got so many A's that you sound like a scouser if you real them all off.
I have 3 daughters and made a point of sending them to whichever mixed non religious comprehensive was closest to our home. Judging kids at 11 is not good and if they are in catchment of a grammar then they feel like a failure if they don't get in.
As far as I am concerned we should draw a circle round each school and if you are in the circle you go there. That is the way to build a community.

I think outside of London the wider catchment is a good thing. Having pupils from outside the borough meant I mixed with a far wider group of kids - from different social classes and ethnicities than if I'd just gone to school with white middle class kids who lived in the immediate vicinity. Less of an issue in London where it's already more mixed up.

Because the vast majority of pupils who pass entrance exams are privately tutored to get through the exams. There was a time where it was just a few using that to get the extra push they needed but it soon got to a tipping point where if you weren't paying for a tutor you are majorly disadvantaged at exam stage. Unfortunately buying your way into a grammar is effectively commonplace.

That's an argument against the selection process, not selection though.

Of course if it was just done on location there would be no buying your way into a place by buying a house in the catchment area.

Oh.

Vaguely remember reading a study where grammar schools were associated with increased inequality in the areas where grammar schools still exist.

I don't think on the whole grammar schools are particularly great, mainly because I don't believe that 'good students' are always pulled down by 'bad students' and that the peer effect is quite important in teaching.

Like AAS, I also don't think that judging the performance of children at 11 is particularly good or healthy. My sister failed the 11+ and it had a big knock on her confidence. Most of the proponents tend to be people who went to grammar schools. Most opponents want good schools irrespective of how good a student you are/your child is.

Also, I don't think gendered schools are a good idea. Faith schools should be banned.

There are huge numbers of former grammar school pupils working in the City, competing with the public school educated. Not so many comprehensive, except in the lower paid jobs. That suggests that it helps tackle inequality. However I may be a case in point as I moved away.

What's the peer effect? I've always done better when I was surrounded by brighter peers - if that's the peer effect that seems to be an argument for selection.

To my knowledge, after the two grammar schools in The London Borough of Redbridge, (Ilford County High for boys where Sir Trev went - and Woodford County High for girls) there is nothing till you hit Westcliff.

What about Chelmsford?

 

[RHB]

Please explain what a "rounded" education at grammar school consists of.

Having attented WHS in the 6th form I've really no idea of what you mean,exactly.

The grammar school cherub is female so you attending Westcliff doesn't really have any bearing. My one attended Southend high School (which was a bit of a git as we only live 6/7 mins from Westcliff!). At the time she was there Westcliff was more academically focused whereas Southend had a broader spectrum in sport, drama and music as well as the academic side. That may not be the case now, but it was then (18 years ago). In terms of what she learnt as a person she had a more balanced/adult view of life than her brother who was sport and testosterone driven.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I manage to read the first sentence before giving up.

The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, has launched a scathing assault on England's 164 state-funded grammar schools and their supporters for holding back poorer pupils from getting on in life.

What has money got to do with passing an 11+ exam ?

Garbage.

Im sure the rest of the article is excellent though, but I dont need to read the Guardian to form an opinion.

Nor do I.Iformed my opinion about grammar schools by going to WHS.

In answer to your question,everything.It allows parents to buy a house in an area with a good primary school or pay for their kids to go to private,fee-paying junior schools and afford special 11+tuition classes (as friends of mine have done).

 

[RHB]

Please explain what a "rounded" education at grammar school consists of.

Having attented WHS in the 6th form I've really no idea of what you mean..

Perhaps you could also explain what sort of "choice" there is for kids in the Southend area, who don't pass the 11+?

Did you add the last question after I posted my response???

There is the choice of St Thomas Moore for boys or St Bernards for boys, if you are of the faith. There are several comprehensives in the borough or further out there are Fitzwymark and Sweyne in Rayleigh.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Nor do I.Iformed my opinion about grammar schools by going to WHS.

It's a little harsh to blame the substantial gaps in your education solely on your sixth form college.

That poly you attended and whatever institute purported to educate you prior to sixth form must share at least some blame.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It's a little harsh to blame the substantial gaps in your education solely on your sixth form college.

That poly you attended and whatever institute purported to educate you prior to sixth form must share at least some blame.

Cricko might agree with you about that.Dunno. :raspberry:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Is it 85% from outside the borough?:unsure:

It use to be the other way round.



I think outside of London the wider catchment is a good thing. Having pupils from outside the borough meant I mixed with a far wider group of kids - from different social classes and ethnicities than if I'd just gone to school with white middle class kids who lived in the immediate vicinity. Less of an issue in London where it's already more mixed up.




That's an argument against the selection process, not selection though.

Of course if it was just done on location there would be no buying your way into a place by buying a house in the catchment area.

Oh.



There are huge numbers of former grammar school pupils working in the City, competing with the public school educated. Not so many comprehensive, except in the lower paid jobs. That suggests that it helps tackle inequality. However I may be a case in point as I moved away.

What's the peer effect? I've always done better when I was surrounded by brighter peers - if that's the peer effect that seems to be an argument for selection.



What about Chelmsford?

I would have thought that most areas are quite mixed anyway, I wouldn't have thought you would need to get kids to travel from one area to another to get an ethnic / social mix. Getting rid of faith schools will do a lot more to encourage an ethnic mix - the idea of those encourages segregation and a ghetto attitude.

The 'private tutor' effect is an argument against the selection process yes, but I would argue a gainst selection at 11 whatever the process, and I can't foresee a process where you couldn't be tutored into a big advantage. The fact people move houses to be near 'good' schools is a fact of life and you shouldn't accept inequalities that you can do something about just because there are others you can't.

Grammar school kids get more jobs in the City than those from comprehensives - that is surely more because the more academic kids have been put into grammar schools so are already high achievers. They can't say 'look what high achieving kids we have created from a carefully selected pool of high achieving kids'.

Most grammars are single sex too. I think school should teach kids how to operate in the real world and excluding 50% of the population is quite a large distortion of reality.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Most grammars are single sex too. I think school should teach kids how to operate in the real world and excluding 50% of the population is quite a large distortion of reality.

Have already said this is bollocks! Just because you go to a single sex school doesn't mean you never have anything to do with the opposite sex! I am walking proof of that!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Have already said this is bollocks! Just because you go to a single sex school doesn't mean you never have anything to do with the opposite sex! I am walking proof of that!

Because you have already said it doesn't make it so!
In 99% of jobs men and women work together and in my opinion the set up in school should mirror what happens after school. Schools are preparing you for adult life.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Because you have already said it doesn't make it so!
In 99% of jobs men and women work together and in my opinion the set up in school should mirror what happens after school. Schools are preparing you for adult life.

Exactly, and in my working life I knuckle down and get on with stuff exactly as I did at school. Not having boys in class in a grammar school meant there were no distractions, teachers weren't distracted by those who didn't want to learn and behaviour was generally good. Grammar schools afford those who really want to make the best of their school learning the best opportunity.

And as I said earlier, this still seems to be the case, as evidenced by my friend's three children who have finished at the WHSs in the last 5-8 years.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Mugs in sh!t blazers.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Grammar Schools should be abolished.End of.

Didn't you go to a private school or is that someone else?

 

[Mad Cyril]

You might want to look at some of the arguments here:-

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools

The Guardian are against grammar schools because they provide unfair competition for Oxbridge places.

It must be galling to spend a small fortune sending your child to a private London day school only for some oik from the provinces to take that History/English Lit. place at Oxford instead.