Do you support Southend's Grammar Schools?

[Tangled up in Blue]

Could you elaborate on the 'precious little incentive' point? What would you say are the 'incentives' and why are they not there?

Pupils had been made aware that there was no realistic further incentive (or expectation) for them to achieve academically.

Fairly obviously, (I would have thought),you cannot have a truly comprehensive system of education when the top 20% or so of the pupil intake has already been creamed off.

 

[number11]

So are good teachers not able to achieve good results at secondary level without having the top pupils to work with?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So are good teachers not able to achieve good results at secondary level without having the top pupils to work with?

You clearly don't believe in the ideal of a comprehensive school education.I do.

 

[londonblue]

There are 163 Grammar schools in England, but not that many in Essex/Southend and none in Thurrock.

What other schools did you attend to find out what their atmosphere and learning environments were like?

My son achieved good GSCE grades at a local non-selective school last year and is currently doing A levels and hopes to go to University. There were plenty of children in his year who all wanted to learn and yes there were quite a few that didn't want to be there. The non-selective schools in Southend do a pretty good job with limited resources and they have to look after local children of all abilities, whereas the Grammar schools can choose to select the top 5% of children based on the 11+ from all over Essex/Southend & Thurrock.

Look at the way the Essex/Southend Grammar schools celebrate being in the top 20 or so schools in the country, hardly surprising is it when they can choose the best in the first place. Stick 20 SEN children in a Grammar school and see how well the school does then!

I actually think if we are going to keep Grammar schools in England (Scotland & Wales do not have Grammar schools) then the Kent/Medway approach is maybe better than Essex/Southend/Thurrock.
There are 39 Grammar schools in Kent/Medway and only 8 in Essex/Southend. I think the Kent/Medway ones take in the top 20% of pupils based on the 11+ and some of them are even mixed sex Grammar schools. I wonder how well they rate against the single sex Grammar schools, could probably look up on the league tables but can't be bothered! Mind you Essex/Southend/Thurrock is stuck with just the 8 Grammar schools as no new ones have been allowed since 1998.

Which is why I also advocate a "value add" rating for schools. This would show which schools actually over and under achieve based on their intake. If a school like SHSB takes a straight As student and he comes out with straight As, has it really made an impact on him?

However, for me the opposite is also true: would the same straight As student have still got straight As at another school?

 

[number11]

You clearly don't believe in the ideal of a comprehensive school education.I do.

You can't possibly know what I believe from this thread. I am trying to engage in discussion and debate as I'm interested In either side's view as am fairly openminded about it. To respond to a genuine question in the manner you have does rather re-inforce what many on here think- that you are incapable of rational and reasonable debate. Pity.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You can't possibly know what I believe from this threadY. I am trying to engage in discussion and debate as I'm interested In either side's view as am fairly openminded about it. To respond to a genuine question in the manner you have does rather re-inforce what many on here think- that you are incapable of rational and reasonable debate. Pity.

The so-called "debate" about comprehensive schools was won a long time ago by progressive educationalists, back in the 50's and 60's.

There is nothing left to discuss.Grammar schools are a socially devisive anachronism,which no civilised country should or would tolerate.

It's a mystery to me why successive Education Ministers, (including Crossland,Thatcher and Shirley Williams), didn't close them all down when they had the chance.

If you do believe in the ideal of comprehensive schooling,(which I insist you don't-not only from this thread,btw,but on the basis of previous threads too), I challenge you to prove me wrong.

FYI,I'm perfectly capable of rational and reasonable debate, when I feel its worth the effort.

 

[number11]

Well thank you for proving my point by confirming your bigoted view of the world and conduct on here.

I note you say there is no debate to be had so will presume you will post nothing further in this thread.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I can't help it. :hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious:

 

[South Bank Hank]

anachrononism

Say what now?

(Since the original article on which this thread is based was written by Alan Bennett,an ex-grammar schoolboy,I think grammar schools have some relevance to the discussion)).

The argument against Grammar schools was won back in the 60's.

Boroughs like Southend, (and elsewhere which retain them,especially in Kent), are anachronisms.

A Labour government with any guts would have ablished them completely,a long time ago.

The so-called "debate" about comprehensive schools was won a long time ago by progressive educationalists, back in the 50's and 60's.

There is nothing left to discuss.Grammar schools are a socially devisive anachrononism,which no civilised country should or would tolerate.

Of course they're anachronisms, the Guardian says so!

I'm perfectly capable of rational and reasonable debate, when I feel its worth the effort. the Guardian tells me to be.

Edited, etc....

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

I sit here naked and just wonder if all these anti grammar school took and failed the 11+ and as for SBH that is some great work there.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I sit here naked and just wonder if all these anti grammar school took and failed the 11+ and as for SBH that is some great work there.

Probably the opposite.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Probably the opposite.

Doubtful. Tony always posts naked.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Well thank you for proving my point by confirming your bigoted view of the world and conduct on here.

I note you say there is no debate to be had so will presume you will post nothing further in this thread.

I doubt if I'm any more (or less) bigoted than you are,actually.

 

[number11]

I doubt if I'm any more (or less) bigoted than you are,actually.

Well that's good to hear. Perhaps you could try to bring this less bigoted approach to your posting on here in future.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I sit here naked and just wonder if all these anti grammar school took and failed the 11+ and as for SBH that is some great work there.

I should think people who disagree with grammar schools went to a whole variety of school types. I didn't take the 11+ if that helps the poll.

 

[callan]

I should think people who disagree with grammar schools went to a whole variety of school types. I didn't take the 11+ if that helps the poll.

I didn't take the 11 plus either, there's absolutely no way I would have passed it.
I don't begrudge those who did pass and then went on to enjoy grammar school.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I doubt if I'm any more (or less) bigoted than you are,actually.

One more time, :hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious:

 

[Pubey]

I didn't take the 11 plus either, there's absolutely no way I would have passed it.
I don't begrudge those who did pass and then went on to enjoy grammar school.

Do you think your education have been better if grammar schools in the area didn't exist? Lots of evidence to support the statement that grammar schools increases inequality - grammar school students do better, non-grammar school students do worse than they would have.

It's easy to say "I went to a grammar school and it did me well, so they are a good thing". But it's also a selfish position if people who aren't in a grammar school do worse because of it.

 

[londonblue]

This is interesting:

BBC

(As an aside, I sometimes wonder if the BBC monitor this site, because quite often they have an article on things we discuss!)

 

[number11]

Pubey, what does the evidence suggests happens to the results of pupils at the top end if there are no grammar schools?
Would it be expected that the same results would be achieved as would have been achieved had they gone to grammar schools?

Also, what are the perceived causes of lower standards in a comprehensive school in a divided system? Finally, do those who advocate an end to grammar schools favour a division of classes based on ability in an all encompassing school?

Please note, for those of a defensive nature, this is a genuine enquiry and not
a loaded question in which to draw incorrect inferences.