Grammer schools.

[Leekbrookgull]

Looks like we could be seeing one or two more ? As for me (and her indoor's) 11+ failures and a "bit thick" like our youngest son who is a Joiner and a decent one,our eldest 3 "A" Levels all in sport living and working in Austraila. If you are "bright" give that kid the best eduacation you can from wherever they are from,if you "thick" get a trade and be good at it. You will never be out of work,good money (some could be tax free) and do you not what ? People actually respect a good Tradesman and once you have got one you never let them go.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I could be wrong.

 

[maltaseagull]

I could be wrong.

You are!

It's Grammar schools

 

[studio150]

11+ Question 1

Correctly spell the name of the school you will attend if you pass this exam. Is it

A. Grammer
B. Grammar
C. Gramma

Should your answer be wrong there is no need to answer the rest of the exam paper

 

[Honky Tonx]

C. A school for old Dears who lick their hankies and wipe your face then entertain you with their latest Daniel O'Donnell LP

 

[Leekbrookgull]

You are!

It's Grammar schools

Just waiting to see who would "spot that one".

 

[nickbrighton]

in full expectation of being shot down and branded all sorts of eliteist, I really do not see the big issue with Grammar schools. I am the product of the comprehensive experiment, I was in a class at the great(?) Patcham Fawcett school at the top of ladies mile rd (not the one at the bottom as it iss now) Now the basic result of giving a one size fits all education is that those who had the apptitude and ability to do well were held back by those who didnt. I wanted to take GCE O Level Maths, I was good enough, unfortunatly the only way I was allowed to take it was to pay extra for the exam, and take lessons in lunch time, as the majority in the class (and it was the highest stream) were of CSE Standard and so thats what we were taught. The teacher spent 50 % of her time on 10% of the pupils who couldnt giove a rats arse and constantly pratted around, and most of the rest of the time on the 60% doing the CSE, as a result no one got the time and attention they needed and the teacher (Maggie Newell I think) although fantastic didn't have a hope.and basically niether did we, as we were trying to learn 2 sylabuses in the time normally spent on 1

Had there been segregation based on ability I am sure EVERYONE would have got a better education

I am sure there are better ways than the 11+, and there are flaws in any system, however the basic concept of ability based education with pupils of similar ability being taught together to their potential has to be better than the lump everyone together and let them sink mentality

 

[vegster]

in full expectation of being shot down and branded all sorts of eliteist, I really do not see the big issue with Grammar schools. I am the product of the comprehensive experiment, I was in a class at the great(?) Patcham Fawcett school at the top of ladies mile rd (not the one at the bottom as it iss now) Now the basic result of giving a one size fits all education is that those who had the apptitude and ability to do well were held back by those who didnt. I wanted to take GCE O Level Maths, I was good enough, unfortunatly the only way I was allowed to take it was to pay extra for the exam, and take lessons in lunch time, as the majority in the class (and it was the highest stream) were of CSE Standard and so thats what we were taught. The teacher spent 50 % of her time on 10% of the pupils who couldnt giove a rats arse and constantly pratted around, and most of the rest of the time on the 60% doing the CSE, as a result no one got the time and attention they needed and the teacher (Maggie Newell I think) although fantastic didn't have a hope.and basically niether did we, as we were trying to learn 2 sylabuses in the time normally spent on 1

Had there been segregation based on ability I am sure EVERYONE would have got a better education

I am sure there are better ways than the 11+, and there are flaws in any system, however the basic concept of ability based education with pupils of similar ability being taught together to their potential has to be better than the lump everyone together and let them sink mentality

I am from a hard working, working class family and went through the school system without any real encouragement from parents or teachers. I never really had any understanding of how important qualifications were, particularly the right qualifications and it was fully expected that the boys in our school would walk in to manual labour or join their fathers in the family plumbing business etc .

The subjects I was taught had no relevance to the types of jobs available and in fact one employer laughed and said that he did not need to see my ( humble ) qualifications as they " mean nothing in this job ".

I now find myself in a dead end job with little prospects other than drudgery. So, if Grammar Schools can actually inspire and teach modern relevant subjects to pupils from all backgrounds then I have no problem with that. If however, they are little more than a cosy little club putting little rich boys on to the first rung of the ladder of the Old Boy network then I would not be so happy.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Oh my.

 

[beorhthelm]

...Had there been segregation based on ability I am sure EVERYONE would have got a better education

I am sure there are better ways than the 11+, and there are flaws in any system, however the basic concept of ability based education with pupils of similar ability being taught together to their potential has to be better than the lump everyone together and let them sink mentality

by the time i went to school and we had GCSE they's solved this problem by streaming pupils from about 2nd or 3rd year based on end of year exam, with only those in the top stream allowed/taught the syllabus for the top paper (A-C) for Maths, English and Foreign Language (oddly not science or anything else. no, wait, its the same problem... they created a grammar like system within the comprehensive school, but without the scope to change stream. genius.

 

[beorhthelm]

I now find myself in a dead end job with little prospects other than drudgery. So, if Grammar Schools can actually inspire and teach modern relevant subjects to pupils from all backgrounds then I have no problem with that. If however, they are little more than a cosy little club putting little rich boys on to the first rung of the ladder of the Old Boy network then I would not be so happy.

well thats the whole point of grammars, enhanced education available to all based on ability not background. little rich kids go off to public school regardless, so removal of the grammars just improverished those without the means to provide an improved education. of course, ideally one should make the state schools all rise to a higher standard, but some school of thought believed its better to equalise to an adequate standard, so as not to leave people out. alas the outcome of so much social engineering is to lower the standards and expectations of generations.

 

[knocky1]

11+ Question 1

Correctly spell the name of the school you will attend if you pass this exam. Is it

A. Grammer
B. Grammar
C. Gramma

Should your answer be wrong there is no need to answer the rest of the exam paper

I'm against a lottery system for entry to Grammar. I think all should also be able to decline it, if it were a verb rather than a noun.
Grammo
Grammas
Grammat
Grammamus
Grammatis
Grammunt

.........or is it grammant.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I'm against a lottery system for entry to Grammar. I think all should also be able to decline it, if it were a verb rather than a noun.
Grammo
Grammas
Grammat
Grammamus
Grammatis
Grammunt

.........or is it grammant.

grammar school boy?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Why describe the current debate about the future of secondary education as if it was all about the re-introduction of grammar schools?

For most young people it will be all about the re-introduction of secondary modern schools, where children are condemned to a lifetime of failure, starting at age 11.

 

[Lawro's Lip]

Why describe the current debate about the future of secondary education as if it was all about the re-introduction of grammar schools?

For most young people it will be all about the re-introduction of secondary modern schools, where children are condemned to a lifetime of failure, starting at age 11.

Exactly right. Just shows the current poverty of thinking about the future of education in England.

 

[knocky1]

grammar school boy?

Hove rools, OK

 

[el punal]

Just waiting to see who would "spot that one".

And a couple more - Austraila and eduacation! I claim my free pie and pint!

 

[Sheebo]

Each to their own in my book - just don't ever think you're better than anyone else because of something like what school you went to...

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

The whole system needs changing IMO.

By 14 you probably know whether you're going to make your way in the world with your 'hands or your head'.

What's the point in someone with zero interest in say History, languages or Geography being forced into taking subjects they don't want to take, I wouldn't call the academic schools grammar schools, but I would have girls and boys who want to learn a trade have the opportunity to do so and move into 'technical' schools or whatever you want to call them.

I'd still make sure that basic English and maths as well as basic IT were still taught at these schools, as well as teaching all kids, at both types of school about bank accounts, credit cards, pensions, mortgages, mobile phone contracts etc....

The working world now is all about skills, not knowledge.

 

[perseus]

Why describe the current debate about the future of secondary education as if it was all about the re-introduction of grammar schools?

For most young people it will be all about the re-introduction of secondary modern schools, where children are condemned to a lifetime of failure, starting at age 11.

Secondary school: factory fodder and then they closed all the factories.