by papinian » Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:15 pm
supergirl: In grammar schools areas the top 20% or so on the test get places at the grammar schools. The result is that supposedly comprehensive schools that make up the rest of the secondary state schools lack the top 20% cohort and so are not really comprehensive. This is what AbbevilleMummy was getting at. In the 1948-60s pre-comprehensive school era the schools you went to if you didn't get into grammar school were called secondary moderns.
In the case of places in London like Kingston and Sutton that have grammar schools there isn't really much of an impact on the comprehensive schools because the grammar schools are full of students from other London boroughs without grammar schools, or that would have otherwise gone to independent schools, and so there isn't much of the top cohort "missing" from Kingston and Sutton comprehensive schools.
However, in larger areas like Kent that operate a grammar school system the phenomenon of poorer attainment in "comprehensive" schools is real and proven by statistics.
My own view is that grammar schools are probably unnecessary. Most London state secondaries seem to have huge intakes compared with secondary schools where I come from. (Again, like supergirl, I'm waiting for the deportion/tagging order.) If a school is taking 150+ pupils a year I would have thought that offers enough class groups to allow for students of all levels to be challenged. To be clear - I'm all for streaming/setting within schools - just dubious that it's necessary or desirable to have different streams go to different schools.
On the other hand, I have my doubts. Paraphrasing what AbbevilleMummy said, looking around at Wandsworth, I wonder whether we are now in the system that there are selective independent schools and state secondary schools and pupils at the selective independent schools are taking the lion's share of places on good undergraduate degree courses at good universities. The cynic in me says that there are some parents who send their children to independent schools who are against grammar schools because they fear it will increase competition at the top end and reduce the value of the education for which they are paying.
Wheresmyschool: My politics are pretty similar to yours and the schools hypocrisy IS something that puts me off voting for Labour. For all their faults, I think that Cameron, Gove and Morgan focused on raising standards and attainment in state schools, and, as regards their own children's education, sent them to state schools.
However, it seems that nearly every senior member of the current Labour shadow cabinet sent their children to independent schools or out of catchment grammars. As regards out of catchment grammars, I'm fine for them to say that they think grammars are a bad idea because they encourage people like them to send their children there, i.e. they would like to change the system but it needs to change for everyone. I think that's a perfectly fair approach, although unfortunately it's not one that they follow. As regards, those who send their children to independent schools, I'm fine with that, but if you send your children to independent schools you forfeit any right to say how state schools should be run.
supergirl: In grammar schools areas the top 20% or so on the test get places at the grammar schools. The result is that supposedly comprehensive schools that make up the rest of the secondary state schools lack the top 20% cohort and so are not really comprehensive. This is what AbbevilleMummy was getting at. In the 1948-60s pre-comprehensive school era the schools you went to if you didn't get into grammar school were called secondary moderns.
In the case of places in London like Kingston and Sutton that have grammar schools there isn't really much of an impact on the comprehensive schools because the grammar schools are full of students from other London boroughs without grammar schools, or that would have otherwise gone to independent schools, and so there isn't much of the top cohort "missing" from Kingston and Sutton comprehensive schools.
However, in larger areas like Kent that operate a grammar school system the phenomenon of poorer attainment in "comprehensive" schools is real and proven by statistics.
My own view is that grammar schools are probably unnecessary. Most London state secondaries seem to have huge intakes compared with secondary schools where I come from. (Again, like supergirl, I'm waiting for the deportion/tagging order.) If a school is taking 150+ pupils a year I would have thought that offers enough class groups to allow for students of all levels to be challenged. To be clear - I'm all for streaming/setting within schools - just dubious that it's necessary or desirable to have different streams go to different schools.
On the other hand, I have my doubts. Paraphrasing what AbbevilleMummy said, looking around at Wandsworth, I wonder whether we are now in the system that there are selective independent schools and state secondary schools and pupils at the selective independent schools are taking the lion's share of places on good undergraduate degree courses at good universities. The cynic in me says that there are some parents who send their children to independent schools who are against grammar schools because they fear it will increase competition at the top end and reduce the value of the education for which they are paying.
Wheresmyschool: My politics are pretty similar to yours and the schools hypocrisy IS something that puts me off voting for Labour. For all their faults, I think that Cameron, Gove and Morgan focused on raising standards and attainment in state schools, and, as regards their own children's education, sent them to state schools.
However, it seems that nearly every senior member of the current Labour shadow cabinet sent their children to independent schools or out of catchment grammars. As regards out of catchment grammars, I'm fine for them to say that they think grammars are a bad idea because they encourage people like them to send their children there, i.e. they would like to change the system but it needs to change for everyone. I think that's a perfectly fair approach, although unfortunately it's not one that they follow. As regards, those who send their children to independent schools, I'm fine with that, but if you send your children to independent schools you forfeit any right to say how state schools should be run.