The issue of education is that people generally learn in different ways and have different learning styles. No one is truly slow or even as was stated up thread " thick" but good academic achievement could be achieved by adjusting the learning style.
I have always thought that instead of having set schools which stream in bulk (11+ style segregation) they should have schools that stream internally by learning styles. There is a limit of course to how many styles could be achieved internally and teachers that could teach in a certain style to benefit the pupil. In part this was an approach taken with the one to one learning that some schools adopted where needed. That's expensive of course but if groups could be identified on learning styles this could be a way forward.
There is lots of difficulties notwithstanding a huge step change in how we educate from early years. It could only really work up to junior school level as then individual subject teachers become the norm from then on. Perhaps part of the early years could be to get pupils to start to adapt and cope with other learning styles in their formative years ready for the senior and final years of education where it's just hard work, application and lots of study that gets you there in the end.
I know there are some teachers and even headteacher on PB so is this a doable thing or to many challenges of one sort or another.
I've always been puzzled by the left's antipathy to grammar schools.
In the sixties, it was the public school lefties (Crosland et al) who were most against them.
Discriminating by ability ... bad. Discriminating by parent's wealth ... fine. And that was when coaching for the 11-plus was virtually unknown. if I were a cynic, I'd suspect they had a personal interest.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Here in Central Bedfordshire we already have that system - despite the government doing everything it can to dismantle three tier education.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
How does a grammar provide competition that drives up standards for the comprehensive? It takes the best pupils, parents & teachers and then what?
Force India may well come 4th this year. Lower budgets means it'll be difficult to achieve that next year. So, prize money now is likely the highest it can be under its current ownership, making it an optimal time to enter. That might be a secondary concern for a potential buyer, but it's better to have an extra $10m or however much the difference is between 5th and 4th than not.
So the Tories want to bring back failure as an educational criteria. What question are they asking when grammar schools become the answer? In our small West Country town we have an excellent comprehensive where we had a secondary modern and grammar system, no one is clamouring to bring back selection. Where is the evidence for this proposed travesty?
Then it very probably won't happen in your small West Country town. Are you saying though that your town should provide the template for education across the UK ? (FWIW, I'm agnostic on the grammar school issue.)
I've always been puzzled by the left's antipathy to grammar schools.
In the sixties, it was the public school lefties (Crosland et al) who were most against them.
Discriminating by ability ... bad. Discriminating by parent's wealth ... fine. And that was when coaching for the 11-plus was virtually unknown. if I were a cynic, I'd suspect they had a personal interest.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Here in Central Bedfordshire we already have that system - despite the government doing everything it can to dismantle three tier education.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
How does a grammar provide competition that drives up standards for the comprehensive? It takes the best pupils, parents & teachers and then what?
In most cities there are more than enough clever kids to go round. This will mean their parents no longer have to accept bog standard mediocrity. Parents & kids will have a choice - but have to work hard to realise it.
Rickets is easily preventable. Sunlight is the answer, so expose your skin (in moderation) to the sun. No more burkas, burkinis or face and arm coverings. This isn't Australia.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
There is something about grammars that makes remainer liberals and lefties foam at the mouth with outrage most satisfactorily.
Maybe we should just have a referendum on the idea?
Despite being a Remainer and left of centre I also went to a grammar school, and benefited from the opportunity it provided. So I feel it would be hypocritical to oppose them.
What concerns me, however, is that the argument in British education always seems to focus on the top end, where ISTM that we already do very well by international comparisons. We don't have any difficulty turning out a quota of highly educated/skilled people for the top jobs and our best universities and business schools remain at the top of global league tables. If there's an issue it is with social openness/mobility and getting away from the 'Eton factor'; in the old days at least grammar schools were more part of the answer than of the problem.
Conversely where we seem to do poorly is for average and below-average ability pupils, where international comparisons are less flattering. Around the world there seem to be plenty of places where the education system is better geared up to meeting the future needs of the average pupil - south east Asia, Germany and Scandinavia are often cited. Yet in Britain debate about 'education for the masses' rarely seems to get beyond hand-wringing about loss of numeracy and literacy skills, and endless debate about structures, academies, free schools etc.
I would feel happier about the Conservatives' renewed focus on grammar schools if at the same time they were demonstrating both a concern and some concrete actions to make education more relevant and successful for everyone else.
Edit/ and it also strikes me as peculiar that whilst religion declines in importance generally, in schools religion seems to have maintained or even increased its role, which I don't see as healthy.
obtaining her own mandate at a general election might help her avoid the fate of her predecessors.
I expect that's exactly what she'll do.
In May 2020.
BREXIT talks aren't going to get serious until the French & German elections are out of the way......so Article 50 mid-to late 2017, deal wrapped up before 2020.....
May 2020 - 'You asked, we delivered' - meanwhile Labour & UKIP have torn themselves apart and Sturgeon has been too busy stoking up grievance and affront to either call a referendum or run her country properly.....
I wonder if we'll still have an EU Parliament election in 2019.
I guess we're a member of the EU until we're no longer a member of the EU......but we've already declined the Presidency next year - so sacrificing our MEPs a couple of months early could do no harm......it would be worth it for the squeals of protest as they're chucked off the gravy train......
I don't think it was clarified if the EU parliament votes on the final deal. If it does, we'd want to keep our MEPs up until the last moment.
EU Parliament has to ratify any deal.
By clarified I mean whether or not the British MEPs get to vote on it.
I don't think there's anything in the treaty to suggest they wouldn't.
True. It is however also true that in other respects we are excluded from participating in decisions relating to the EU side of the Brexit process.
Britain's national government is excluded from participating in the vote of national governments, that's specifically stated in the treaty. You'd think if they'd meant to include MEPs in that they'd have said so as well; Treating them differently makes sense because unlike the member-state governments it's a bit fuzzy to what extent they actually represent their own country.
That said, it's possible they'll abstain, or parliament will vote to exclude them. (Not sure if it can technically do that...)
The fun part is going to be if Britain is still an EU member in 2019, and the S&D group beat the EPP... but by a margin smaller than the number of British Labour MEPs. Do they try to lay claim to Juncker's job? And if so, do they give it back if and when Britain finally leaves?
On grammars, I'm waiting on the green paper. My generation has a Pavlovian response to the phrase 'grammar school' which doesn't really shed much light on the issue.
I've always been puzzled by the left's antipathy to grammar schools.
In the sixties, it was the public school lefties (Crosland et al) who were most against them.
Discriminating by ability ... bad. Discriminating by parent's wealth ... fine. And that was when coaching for the 11-plus was virtually unknown. if I were a cynic, I'd suspect they had a personal interest.
Pull up the Drawbridge Jack?
Good to bump into you on the train this morning.
Indeed. First impromptu PB meetup I have attended. The very new Trains on Thameslink are very nice
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
It is an admission of failure. It's trying to do what is possible rather than ideologically pure and failing more children who fail to reach their potential. I want everyone to have the same education I did, but that just doesn't seem realistic.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Here in Central Bedfordshire we already have that system - despite the government doing everything it can to dismantle three tier education.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
How does a grammar provide competition that drives up standards for the comprehensive? It takes the best pupils, parents & teachers and then what?
In most cities there are more than enough clever kids to go round. This will mean their parents no longer have to accept bog standard mediocrity. Parents & kids will have a choice - but have to work hard to realise it.
How was that in any way an answer to Alistair's question?
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
There is something about grammars that makes remainer liberals and lefties foam at the mouth with outrage most satisfactorily.
Maybe we should just have a referendum on the idea?
Despite being a Remainer and left of centre I also went to a grammar school, and benefited from the opportunity it provided. So I feel it would be hypocritical to oppose them.
What concerns me, however, is that the argument in British education always seems to focus on the top end, where ISTM that we already do very well by international comparisons. We don't have any difficulty turning out a quota of highly educated/skilled people for the top jobs and our best universities and business schools remain at the top of global league tables. If there's an issue it is with social openness/mobility and getting away from the 'Eton factor'; in the old days at least grammar schools were more part of the answer than of the problem.
Conversely where we seem to do poorly is for average and below-average ability pupils, where international comparisons are less flattering. Around the world there seem to be plenty of places where the education system is better geared up to meeting the future needs of the average pupil - south east Asia, Germany and Scandinavia are often cited. Yet in Britain debate about 'education for the masses' rarely seems to get beyond hand-wringing about loss of numeracy and literacy skills, and endless debate about structures, academies, free schools etc.
I would feel happier about the Conservatives' renewed focus on grammar schools if at the same time they were demonstrating both a concern and some concrete actions to make education more relevant and successful for everyone else.
Edit/ and it also strikes me as peculiar that whilst religion declines in importance generally, in schools religion seems to have maintained or even increased its role, which I don't see as healthy.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Here in Central Bedfordshire we already have that system - despite the government doing everything it can to dismantle three tier education.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
How does a grammar provide competition that drives up standards for the comprehensive? It takes the best pupils, parents & teachers and then what?
Under the current system, best parents for sure, but as many have been pained to point out definitely not the best students.
On grammars, I'm waiting on the green paper. My generation has a Pavlovian response to the phrase 'grammar school' which doesn't really shed much light on the issue.
Don't worry, it's not just your generation. It's those of the newer generation who ape your generation too.
My own view, which may be quite wrong, is that educational achievement for the average or below average child depends hugely on having some discipline to get the necessary rote learned basics well founded. The Asian, German, etc examples cited seem quite strong at forcing kids to memorise their times tables. In China they recite them out loud like a mantra. All the kids bloody well have to learn it. Without the basics the relatively free conditions in many schools (sitting in clusters around desks rather than alone in rows, culture of ill-discipline, etc) merely gives free rein to the rowdy / disinterested to ruin the opportunity for all.
The one ingredient we most lack in bad schools is the right culture not money. There are so many examples in the news of failing schools with shithead lefty headteachers getting replaced by low tolerance ambitious disciplinarian heads who then dramatically raise the outcomes that we can surely by now learn from experience. Unless, of course, you are a lefty educationalist. All you really need to teach is a blackboard and chalk and a will to succeed.
Genuine question: Is May proposing that all comps MUST become grammars or that any school MAY become a grammar. Is it an enforcement or a relaxation?
Relaxation.
Basically schools will be able to discriminate by ability if they want to (why the left hate it)
More or less the same thing. If in a town one school becomes a grammar, the others must follow or accept the risk they become defacto secondary moderns.
I'm not sure that grammar schools are the real answer, but it does seem that the current system utterly fails to instill any sense of aspiration or motivation for acheivement, especially and particularly in lower income households.
It also seems a bit sickening when multiple labour politicians which went to Grammar Schools are now attacking them.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Here in Central Bedfordshire we already have that system - despite the government doing everything it can to dismantle three tier education.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
How does a grammar provide competition that drives up standards for the comprehensive? It takes the best pupils, parents & teachers and then what?
In most cities there are more than enough clever kids to go round. This will mean their parents no longer have to accept bog standard mediocrity. Parents & kids will have a choice - but have to work hard to realise it.
Pushy parents never accept bog standard mediocrity - they constantly engage with whatever school their child attends looking to push up standards for their child.
Some people have this bizarre notion that without Grammars parents will just subside into apathetic mediocriry which is so divergent from reality as to question what colour they think the sky is.
I'm not sure that grammar schools are the real answer, but it does seem that the current system utterly fails to instill any sense of aspiration or motivation for acheivement, especially and particularly in lower income households.
The main drivers for those are majoritarily parental, then peer group (second order effect of peers' parents), then educational establishment.
I have my doubts about grammars getting the best teachers. I remember two or three hopeless teachers at my grammar school, despite them being well-educated. And being teachers, they can't be dismissed for being hopeless.
Facilities weren't particularly good either, but discipline was reasonably strict and that enabled those wanting to learn to progress. So in my somewhat old-fashioned experience, that was the main issue.
It only takes two or three unruly pupils in a class to disrupt things.
We always suspected that public schools existed to provide a network of contacts - a sort of masonic lodge for the future.
Times have changed, and parents no longer unthinkingly support the teacher imposing discipline on their precious offspring (unless they're paying a fortune for the privilege).
On Tuesday four [Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside] of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.
I genuinely don't understand why educating our children has to be so complicated. Governments of all stripes have failed abysmally to tackle the problems, and generally just tend to mess things up more and teachers and the unions must take a share of the blame as well. Schools in my area advertise on local radio, and have "business managers" to promote them. Why? What the flying feck does a local Comp-sorry- "Academy" -need a bloody business manager for? Can't we just have good schools in every area, educating pupils to a high standard? Or am I being naive?
Because we don't actually ever reform education in a meaningful way, we just rotate the chairs. The way education is delivered isn't that far removed from the way it was 50+ years ago. Virtually nothing else is that way.
I mean the fact the academy movement is "controversial" says it. Being an academy is basically just cutting the middle man out, it is hardly introducing School Of One or KIPPs.
I'm not sure that grammar schools are the real answer, but it does seem that the current system utterly fails to instill any sense of aspiration or motivation for acheivement, especially and particularly in lower income households.
The main drivers for those are majoritarily parental, then peer group (second order effect of peers' parents), then educational establishment.
Not much which governments can do about parents to be frank. Somethings the government can control something they can't.
What is needed is educational establishments in the poorest areas of this country which push for excellence academically and has a way of identifing pupils with potential and supporting them, and I don't think the current system deliverers that.
If that is what May is pushing for, then she should be supported to the hilt.
I have my doubts about grammars getting the best teachers. I remember two or three hopeless teachers at my grammar school, despite them being well-educated. And being teachers, they can't be dismissed for being hopeless.
Facilities weren't particularly good either, but discipline was reasonably strict and that enabled those wanting to learn to progress. So in my somewhat old-fashioned experience, that was the main issue.
It only takes two or three unruly pupils in a class to disrupt things.
We always suspected that public schools existed to provide a network of contacts - a sort of masonic lodge for the future.
Times have changed, and parents no longer unthinkingly support the teacher imposing discipline on their precious offspring (unless they're paying a fortune for the privilege).
Apropos public schools, poor teaching and contact networks:
"A father from Staffordshire is suing a £28,000-per-year private school after his son left with just one pass at GCSE. He claims his son – who left with one C grade in science last year – would have been better off going to a local state comprehensive. The only thing he came away from Abbotsholme with differently is that his best friend is the son of a Russian oligarch."
On Tuesday four [Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside] of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.
I wonder which party controls those councils?
Labour unlike those north of the Tyne. I believe the other issues are:-
Durham really don't want to be part of it as they fear being ignored with all the focus being made in Tyne and Wear. It also really has a problem because it doesn't quite fit in either of the Regional groupings...
Gateshead hates the fact that Newcastle would lead..
Can't remember why South Tyneside and Sunderland don't like it..
Tees Valley which is all Labour authorities enthusiastically pushed for and immediately signed a deal...
On the proposed reintroduction of secondary moderns.
We already have secondary moderns, they're just called comprehensives.
I would argue that there are secondary moderns - comprehensives who don't stream their pupils on ability and secondary moderns within some comprehensive grammar schools - where they do.
It's perfectly possible for all schools to generate good results provided they target their teaching time correctly (stream pupils by ability) and set expectations...
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
What if you are good at Maths but shit at English? A streamed comprehensive can cater for that. Your system, or indeed a grammar school, cannot.
If grammar schools are such naked producer interest (spoiler: they're not), why do parents support them, but lefty teaching unions oppose them?
Parents as a whole don't.
I approve of streaming on ability and would avoid any school that doesn't do it.
Sitting an exam to get into a school however isn't right as any test will always be gamed to the extent that those with money will always do better. And I say this even though I attended a Grammar school.
The thing is with prepping so rampant now I really don't think they are suitable in this day and age - and I pity my brother and cousins who are starting to suffer the rather more competitive 11 plus this year..
The other issue they report is the number of people sitting the exam is far more than in our day. Then only people in the county sat it now, half of Hertfordshire and Harrow seem to do so as well. Supposedly there are a couple of trains out of London that a busier than the ones into London on a morning...
On the subject of Grammar Schools and selecting via ability etc. That still goes on to a very large degree in comp schools. All through my time at high school classes were split into up to 5 or so levels based on ability (talking about the core subjects like Maths English and Science here). If you start off in one of the higher groups you're going to be with other studious pupils (apart from the odd very intelligent but misbehaved/lazy type), and if you're in a lower group you are likely to be in a class full of misbehaving children that disrupt for the rest of them. There's very little mobility between those ability levels.
Seems to me like Grammar schools just add one more ability level to it. I don't see them really changing much either way as we already have such an ability-divided system.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
Max, I'd support this. Obviously attempting to make any improvements to education whatsoever is almost impossible because of the teaching unions. And there are massive practical difficulties too - e.g. the buildings which currently exist would all be the wrong size for the new institutions which are needed. And it would be pretty disruptive for the generation passing through as the changes were made. BUT - let's at least start by considering what we want education to look like - how we get there is secondary. Who do you see running these schools? DfE? Local authorities? Academy trusts? Private organisations?
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
By streaming based on ability you get kids pushed to their personal limits.
High performing kids get pushed further and faster than they would otherwise reaching their potential.
Struggling kids can get more attention and time spent on ensuring they get the attention on the basics they need rather than being left behind.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
What if you are good at Maths but shit at English? A streamed comprehensive can cater for that. Your system, or indeed a grammar school, cannot.
Of course it can, the point of middle school is to find potential, someone who is good at maths and shit at English would go to the grammar and specialise in maths and science. Oh, I also forgot to mention, I'd do away with GCSEs and have everyone sit 6.5 A-Levels instead, more like the Baccalaureate. Everyone does English, Maths and "applied science" to the basic 0.5 level (two years) and they choose additional advanced subjects to accompany their basics.
Again, a huge change but I think GCSEs are not fit for purpose and they are letting down a generation of kids with their low standards.
Despite being a Remainer and left of centre I also went to a grammar school, and benefited from the opportunity it provided. So I feel it would be hypocritical to oppose them.
What concerns me, however, is that the argument in British education always seems to focus on the top end, where ISTM that we already do very well by international comparisons. We don't have any difficulty turning out a quota of highly educated/skilled people for the top jobs and our best universities and business schools remain at the top of global league tables. If there's an issue it is with social openness/mobility and getting away from the 'Eton factor'; in the old days at least grammar schools were more part of the answer than of the problem.
Conversely where we seem to do poorly is for average and below-average ability pupils, where international comparisons are less flattering. Around the world there seem to be plenty of places where the education system is better geared up to meeting the future needs of the average pupil - south east Asia, Germany and Scandinavia are often cited. Yet in Britain debate about 'education for the masses' rarely seems to get beyond hand-wringing about loss of numeracy and literacy skills, and endless debate about structures, academies, free schools etc.
I would feel happier about the Conservatives' renewed focus on grammar schools if at the same time they were demonstrating both a concern and some concrete actions to make education more relevant and successful for everyone else.
Edit/ and it also strikes me as peculiar that whilst religion declines in importance generally, in schools religion seems to have maintained or even increased its role, which I don't see as healthy.
I've spoken favourably here from my left of centre Remainer world view about the idea of grammar schools before.
However, I agree that the top priority is to get the secondary modern, more vocational part of our current comprehensive education right. Grammars are a lower priority that could fit in with that in an overall system.
An excellent post from start to finish, IanB2, and perhaps the political lines on differentiation within the school system are nowhere near as clear cut as people think.
On Tuesday four [Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside] of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.
I wonder which party controls those councils?
Labour unlike those north of the Tyne. I believe the other issues are:-
Durham really don't want to be part of it as they fear being ignored with all the focus being made in Tyne and Wear. It also really has a problem because it doesn't quite fit in either of the Regional groupings...
Gateshead hates the fact that Newcastle would lead..
Can't remember why South Tyneside and Sunderland don't like it..
Tees Valley which is all Labour authorities enthusiastically pushed for and immediately signed a deal...
My friends in the North say 'plodding jobsworths out to protect their own careers'.....
Labour politicians in the North East should glance a little further north and see what decades of complacent incompetent hegemony gets you.....
On the proposed reintroduction of secondary moderns.
We already have secondary moderns, they're just called comprehensives.
It's perfectly possible for all schools to generate good results provided they target their teaching time correctly (stream pupils by ability) and set expectations...
And good results aren't just about the top level of pupils achieving As. We now need all levels of ability to be as well educated as possible, especially those who are going into more vocational, technical jobs.
Look at this thread and behold the genius of Theresa May's politics. Throw out a thing about grammar schools and everyone's completely forgotten about Brexit. (And TSE's article, unfortunately.)
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
I'd also support something like this, though I'd do away with entrance tests and base entry on overall performance at middle school. That wouldn't be far off the way they do things in Germany, though all the states do it a bit differently.
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
By streaming based on ability you get kids pushed to their personal limits.
High performing kids get pushed further and faster than they would otherwise reaching their potential.
Struggling kids can get more attention and time spent on ensuring they get the attention on the basics they need rather than being left behind.
Win, win.
You don't need a separate school for that though.
You just stream within the school and make sure that you have competent teachers who know how to challenge their pupils. Grammars just seem to be about parents who don't want their children having to mix with chavs.
Local Authority councillors are generally of poor quality. As we've seen elsewhere a directly elected Mayor for the NE would attract national calibre candidates. Councillors hate the idea. It's the North East's loss. As for replacement funding for lost EU grants why should Westminster ? The correlations between high EU grants, having voted heavily for Brexit and not electing Conservative MP's while not exact is very strong. These areas deserve to be shafted at the expense of deficit reduction and protecting our research universities. I hope they do get shafted.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
I'd also support something like this, though I'd do away with entrance tests and base entry on overall performance at middle school. That wouldn't be far off the way they do things in Germany, though all the states do it a bit differently.
There isn't an entrance test, those who are in top sets at the end of middle schools end up in the "grammars".
It's actually based on the Swiss/German education system, so it should be quite similar!
If grammar schools are such naked producer interest (spoiler: they're not), why do parents support them, but lefty teaching unions oppose them?
I'd argue that most parents supporting grammars are doing so because they want a school with good discipline, high expectations and rigorous teaching. That is why Gove focussed on developing free schools rather than returning to Grammars.
On the proposed reintroduction of secondary moderns.
We already have secondary moderns, they're just called comprehensives.
It's perfectly possible for all schools to generate good results provided they target their teaching time correctly (stream pupils by ability) and set expectations...
And good results aren't just about the top level of pupils achieving As. We now need all levels of ability to be as well educated as possible, especially those who are going into more vocational, technical jobs.
Sadly league tables are still based on number of exams passed at particular grades rather than the amount of progress between Year 7 and 11. That will hopefully be improving now schools can estimate progress based on ability at Year 6 (assuming the primary school hasn't taught to the test).
Really, who'd have imagined that a weaker Pound would boost exports, limit imports and thus help our trade deficit? Certainly not all the fucking geniuses at the Bank of England or the Treasury!
On Tuesday four [Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside] of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.
I wonder which party controls those councils?
Labour unlike those north of the Tyne. I believe the other issues are:-
Durham really don't want to be part of it as they fear being ignored with all the focus being made in Tyne and Wear. It also really has a problem because it doesn't quite fit in either of the Regional groupings...
Gateshead hates the fact that Newcastle would lead..
Can't remember why South Tyneside and Sunderland don't like it..
Tees Valley which is all Labour authorities enthusiastically pushed for and immediately signed a deal...
My friends in the North say 'plodding jobsworths out to protect their own careers'.....
Labour politicians in the North East should glance a little further north and see what decades of complacent incompetent hegemony gets you.....
Yep that probably covers all of them except Durham - which really is piggy in the middle between 2 industrial areas and doesn't quite fit in either one...
The bigger problem for Mrs May is that she does not have a mandate from the electorate. Yesterday's announcement on grammar schools is indicative of the growing problem of her wanting to do "her things" yet it was not in the manifesto, therefore her MPs and the House of Lords are free to oppose. She should either have a GE or not try to introduce new policy. I fear she will plough ahead. The Brexit is enough to tackle and these other fights will erode her authority and energy.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
I'd also support something like this, though I'd do away with entrance tests and base entry on overall performance at middle school. That wouldn't be far off the way they do things in Germany, though all the states do it a bit differently.
Yup Max's idea is very similar to the German model which is very successful. It is also very similar to the model recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Public Education in 1874. It has never been implemented primarily I think because the educational establishment didn't want it.
Should just call their bluff. Wales, even more so than Scotland would not be able to function as a sucessful independent state.
It's an extraordinary thing for a staunchly unionist and experienced politician to say. I think it needs more analysis than ' tell the taffs to sod off then ' . Why has he said something utterly unlike anything he has said before ? Hint: IMHO it's about the customs union not the Single Market.
Should just call their bluff. Wales, even more so than Scotland would not be able to function as a sucessful independent state.
It's an extraordinary thing for a staunchly unionist and experienced politician to say. I think it needs more analysis than ' tell the taffs to sod off then ' . Why has he said something utterly unlike anything he has said before ? Hint: IMHO it's about the customs union not the Single Market.
Maybe wrong, but it looks like a piddling gob shite just wanting to sit at the top table.
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
By streaming based on ability you get kids pushed to their personal limits.
High performing kids get pushed further and faster than they would otherwise reaching their potential.
Struggling kids can get more attention and time spent on ensuring they get the attention on the basics they need rather than being left behind.
Win, win.
You don't need a separate school for that though.
You just stream within the school and make sure that you have competent teachers who know how to challenge their pupils. Grammars just seem to be about parents who don't want their children having to mix with chavs.
Define what you mean by chavs. If you simply mean those of a poor background then no since encouraging those is part of the idea.
If you mean separating those of a poor attitude who bully those who do well and try and disrupt education and drag things down to their level then yes absolutely. Is that a bad thing?
Local Authority councillors are generally of poor quality. As we've seen elsewhere a directly elected Mayor for the NE would attract national calibre candidates. Councillors hate the idea. It's the North East's loss. As for replacement funding for lost EU grants why should Westminster ? The correlations between high EU grants, having voted heavily for Brexit and not electing Conservative MP's while not exact is very strong. These areas deserve to be shafted at the expense of deficit reduction and protecting our research universities. I hope they do get shafted.
In fairness, Newcastle narrowly voted Remain.....but it's always been a place apart from the rest of the North East - a relatively prosperous market town for a huge hinterland - with areas of desperate poverty around it on Tyneside, but the city itself has always done 'ok' - even in the 1930s.....
Should just call their bluff. Wales, even more so than Scotland would not be able to function as a sucessful independent state.
And even Plaid Cymru, to there credit, admit Wales wouldn't be financially viable as an independent state at the moment. There 2016 manifesto didn't include a commitment to a referendum on independence for this reason.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
I'd also support something like this, though I'd do away with entrance tests and base entry on overall performance at middle school. That wouldn't be far off the way they do things in Germany, though all the states do it a bit differently.
Yup Max's idea is very similar to the German model which is very successful. It is also very similar to the model recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Public Education in 1874. It has never been implemented primarily I think because the educational establishment didn't want it.
Bloody lefty teachers.
The best thing about the model is that it stretches the best out of academically brilliant pupils and doesn't abandon the vast number of middling students to an educational life of middling to poor grades and three years at a mediocre university. It also doesn't close the door to late developers who, provided they perform well, can sit A-Levels and go to university afterwards.
The biggest problem would be inertia, to implement a change of this kind would cost a lot of money and would face severe resistance from the idiot teaching unions.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
What if you are good at Maths but shit at English? A streamed comprehensive can cater for that. Your system, or indeed a grammar school, cannot.
Of course it can, the point of middle school is to find potential, someone who is good at maths and shit at English would go to the grammar and specialise in maths and science. Oh, I also forgot to mention, I'd do away with GCSEs and have everyone sit 6.5 A-Levels instead, more like the Baccalaureate. Everyone does English, Maths and "applied science" to the basic 0.5 level (two years) and they choose additional advanced subjects to accompany their basics.
Again, a huge change but I think GCSEs are not fit for purpose and they are letting down a generation of kids with their low standards.
Good point on GCSEs, a lot of international English schools are moving to the IB to provide a broader education up to 18.
Signs to watch out for. Meddling Number 10 staff with a tiny majority and a lot of sacked people on back benches could set the seeds of the next implosion.
Is Theresa going to be the most radical PM we've had since we last had a lady PM?
It's always the quiet one's...
A few threads back someone suggested that Obama may have been blunt with May at the G20.....contrast her attitude to the US (Gary McKinnon) with Cameron or Blair.....
Should just call their bluff. Wales, even more so than Scotland would not be able to function as a sucessful independent state.
It's an extraordinary thing for a staunchly unionist and experienced politician to say. I think it needs more analysis than ' tell the taffs to sod off then ' . Why has he said something utterly unlike anything he has said before ? Hint: IMHO it's about the customs union not the Single Market.
Wales is Ruth to England's Naomi. Not gonna happen. We are an economic basket case, on a par with Belarus.
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
By streaming based on ability you get kids pushed to their personal limits.
High performing kids get pushed further and faster than they would otherwise reaching their potential.
Struggling kids can get more attention and time spent on ensuring they get the attention on the basics they need rather than being left behind.
Win, win.
You don't need a separate school for that though.
You just stream within the school and make sure that you have competent teachers who know how to challenge their pupils. Grammars just seem to be about parents who don't want their children having to mix with chavs.
Define what you mean by chavs. If you simply mean those of a poor background then no since encouraging those is part of the idea.
If you mean separating those of a poor attitude who bully those who do well and try and disrupt education and drag things down to their level then yes absolutely. Is that a bad thing?
The second paragraph of your post succinctly describes the elephant in the room that no one dare mention that is the real root of the whole grammar school debate.
In mainly rural/small?town areas where the demographic you describe is small, comprehensives work.
In larger settlements where such people reach a critical mass they just drag the school down making comprehensive schools fail.
The problem is the anti intellectualism, anti aspiration nihilistic culture of what used to be known as the urban working classes.
Something the left wing establishment used to their own end but recently bit them on the backside in the recent referendum.
Brexit means Brexit. Grammar schools means grammar schools. It's not clear yet precisely what May means.
Interesting though that Justine Greening seems far from convinced herself; this is May's agenda.
In other news, the govt has refused to give the National Infrastructure Commission independent statutory basis as was previously planned. Presumably wants to retain control of infrastructure where of course UK has lamentable record of short-termism.
I know it's early days, but everything we've seen so far indicates a centralising government with decsion making bottle necked at the top.
The exact opposite, in fact, to what we need to solve UK's systemic challenges.
Really, who'd have imagined that a weaker Pound would boost exports, limit imports and thus help our trade deficit? Certainly not all the fucking geniuses at the Bank of England or the Treasury!
True. The problem with PPE degrees is that they spend so little time on Economics.
OK. I surrender. Let's ignore a careful crafted anti Soundbite from an experienced and usually dull politician and express no interest in what he might actually have meant. We'll leave that to specialised political discussion sites.
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
By streaming based on ability you get kids pushed to their personal limits.
High performing kids get pushed further and faster than they would otherwise reaching their potential.
Struggling kids can get more attention and time spent on ensuring they get the attention on the basics they need rather than being left behind.
Win, win.
You don't need a separate school for that though.
You just stream within the school and make sure that you have competent teachers who know how to challenge their pupils. Grammars just seem to be about parents who don't want their children having to mix with chavs.
Define what you mean by chavs. If you simply mean those of a poor background then no since encouraging those is part of the idea.
If you mean separating those of a poor attitude who bully those who do well and try and disrupt education and drag things down to their level then yes absolutely. Is that a bad thing?
To expand that point, and to throw the cat among the pigeons, how about grammar schools in reverse, with the top 80% going to them and the bottom 20% educated separately in a way that caters to their abilities - perhaps with the aim of learning a trade by the age of sixteen.
A more practical education might be a better way of teaching skills in maths, English and economics to those who would do nothing but disrupt more traditional classes.
@YellowSubmarine The Brexiters have no interest in understanding what "demos" is in post-Brexit Britain. It's remarkably short-sighted and foolish of them of course, but you are not going to get them to think about something difficult when they can swap anecdotes about how they grew up in a coalshed, went to a grammar school and were transformed into Waitrose shoppers.
In terms of European educational standards Germany, with a selective system is classed as mediocre whereas Finland with no selection at all tops the table. There are adults who still hark back to the ' opening of the envelope' which determined their path in life at the age of 11, let's not condone this example of child cruelty. We should look at the example of Finland before embarking on a return to secondary modern schools.
Re Grammars. May's played a blinder. She needs to distract from Brexit for a bit and has used a topic even the most labile Brexiteers find fascinating. It's working.
Really, who'd have imagined that a weaker Pound would boost exports, limit imports and thus help our trade deficit? Certainly not all the fucking geniuses at the Bank of England or the Treasury!
I bought forward my last import purchase (A new Nikon) as I anticipated the price heading north in a post Brexit event (And not budging in the event of remain). I wonder if others did so for cars and so forth ?
In terms of European educational standards Germany, with a selective system is classed as mediocre whereas Finland with no selection at all tops the table. There are adults who still hark back to the ' opening of the envelope' which determined their path in life at the age of 11, let's not condone this example of child cruelty. We should look at the example of Finland before embarking on a return to secondary modern schools.
This. There is huge amount of research on how different education systems perform. Sadly for the nostalgists here, selection is not key. And no comfort for lefties either, as class size also irrelevant.
It's all about good teachers, strong school leadership, and accountability.
So instead of just bringing back grammar schools and calling it a day, how about this for an education system:
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff 9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects. 14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
I'd also support something like this, though I'd do away with entrance tests and base entry on overall performance at middle school. That wouldn't be far off the way they do things in Germany, though all the states do it a bit differently.
Yup Max's idea is very similar to the German model which is very successful. It is also very similar to the model recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Public Education in 1874. It has never been implemented primarily I think because the educational establishment didn't want it.
In my part of Leics we have Primary, Middle and Senior schools. Senior starts with GCSE.
The results are 10 points better than other Comprehensives in the county (where there is a two school system) in terms of results. Lots going on to Oxbridge and medical school etc. Fox jr went there.
Selectionat age 14 for GCSE courses is much fairer than 11+. No-one deplores University selection by academic potential, but 11 is the wrong age.
The bars to bright kids from poor backgrounds are more complex. I am currently reading Hillbilly Elegy by J D Vance, about his progression from the wrong side of the tracks to Harvard Law School. It is an insight into American politics, but not far from the WWC experience in Leicester too.
I am told that the parliamentary process to unwind the fixed term parliament is underway.
Anyone know anything about this?
Google has provided a reference to the Fixed Term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill which is a private members bill started in the House of Lords by Lord Desai.
Not sure if this will succeed without government support.
Comments
I have always thought that instead of having set schools which stream in bulk (11+ style segregation) they should have schools that stream internally by learning styles. There is a limit of course to how many styles could be achieved internally and teachers that could teach in a certain style to benefit the pupil. In part this was an approach taken with the one to one learning that some schools adopted where needed. That's expensive of course but if groups could be identified on learning styles this could be a way forward.
There is lots of difficulties notwithstanding a huge step change in how we educate from early years. It could only really work up to junior school level as then individual subject teachers become the norm from then on. Perhaps part of the early years could be to get pupils to start to adapt and cope with other learning styles in their formative years ready for the senior and final years of education where it's just hard work, application and lots of study that gets you there in the end.
I know there are some teachers and even headteacher on PB so is this a doable thing or to many challenges of one sort or another.
I slightly disagree with one aspect, though.
Force India may well come 4th this year. Lower budgets means it'll be difficult to achieve that next year. So, prize money now is likely the highest it can be under its current ownership, making it an optimal time to enter. That might be a secondary concern for a potential buyer, but it's better to have an extra $10m or however much the difference is between 5th and 4th than not.
(FWIW, I'm agnostic on the grammar school issue.)
It's unlike you to be racist.
Rickets is easily preventable. Sunlight is the answer, so expose your skin (in moderation) to the sun. No more burkas, burkinis or face and arm coverings. This isn't Australia.
Basically schools will be able to discriminate by ability if they want to (why the left hate it)
What concerns me, however, is that the argument in British education always seems to focus on the top end, where ISTM that we already do very well by international comparisons. We don't have any difficulty turning out a quota of highly educated/skilled people for the top jobs and our best universities and business schools remain at the top of global league tables. If there's an issue it is with social openness/mobility and getting away from the 'Eton factor'; in the old days at least grammar schools were more part of the answer than of the problem.
Conversely where we seem to do poorly is for average and below-average ability pupils, where international comparisons are less flattering. Around the world there seem to be plenty of places where the education system is better geared up to meeting the future needs of the average pupil - south east Asia, Germany and Scandinavia are often cited. Yet in Britain debate about 'education for the masses' rarely seems to get beyond hand-wringing about loss of numeracy and literacy skills, and endless debate about structures, academies, free schools etc.
I would feel happier about the Conservatives' renewed focus on grammar schools if at the same time they were demonstrating both a concern and some concrete actions to make education more relevant and successful for everyone else.
Edit/ and it also strikes me as peculiar that whilst religion declines in importance generally, in schools religion seems to have maintained or even increased its role, which I don't see as healthy.
That said, it's possible they'll abstain, or parliament will vote to exclude them. (Not sure if it can technically do that...)
The fun part is going to be if Britain is still an EU member in 2019, and the S&D group beat the EPP... but by a margin smaller than the number of British Labour MEPs. Do they try to lay claim to Juncker's job? And if so, do they give it back if and when Britain finally leaves?
On grammars, I'm waiting on the green paper. My generation has a Pavlovian response to the phrase 'grammar school' which doesn't really shed much light on the issue.
The one ingredient we most lack in bad schools is the right culture not money. There are so many examples in the news of failing schools with shithead lefty headteachers getting replaced by low tolerance ambitious disciplinarian heads who then dramatically raise the outcomes that we can surely by now learn from experience. Unless, of course, you are a lefty educationalist. All you really need to teach is a blackboard and chalk and a will to succeed.
It also seems a bit sickening when multiple labour politicians which went to Grammar Schools are now attacking them.
Some people have this bizarre notion that without Grammars parents will just subside into apathetic mediocriry which is so divergent from reality as to question what colour they think the sky is.
I have my doubts about grammars getting the best teachers. I remember two or three hopeless teachers at my grammar school, despite them being well-educated. And being teachers, they can't be dismissed for being hopeless.
Facilities weren't particularly good either, but discipline was reasonably strict and that enabled those wanting to learn to progress. So in my somewhat old-fashioned experience, that was the main issue.
It only takes two or three unruly pupils in a class to disrupt things.
We always suspected that public schools existed to provide a network of contacts - a sort of masonic lodge for the future.
Times have changed, and parents no longer unthinkingly support the teacher imposing discipline on their precious offspring (unless they're paying a fortune for the privilege).
On Tuesday four [Sunderland, Durham, Gateshead and South Tyneside] of the seven North East Combined Authority councils decided to halt plans amid fears over post-Brexit funding from the government.
I wonder which party controls those councils?
I mean the fact the academy movement is "controversial" says it. Being an academy is basically just cutting the middle man out, it is hardly introducing School Of One or KIPPs.
What is needed is educational establishments in the poorest areas of this country which push for excellence academically and has a way of identifing pupils with potential and supporting them, and I don't think the current system deliverers that.
If that is what May is pushing for, then she should be supported to the hilt.
Father sues private school after son fails all but one of his GCSEs
"A father from Staffordshire is suing a £28,000-per-year private school after his son left with just one pass at GCSE. He claims his son – who left with one C grade in science last year – would have been better off going to a local state comprehensive. The only thing he came away from Abbotsholme with differently is that his best friend is the son of a Russian oligarch."
Durham really don't want to be part of it as they fear being ignored with all the focus being made in Tyne and Wear. It also really has a problem because it doesn't quite fit in either of the Regional groupings...
Gateshead hates the fact that Newcastle would lead..
Can't remember why South Tyneside and Sunderland don't like it..
Tees Valley which is all Labour authorities enthusiastically pushed for and immediately signed a deal...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/paralympics/rio-2016/medals/countries
It's perfectly possible for all schools to generate good results provided they target their teaching time correctly (stream pupils by ability) and set expectations...
4-8, primary school. Learn the basics, reading, writing, maths, ecology, creative stuff
9-13, middle school. Start in a comprehensive class, by the end the pupils are all streamed by ability in different subjects.
14-18, finishing school. Top academic sets from middle schools go to the new grammars, top creative types go to creative schools, everyone else goes to "trade school" to do an apprenticeship after which, if they perform well, they can attend sixth form colleges and do A-Levels. Those unsuited to academia will have an apprenticeship at the end with which they can get a job after leaving school.
Give the trade finishing schools the most funding per pupil to ensure the best possible outcomes, make them about getting ready for the world of work, those who are later developers still get their chance at 18 to do A-Levels and go to university, just a couple of years later.
It would be an absolutely massive change, but I think would get better results for the huge number of children who don't excel academically, but have other skills which schools are completely incapable of providing an education in at the moment.
Sitting an exam to get into a school however isn't right as any test will always be gamed to the extent that those with money will always do better. And I say this even though I attended a Grammar school.
The thing is with prepping so rampant now I really don't think they are suitable in this day and age - and I pity my brother and cousins who are starting to suffer the rather more competitive 11 plus this year..
The other issue they report is the number of people sitting the exam is far more than in our day. Then only people in the county sat it now, half of Hertfordshire and Harrow seem to do so as well. Supposedly there are a couple of trains out of London that a busier than the ones into London on a morning...
Seems to me like Grammar schools just add one more ability level to it. I don't see them really changing much either way as we already have such an ability-divided system.
£1.1bn narrowing of total trade deficit to £4.5bn in July https://t.co/XEE0CLT4mH
8.6% growth in new construction orders in Q2, led by housing https://t.co/jmutJEI55F
£0.8bn increase in exports and £0.3bn decrease in imports in July https://t.co/sNpSbz6PkR
Obviously attempting to make any improvements to education whatsoever is almost impossible because of the teaching unions. And there are massive practical difficulties too - e.g. the buildings which currently exist would all be the wrong size for the new institutions which are needed. And it would be pretty disruptive for the generation passing through as the changes were made. BUT - let's at least start by considering what we want education to look like - how we get there is secondary.
Who do you see running these schools? DfE? Local authorities? Academy trusts? Private organisations?
High performing kids get pushed further and faster than they would otherwise reaching their potential.
Struggling kids can get more attention and time spent on ensuring they get the attention on the basics they need rather than being left behind.
Win, win.
Again, a huge change but I think GCSEs are not fit for purpose and they are letting down a generation of kids with their low standards.
However, I agree that the top priority is to get the secondary modern, more vocational part of our current comprehensive education right. Grammars are a lower priority that could fit in with that in an overall system.
An excellent post from start to finish, IanB2, and perhaps the political lines on differentiation within the school system are nowhere near as clear cut as people think.
Labour politicians in the North East should glance a little further north and see what decades of complacent incompetent hegemony gets you.....
You just stream within the school and make sure that you have competent teachers who know how to challenge their pupils. Grammars just seem to be about parents who don't want their children having to mix with chavs.
It's actually based on the Swiss/German education system, so it should be quite similar!
The bigger problem for Mrs May is that she does not have a mandate from the electorate. Yesterday's announcement on grammar schools is indicative of the growing problem of her wanting to do "her things" yet it was not in the manifesto, therefore her MPs and the House of Lords are free to oppose. She should either have a GE or not try to introduce new policy. I fear she will plough ahead. The Brexit is enough to tackle and these other fights will erode her authority and energy.
John McTernan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/08/owen-smith-wiped-the-floor-with-jeremy-corbyn-in-labours-questio/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
If you mean separating those of a poor attitude who bully those who do well and try and disrupt education and drag things down to their level then yes absolutely. Is that a bad thing?
It's always the quiet one's...
The best thing about the model is that it stretches the best out of academically brilliant pupils and doesn't abandon the vast number of middling students to an educational life of middling to poor grades and three years at a mediocre university. It also doesn't close the door to late developers who, provided they perform well, can sit A-Levels and go to university afterwards.
The biggest problem would be inertia, to implement a change of this kind would cost a lot of money and would face severe resistance from the idiot teaching unions.
"That photo-leak showed that Justine Greening has concerns about the grammar schools policy at least. But like other Ministers she doesn’t hold full sway in her own department. Whether such tight control by a tiny number of people is sustainable or desirable – and indeed whether they desire it themselves, or whether it is a temporary expedient – is a matter for another day. For this one, praise will do."
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/the-treatment-of-catholic-schools-is-a-burning-injustice-a-wrong-that-may-is-now-set-to-right.html
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/774157969713799168
In mainly rural/small?town areas where the demographic you describe is small, comprehensives work.
In larger settlements where such people reach a critical mass they just drag the school down making comprehensive schools fail.
The problem is the anti intellectualism, anti aspiration nihilistic culture of what used to be known as the urban working classes.
Something the left wing establishment used to their own end but recently bit them on the backside in the recent referendum.
Grammar schools means grammar schools. It's not clear yet precisely what May means.
Interesting though that Justine Greening seems far from convinced herself; this is May's agenda.
In other news, the govt has refused to give the National Infrastructure Commission independent statutory basis as was previously planned. Presumably wants to retain control of infrastructure where of course UK has lamentable record of short-termism.
I know it's early days, but everything we've seen so far indicates a centralising government with decsion making bottle necked at the top.
The exact opposite, in fact, to what we need to solve UK's systemic challenges.
Speedy: “Smith is making Corbyn look like George Washington.”
A more practical education might be a better way of teaching skills in maths, English and economics to those who would do nothing but disrupt more traditional classes.
There are adults who still hark back to the ' opening of the envelope' which determined their path in life at the age of 11, let's not condone this example of child cruelty.
We should look at the example of Finland before embarking on a return to secondary modern schools.
Anyone know anything about this?
So it's bellum then.
It's all about good teachers, strong school leadership, and accountability.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/aboutus/seniorstaff/benpage.aspx
State School:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3122968/Ipsos-Mori-boss-losing-no-sleep-disastrous-polls.html
The results are 10 points better than other Comprehensives in the county (where there is a two school system) in terms of results. Lots going on to Oxbridge and medical school etc. Fox jr went there.
Selectionat age 14 for GCSE courses is much fairer than 11+. No-one deplores University selection by academic potential, but 11 is the wrong age.
The bars to bright kids from poor backgrounds are more complex. I am currently reading Hillbilly Elegy by J D Vance, about his progression from the wrong side of the tracks to Harvard Law School. It is an insight into American politics, but not far from the WWC experience in Leicester too.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/000822109X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473412719&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=hillbilly+elegy&dpPl=1&dpID=513ab9XajiL&ref=plSrch
Not sure if this will succeed without government support.
Source: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/fixedtermparliamentsrepeal.html