"Culture of achievement?" Give me a break. It is not the job of the able kids to drag the others up, as if they were some kind of unpaid classroom assistants. Studies have shown that the grades of more able children suffer unless they are taught in groups of their peers. At the other end of the spectrum, it has also been shown that less able children do better in groups where specialist teachers can address their needs.
Where children are poorly served is when they are taught in failing schools - your so-called "sink" schools, which you mention as if they were some part of official education policy. Failing schools occur where discipline collapses, staff morale and retention sinks to a low, and where good education cannot be delivered - to anyone. Your answer - to throw some high-end students into that kind of a situation, by shutting down the grammar school the go to. That's not an education policy, that's criminal.
It's true that comprehensives don't generally have sixth forms anymore. I don't see that as a bad thing at all. My school didn't have a sixth form. We all went to a sixth form college, which for my money is a much better proposition for the 16-18 crowd. The teachers are, generally, those with a preference and strong track record for teaching that age group, a far broader range of subjects can be taught, funding goes further because resources can be spent on materials specifically suited to sixth form study, timetables suit the kids better. Your first paragraph implies a strong support for shared resources, and concentration of teaching expertise in centres of excellence. This is exactly what is intended by a sixth form college.
As for the 11+ - yes, it's poor. That's why it was phased out in the seventies. With the secondary moderns that bother you so.
No, I'm not suggesting "throwing grammar kids into sinks".
Second, _comprehensives_ have sixth forms (though in some areas they use a centralised sixth form college--Harrow does, for example); secondary moderns don't. And it is a problem, because it allows more kids to drop out at 16. It's one thing when you've got everyone transferring at 16, but in these areas, the grammars have sixth forms but the secondary moderns don't. You do not get large, viable sixth form colleges in these areas. (And BTW, attached sixth forms often get better results than specialist colleges.)
Secondary moderns do still exist in areas with large numbers of grammars--NI and Kent, predominantly. You can't have grammars without them. That's how it is. If you take the cream off, you get skim. Some were abolished in name, but not in practice. You can call a school comprehensive, but if the local grammar's getting all the clever kids, it's a modern. Grammars still select by 11+ in those LEAs that have them (such as mine, Barnet--though thankfully we only have 3, they're small, and 1 is Catholic). How do you think they choose pupils--flip a coin?
A "culture of achievement" (OK, that's edu-new-speak) doesn't require that all children be taught the same things, at the same time. it's about the overall aims of the school. It means you don't have the culture of low expectations that pervades a lot of underachieving schools. Which are effectively part of education policy as long as the system continues to obsess over middle class parents.
The problem with attached sixth forms is that they can’t offer as many subjects as specialised sixth form colleges. Half the subjects I did at college I couldn’t have done if I’d stayed at my secondary school.
Depends on the size of the school (and the staying on rate). Small sixth forms aren't able to offer a wide range of subjects, but larger ones can. I know that JFS, which has something like 2,000 kids, has a huge range at A-Level.
Also some kids benefit from the continuity and atmosphere; some kids aren't ready for the relatively unstructured atmosphere of a college, and do better with another 2 years at school.
You are suggesting closing the grammar schools. You claim that the existence of grammar schools creates sinks. Where, then, will the children go if the grammar schools close? Egalitarian comprehensives which magically appear when the grammars are closed?
Selective schooling is only a problem if you can show that there are clever kids who are not getting into schools capable of bringing out their potential. To my mind, if that is the case, it is an argument for more selective schools, not fewer. If it is not the case, then what you're asking for is more spots in grammar schools for kids who will not be well served by a grammar school.
What is needed is an improvement in standards in failing schools. This is not achieved by abolishing selective entry. Your milk analogy is a poor one because it suggest that the lower tier in some sense needs the upper tier to be complete. Which is not true. What they need is decent teachers. That can only be achieved by providing a sufficiently attractive standard of living to prospective teachers. A second-tier entry school, with quality staff atuned to the needs of those children, is in my opinion something to strive for, and something which I believe better serves the needs of those students.
Grammars principally select by internal entrance exam these day, or at least that is my understanding.
As a practical matter, the grammars would become comprehensive, rather than actually being demolished, and the intakes of both the ex-grammars and ex-econdaries would change.
Given that children in secondary moderns achieve worse results than children of equal ability in comprehensive schools, I think the case against them is well made--and it's not possible to have grammars without secondaries. What's wrong with secondary moderns is not just bad teachers; it's the fact that these kids are, and have been, consigned to the heap as the result of a single test. These kids don't get an appropriate education; they just get a watered down version of the same thing grammar school kids are getting.
And yes, the 11+ still exists even if it's not always called that. In areas with multiple grammars, they use a standard exam.
In any case, selection at 11 doesn't work. It assumes we can separate kids into 2 groups, and that these groups are meaningful. They're not. Far better, IMO, to educate them together and allow children to develop and obtain the right education as they go along.
In any case, selection at 11 doesn't work. It assumes we can separate kids into 2 groups, and that these groups are meaningful. They're not. Far better, IMO, to educate them together and allow children to develop and obtain the right education as they go along.
This, essentially, I completely disagree with. It is possible to test children at 11. Your very argument implies it is, since you claim that there is data which suggests comparison between children of equal ability sent to different schools. If this data exists, then the baseline must have been drawn prior to their starting secondary education.
Your proposal to educate children in streams, within the same institution is fine as far as it goes. However, it would require an intake of sufficient size that the differentiated streams are sufficiently narrow that each class actually contains students who are appropriately close in ability.
The ideal here is to provide each child with a place in a class which will best suit them, in as wide a range of subjects as possible. I believe we appear to agree on that. I just don't think you're going to to achieve that, or even come close, in a generic comprehensive system, for purely logistical reasons.
Not quite. It's possible to test children at 11 and make reasonable estimates as to their ability, or at least their prior attainment. However, the 11+ simply sorts children into 2 crude groups. It's a very narrow basis for a decision. Also, the 11+ doesn't necessarily tell you who's cleverest: it tells you who's best at taking the test.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Where children are poorly served is when they are taught in failing schools - your so-called "sink" schools, which you mention as if they were some part of official education policy. Failing schools occur where discipline collapses, staff morale and retention sinks to a low, and where good education cannot be delivered - to anyone. Your answer - to throw some high-end students into that kind of a situation, by shutting down the grammar school the go to. That's not an education policy, that's criminal.
It's true that comprehensives don't generally have sixth forms anymore. I don't see that as a bad thing at all. My school didn't have a sixth form. We all went to a sixth form college, which for my money is a much better proposition for the 16-18 crowd. The teachers are, generally, those with a preference and strong track record for teaching that age group, a far broader range of subjects can be taught, funding goes further because resources can be spent on materials specifically suited to sixth form study, timetables suit the kids better. Your first paragraph implies a strong support for shared resources, and concentration of teaching expertise in centres of excellence. This is exactly what is intended by a sixth form college.
As for the 11+ - yes, it's poor. That's why it was phased out in the seventies. With the secondary moderns that bother you so.
(no subject)
Second, _comprehensives_ have sixth forms (though in some areas they use a centralised sixth form college--Harrow does, for example); secondary moderns don't. And it is a problem, because it allows more kids to drop out at 16. It's one thing when you've got everyone transferring at 16, but in these areas, the grammars have sixth forms but the secondary moderns don't. You do not get large, viable sixth form colleges in these areas. (And BTW, attached sixth forms often get better results than specialist colleges.)
Secondary moderns do still exist in areas with large numbers of grammars--NI and Kent, predominantly. You can't have grammars without them. That's how it is. If you take the cream off, you get skim. Some were abolished in name, but not in practice. You can call a school comprehensive, but if the local grammar's getting all the clever kids, it's a modern. Grammars still select by 11+ in those LEAs that have them (such as mine, Barnet--though thankfully we only have 3, they're small, and 1 is Catholic). How do you think they choose pupils--flip a coin?
A "culture of achievement" (OK, that's edu-new-speak) doesn't require that all children be taught the same things, at the same time. it's about the overall aims of the school. It means you don't have the culture of low expectations that pervades a lot of underachieving schools. Which are effectively part of education policy as long as the system continues to obsess over middle class parents.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Also some kids benefit from the continuity and atmosphere; some kids aren't ready for the relatively unstructured atmosphere of a college, and do better with another 2 years at school.
(no subject)
Selective schooling is only a problem if you can show that there are clever kids who are not getting into schools capable of bringing out their potential. To my mind, if that is the case, it is an argument for more selective schools, not fewer. If it is not the case, then what you're asking for is more spots in grammar schools for kids who will not be well served by a grammar school.
What is needed is an improvement in standards in failing schools. This is not achieved by abolishing selective entry. Your milk analogy is a poor one because it suggest that the lower tier in some sense needs the upper tier to be complete. Which is not true. What they need is decent teachers. That can only be achieved by providing a sufficiently attractive standard of living to prospective teachers. A second-tier entry school, with quality staff atuned to the needs of those children, is in my opinion something to strive for, and something which I believe better serves the needs of those students.
Grammars principally select by internal entrance exam these day, or at least that is my understanding.
(no subject)
Given that children in secondary moderns achieve worse results than children of equal ability in comprehensive schools, I think the case against them is well made--and it's not possible to have grammars without secondaries. What's wrong with secondary moderns is not just bad teachers; it's the fact that these kids are, and have been, consigned to the heap as the result of a single test. These kids don't get an appropriate education; they just get a watered down version of the same thing grammar school kids are getting.
And yes, the 11+ still exists even if it's not always called that. In areas with multiple grammars, they use a standard exam.
In any case, selection at 11 doesn't work. It assumes we can separate kids into 2 groups, and that these groups are meaningful. They're not. Far better, IMO, to educate them together and allow children to develop and obtain the right education as they go along.
(no subject)
This, essentially, I completely disagree with. It is possible to test children at 11. Your very argument implies it is, since you claim that there is data which suggests comparison between children of equal ability sent to different schools. If this data exists, then the baseline must have been drawn prior to their starting secondary education.
Your proposal to educate children in streams, within the same institution is fine as far as it goes. However, it would require an intake of sufficient size that the differentiated streams are sufficiently narrow that each class actually contains students who are appropriately close in ability.
The ideal here is to provide each child with a place in a class which will best suit them, in as wide a range of subjects as possible. I believe we appear to agree on that. I just don't think you're going to to achieve that, or even come close, in a generic comprehensive system, for purely logistical reasons.
(no subject)