  |
 Grammar Schools, So it's back to a divided society then...? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 9th September 2016, 12:01 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,829 User: 17,376 
   |
Opinions on this?
My own view is rather unique. Born in 1958, I attended a Secondary Modern, a Grammar and 2 Comprehensives (both former Grammar Schools). My brother 2 years younger attended 2 former Secondary Modern Comprehensives. Now, it is inarguable that Grammar Schools provided a better standard of education than Sec Mod. I did much better in those schools that had good teachers and made you do loads of homework. My brother basically was consigned to the coal mine, along with other ROSLA kids (Raising Of School Leaving Age) like us who were expected to enter into factory skills training programmes or the production-line. So, lucky me (that I went to an RAF Sec Modern that allowed kids who had had a rubbish rural, ill-elderly-teacher-full-of-temps Primary Education - only one kid in the class passed the 11+ - to re-take the 11+ 6 months later). Now, I'm smart, smarter than half the inbreds in private schools, and as smart as anyone in a Grammar School - yet I would have been consigned to a second-rate education because of some stupid poxy exam at age 11. I therefore see this as a posh twat's method of bringing back the semi-illiterate underclass so they can know their place while they point to a few token free-school-meal types (I was one) being educated to the extent than they can be going all the way up to professional Council Worker (still rubbish money but needs smart people to do the work). Watch the cash flow into Grammars and out of Academies...... |
 |
 
|
|
9th September 2016, 12:29 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Howdy, disco citizens
Joined: 16 January 2010
Posts: 12,775 User: 10,455
    |
I'm afraid I'm going to plead ignorance to the entire debate, as I don't understand the difference between grammar & comprehensives in GB (I'm assuming that grammar schools are better then comprehensive schools?), so if someone could explain the difference between the two (and academies) in an easy-to-understand way I'd be very grateful. All I know is that I went to a Catholic school and had to take an 11+ to get into one of the better secondary schools (which I did).
|
|
|
|
|
9th September 2016, 01:22 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
  |
The old system popchartfreak refers to was where all 11-year-olds took the 11+, which determined whether you went to a grammar (good) or a secondary modern (less good). In most places this was abolished in favour of comprehensives, which as the name suggests were intended for everyone regardless of ability. In recent years, those with the means have often sent their kids to private school, leading to something approaching the old system but determined by ability to pay rather than ability to sit an exam at age 11.
Of course the latter ended up being a proxy for the former anyway, given that in areas which still have the grammar system (I grew up in Trafford, which was one although it also had a number of largely good comprehensives and surprisingly shit private schools) many wealthy parents hire private tutors to make sure their little ones get into the "good" school. Having gone to a grammar myself, the standard of teaching was generally very good and I probably got a better education there than I would have elsewhere. However, I don't support the system as, even without the talent-money proxy which I mentioned, it creates a divide between pupils at a fairly arbitrary point in their education and can sometimes engender a superiority complex in some people. I even had one teacher in 6th form tell me that by going to a grammar I was better than any of my friends who went to a comprehensive - she refused to believe that a couple of them had got better GCSE results than me. |
|
|
|
|
9th September 2016, 09:36 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,829 User: 17,376
|
nail on the head there - it's the arbitrary nature of the 11+ that I object to, your future decided by one exam. There WILL be a big difference in the standard of education, of course, or they wouldnt be bringing it back.
There has been no indication that overall mixed ability schools have stopped the well-off kids doing well, but it does seen to have been better for slower children - who are dragged upwards rather than spiralling downwards in the old "leave school with no exam qualifications" days... |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 24th April 2024, 09:07 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
