Current Affairs EU In or Out

[scratchnsurf]

So what you are saying is going to grammar school also makes a big difference to how well someone does.

I think that's the point of going to one.

The point I'm making is that they do nothing to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds have better educational outcomes, so anyone putting that forward as an argument in their favour is, at best, misinformed.

If the government was actually interested in helping children from poorer families close the gap, what they would actually be doing is concentrating on improving provision in the early years, as this is the first point that the problem can be tackled. Instead they try to address the issue after the impact of a deprived background has been going on for eleven years.

Interestingly the amount the government are proposing to put towards new selective secondary schools is almost exactly the same as their reduction to early years funding.

The promotion of selective secondary schools is about winning votes and nothing else.

 

[peteblue]

Which would be great if everyone could go to one.

Here's a thought - why not raise the standards of all schools to grammar school levels of achievement instead of gating off the chance to massive portions of the country?

We've had 50 years to do that, quite a few Labour governments as well. How long does it take, another 50, another 100.... But hey this is another thread, I only mentioned it because Esk mentioned how great the German education system was.......meanwhile back to our future negotiations with the EU......

 

[MartyMcFly]

Which would be great if everyone could go to one.

Here's a thought - why not raise the standards of all schools to grammar school levels of achievement instead of gating off the chance to massive portions of the country?

a) Because the country can't afford it.
b) Because a lot of it depends on the parents. Children who don't come from parents who prioritize academic achievement and therefore have little interest in school pull down the kids who do. Generally parents who come from affluent areas have parents who do prioritize school.

I know this isn't a politically correct thing to say but it's the truth.

 

[scratchnsurf]

a) Because the country can't afford it.
b) Because a lot of it depends on the parents. Children who don't come from parents who prioritize academic achievement and therefore have little interest in school pull down the kids who do. Generally parents who come from affluent areas have parents who do prioritize school.

I know this isn't a politically correct thing to say but it's the truth.

Whilst that is a huge oversimplification, there is an element of truth in it. Lots of parents like grammar schools and parents vote.

 

[MartyMcFly]

The point I'm making is that they do nothing to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds have better educational outcomes, so anyone putting that forward as an argument in their favour is, at best, misinformed.

If the government was actually interested in helping children from poorer families close the gap, what they would actually be doing is concentrating on improving provision in the early years, as this is the first point that the problem can be tackled. Instead they try to address the issue after the impact of a deprived background has been going on for eleven years.

Interestingly the amount the government are proposing to put towards new selective secondary schools is almost exactly the same as their reduction to early years funding.

The promotion of selective secondary schools is about winning votes and nothing else.

See my post above regarding the parents.

Grammar schools help but in my experience most of even the smart kids from poorer backgrounds didn't really go on to achieve to their potential whereas the kids with the ambitious parents even when the kids weren't the brightest did.

However a few poorer kids do go on to do well so it's better than nothing which is what I think you get with the comprehensive system.

The main problem is the ingrained social attitudes and unfortunately even today the belief that we all belong to one or another class. The idea also behind grammar schools is that the poorer kids who do well will serve as examples to other poorer families.

 

[roydo]

See my post above regarding the parents.

Grammar schools help but in my experience most of even the smart kids from poorer backgrounds didn't really go on to achieve to their potential whereas the kids with the ambitious parents even when the kids weren't the brightest did.

However a few poorer kids do go on to do well so it's better than nothing which is what I think you get with the comprehensive system.

The main problem is the ingrained social attitudes and unfortunately even today the belief that we all belong to one or another class.

Kids "learn" far more from their parents than their teachers.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Which would be great if everyone could go to one.

Here's a thought - why not raise the standards of all schools to grammar school levels of achievement instead of gating off the chance to massive portions of the country?

What is it that stops that from happening? From what I can tell, the main difference is that one is selective and the other not. Is there another difference?

 

[MartyMcFly]

Kids "learn" far more from their parents than their teachers.

Sadly that's even more true today now that teachers have no authority and due to the wider changes in society.

All the noble goals of protecting children etc did was make it impossible for teachers to teach.

 

[scratchnsurf]

With all due respect, what is your experience? If it's nothing more than what you know from being at school and from knowing people with children at school then that's hardly a broad sample of experience to draw upon.

There are plenty of excellent comprehensive schools out there and to suggest that no pupils from poorer backgrounds do well at them is quite clearly wrong.

 

[joey_macmo]

Well if you consider the reason why people live in affluent areas is probably because their parents are smart enough to also have got good grades which have enabled them to go to good schools which again has enabled them to get well paying jobs to afford to live in those areas it would make sense there is some correlation.

I'm not saying every rich kid is smart or every poor kid isn't but I would expect to see a correlation at a group level.

In many ways the stronger the correlation of that is just a sign the society provides good social mobility.

The problem with comprehensives is that the school you go to ultimately comes down to where you live and that's not good.

Doesn't explain a ratio of 40:1 and you know it.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Doesn't explain a ratio of 40:1 and you know it.

Read on. It's the parents that make up the difference.

 

[joey_macmo]

Read on. It's the parents that make up the difference.

You honestly think that's an acceptable representation?

It's a poster for why the grammar system doesn't work at present

 

[The Esk]

b) Because a lot of it depends on the parents. Children who don't come from parents who prioritize academic achievement and therefore have little interest in school pull down the kids who do.

So how does denying today's generation of children with parents who don't value/have never benefited from education, the very best education we can provide break the chain?

The danger is in saying because their parents don't provide the educational support required at home that there's no value in investing in their education we reduce social mobility and condemn children on the basis of their parent's attitude to education. That's totally wrong and totally destructive.

The children who come from the poorest attaining backgrounds deserve the highest level of investment in education - that's the way you lift overall levels of achievement.

 

[dandydan]

Kids "learn" far more from their parents than their teachers.

Hence the poorer kids not doing so well because dads drinking on the doorstep and mums down the bingo.

 

[Tubey]

What is it that stops that from happening? From what I can tell, the main difference is that one is selective and the other not. Is there another difference?

Yeah, it's the "one size fits all" approach. So the schools are doing one curriculum aimed at the "average" student, meaning the gifted and the less so are completely stranded.

Rather than start gating off kids from achieving, the impetus should be on having the apparatus in place to teach every child according to their need.