• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grammar school plans 'not a return to past'

So, how is it not a return to that airy-fairy utopia of 50s and 60s Britain when the bright were brighter and the oiks knew their place?
According to my experience, homogeneous public schools are only good to deprive poor gifted children from a good education.

Instead of being able to enjoy something that would fit their abilities and let them bloom, they have to stick in the rest of the pack and have their capacities underdeveloped and smothered. Meanwhile upper classes' parents take their kids out of those homogeneous public schools and raise their children in selective private schools where they can bloom.

Is it at least better for the non-bright children? Only if you provide a mediocre enough education that they will not feel left behind. And even then their brighter comrades will constantly remind them that there are people far smarter than themselves, which will create jealousy and resent and make the dumber want to avenge. The bullies' factory.


Not all humans are equal. Do not destroy the brightest's talents on the basis that it is unfair.
 
According to my experience, homogeneous public schools are only good to deprive poor gifted children from a good education.

Instead of being able to enjoy something that would fit their abilities and let them bloom, they have to stick in the rest of the pack and have their capacities underdeveloped and smothered. Meanwhile upper classes' parents take their kids out of those homogeneous public schools and raise their children in selective private schools where they can bloom.

Is it at least better for the non-bright children? Only if you provide a mediocre enough education that they will not feel left behind. And even then their brighter comrades will constantly remind them that there are people far smarter than themselves, which will create jealousy and resent and make the dumber want to avenge. The bullies' factory.


Not all humans are equal. Do not destroy the brightest's talents on the basis that it is unfair.

Your post misunderstands the way comprehensive education works. Just because you have a school with all levels of ability does not mean that everyone is taught in the same classes, to the same level. I went to a comprehensive school and was taught in the A-stream. There was a B-stream, a C-stream and a remedial stream for people with educational or behavioural difficulties.

So, your complaints about depriving poor, gifted kids is invalid. As I said in a previous post, looking at one of the few areas in the UK where selective grammar schools have survived shows that it is the selective system which deprives bright kids from poor backgrounds of a better education and decreases social mobility. Perhaps you have some research that shows differently. Please do share.
 
Not sure I understand the debate, but is it not the job of government (when you have a public education system), to make sure that all schools (public and private) meet a minimum requirement of quality and standards? Hence there should be little difference between the "good and bad" schools, which means social mobility is far more likely.
 
Your post misunderstands the way comprehensive education works. Just because you have a school with all levels of ability does not mean that everyone is taught in the same classes, to the same level. I went to a comprehensive school and was taught in the A-stream. There was a B-stream, a C-stream and a remedial stream for people with educational or behavioural difficulties.
I am unfamiliar with your education system, but I had the impression that 'A-stream' is simply a general education level for most kids rather than a truly selective one.

As I said in a previous post, looking at one of the few areas in the UK where selective grammar schools have survived shows that it is the selective system which deprives bright kids from poor backgrounds of a better education and decreases social mobility.
Correlation is not causation.
 
I am unfamiliar with your education system, but I had the impression that 'A-stream' is simply a general education level for most kids rather than a truly selective one.


Correlation is not causation.

No. The A stream is for the brightest pupils.
 
I am unfamiliar with your education system, but I had the impression that 'A-stream' is simply a general education level for most kids rather than a truly selective one.
What Zyzygy said. Why not make yourself familiar with the education system you are opining about, then we can have a more rational and informed discussion?


Correlation is not causation.

Rather than posting in platitudes, why not provide us with some evidence (reports, studies, inquiries) that support your assertions. Throwing out meaningless phrases such as, "do not destroy the brightest's talents on the basis that it is unfair", why not demonstrate that any such thing has or is happening.
 
What Zyzygy said. Why not make yourself familiar with the education system you are opining about, then we can have a more rational and informed discussion?
I am interested in the topic of selection in education in general, not the UK system.

And as for investigating it, I tried to, but you fail to realize how many specific terms any education system has and how this complicates any search. For example searching for "a-stream" did not return much and I failed to understand the difference between "streaming", "setting", whether they are optional, mandatory, rare, common, whether there are other policies to consider, and what exactly they each entail.

Hence why I have to resort at some questions and hypotheses. I understand that you have a passion for lecturing others, especially if your antagonist opinions affect your prejudices against them, but I nevertheless presented valid arguments and I would appreciate a little more understanding.

Rather than posting in platitudes, why not provide us with some evidence (reports, studies, inquiries) that support your assertions. Throwing out meaningless phrases such as, "do not destroy the brightest's talents on the basis that it is unfair", why not demonstrate that any such thing has or is happening.
I do not have a detailed study about the outcomes of the UK system, however it is pretty obvious and well-known that selective systems are good for gifted kids (provided the selection is not too early and tests abilities rather than social class conformance). Afaik the only arguable point is what a good selection and division policy is, and whether it has adverse effects for those on the lower end, and whether those effects justify harming brighter students. Besides that I do not even understand why would someone argue that a one-size-fits-all education system has to be better for everyone, aside of speculated long-term societal impacts.

As for the fact that I did not present any "better study", it does not change the fact that the evidence you presented is not an evidence. An underlying common root cause in those areas is not only plausible, it is probable.

Now if you really want a study demonstrating that gifted children bloom better among other gifted children rather than in their poor neighborhood's school, I will provide one. But I think it is obvious enough, isn't it?
 
Not many middle-class folk in the valleys to compete for places back when mining was the main employment opportunity. nowadays the trend is more obvious.

CpPxtVdWgAE_T1G.jpg:large

I would wager that good comprehensive schools take far fewer chilldren from poor backgrounds then grammar schools, given the price of housing around these schools. Surely its better to descrimate on the basis of ability than on postcodes. Though the real question is how a grammar school system could be implemented in a just and acessible way , rather than whether they are inherently good or bad.
 
First you say:

I do not have a detailed study about the outcomes of the UK system, however it is pretty obvious and well-known that selective systems are good for gifted kids
It's 'well known' but you can't provide any evidence to support it.

Then you say:

Now if you really want a study demonstrating that gifted children bloom better among other gifted children rather than in their poor neighborhood's school, I will provide one. But I think it is obvious enough, isn't it?

No, it's not obvious and any prima facie evidence would be welcome, but it's somewhat beside the point since we are not only concerned with the educational advantages of the most gifted children, but of all children. If it were proven that grammar schools advantaged the most gifted students but greatly disadvantaged the less able, what should be our response? What should be the objective of any major reorganisation of an education system? To raise overall achievement? Or to benefit primarily the most gifted, according to test criteria applied to 11-year-olds?
 
I would wager that good comprehensive schools take far fewer chilldren from poor backgrounds then grammar schools,
Do you have any reason to assume that?

given the price of housing around these schools.
Good comprehensive schools are not only located in areas of expensive housing. There are far more factors that affect schools' performance.You'll often find good and poor schools existing cheek-by-jowl in the same geographical areas, so housing prices cannot be the whole reason for disparate achievement levels.

Surely its better to descrimate on the basis of ability than on postcodes.
It depends on how one judges ability and that presumes that postcodes are the only factor affecting performance.

Though the real question is how a grammar school system could be implemented in a just and acessible way , rather than whether they are inherently good or bad.
No, because that assumes the adoption of a segregated, selective grammar school system is inherently superior to a comprehensive system, and I think that's very far from proven.
 
Not really. What we are discussing here is the revelation that the government is planning to reintroduce a selective form of public education across the country. So far they haven't set out their detailed plans.

A lot of the discussion here has been either very generalised on the issue of selectivity, or about the way that the system used to work when British public education was wholly based on selectivity. That system changed in the early-70s.

We don't yet know whether what they are going to propose will bear a bit, much or a great deal of resemblance to the old system. Nor do we know whether this proposed selectivity will be based on one kind of testing or another, nor whether or not quotas or exceptions to promote social mobility will be a part of it.

I hope that explains things a bit better.

Thank you.
 
"The government will take a "pragmatic" look at new grammar schools but will not be "going back to the past", the education secretary has told MPs.
Justine Greening said she wanted to offer parents choice but children would not be split into "winners and losers".
She was answering an urgent question after a document proposing new grammars was photographed outside No 10.
Labour said the government was showing a "dangerous misunderstanding" of issues facing schools in England."

Grammar school plans 'not a return to past' - BBC News

I fully agree with the government on this issue. Personally, I had one child who attended a grammar school (who did very well) and one child that attended a comprehensive (who did very well, and has just started A Levels). The difference, for my two children was at 11 one was not ready, but blossomed a few years later. I see no harm in saying some kids are academic and they do better in an environment, with kids of similar ability :) I do not agree with the suggestion that: 'some parents buy their place, by professional tutoring', and only middle class parents can afford this. Bollocks, a couple hours a week is not beyond most people and their are children who can achieve without tutoring.

Just reading a short bit about grammer schools, it seems they're like magnet schools or something similar here.
Labour unfortunately is wrong in my opinion.
Some people are born with greater cognitive functions and shouldn't be forced to mire away in classes below their potential skill level.
That's a huge problem we have here.
 
First you say:

It's 'well known' but you can't provide any evidence to support it.

Then you say:



No, it's not obvious and any prima facie evidence would be welcome, but it's somewhat beside the point since
we are not only concerned with the educational advantages of the most gifted children, but of all children.
i can see the reasonableness of wanting to maximize the education of all students no matter where they might reside on the innate abilities spectrum

If it were proven that grammar schools advantaged the most gifted students but greatly disadvantaged the less able, what should be our response?
you lost me here. not saying you are wrong but that i fail to understand what you are trying to convey

i was under the belief that the grammar schools, using the 11+ exam, where able to identify the cream of the student population and it was that portion of the student body which then attended the elite schools. how does that translate into the grammar schools then being responsible for disadvantaging the less gifted students?

What should be the objective of any major reorganisation of an education system? To raise overall achievement? Or to benefit primarily the most gifted, according to test criteria applied to 11-year-olds?
i believe you already came to this conclusion, above: "... we are not only concerned with the educational advantages of the most gifted children, but of all children ..."

however, unless i misread your post, why would ability grouping the brightest students so that they are able to be taught more information at greater depth, be detrimental to the less gifted students who are being taught among other students of their similar ability level?
 
It's 'well known' but you can't provide any evidence to support it.
I can easily provide evidence, I just didn't think it was even necessary.

The impact of streaming on attainment at age seven: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. Similar studies exist for other countries, with the same obvious conclusions.

The MCS is a sample of 19,000 children born across the UK around the turn of the century and their families. Academic progress was compared between children in England in the ‘top’, ‘middle’ or ‘bottom’ streams, and among the majority of non-streamed children. Multiple regressions took into account child, family and school characteristics and showed that stream placement significantly impacted on the academic progress made by children. Children in the ‘top’ stream achieved more and made significantly more academic progress than children attending schools that did not stream, while children in the ‘middle’ or ‘bottom’ streams achieved less and made significantly less academic progress.

The beta coefficients of correlations between streaming and overall KS1 scores were +0.21 for children in the top stream, -0.04 in the middle, -0.27 in the bottom stream. In other words, average kids were barely affected by streaming while others were highly affected, in similar proportions.

but it's somewhat beside the point since we are not only concerned with the educational advantages of the most gifted children, but of all children. If it were proven that grammar schools advantaged the most gifted students but greatly disadvantaged the less able, what should be our response? What should be the objective of any major reorganisation of an education system? To raise overall achievement? Or to benefit primarily the most gifted, according to test criteria applied to 11-year-olds?
First of all I think the problem is incorrectly formulated: it is not between bright kids and others, it is between poor but bright kids and others. Bright kids from the upper classes will be in elite systems anyway, even if you butcher the public schools.

Now the answer depends on your ethical system:
* Liberals will tell you to shut down public schools and let every family decide where they want their kids to be. Where would YOU want your kid to be if he/she was bright/dumb?

* Communists will tell you to trim talent and make all kids work in the farm 6 hours a day, 12 for the brightest, to prevent social division.

* Old-school moralists will tell you to teach them the bible. New-fashion moralists will tell you to teach them to be vegan and to force boys to wear dresses.

* Utilitarians would wonder whether it is more profitable to raise the level of the bright kids or the least performing ones (maximizing the national wealth can eventually be profitable to both). They would also question the effects on the social ladder's fluidity and the consequences on the homogeneity of political elites. They would also look at children's well-being; I have no data but I know by experience that bright kids are happier with other children like them, and I suspect the same can be told about every other kid.
 
Last edited:
you lost me here. not saying you are wrong but that i fail to understand what you are trying to convey
I'm not trying to convey a point there; it's not a rhetorical question. I think we do need to ask that question since there is plenty of evidence that shows that gifted children do indeed flourish under the grammar school system, but that the less gifted, and the gifted but underprivileged, really suffer.

i was under the belief that the grammar schools, using the 11+ exam, where able to identify the cream of the student population and it was that portion of the student body which then attended the elite schools. how does that translate into the grammar schools then being responsible for disadvantaging the less gifted students?
Not really. Grammar schools weren't élite academies. They catered for c.30% of kids.

Here's a good site that explains a lot about the grammar schools system and explodes a few myths.

however, unless i misread your post, why would ability grouping the brightest students so that they are able to be taught more information at greater depth, be detrimental to the less gifted students who are being taught among other students of their similar ability level?
That ¡s really not the issue since it's a myth that bright students do not receive deeper, more challenging instruction under the current system. It's another myth that kids of different ability levels are always taught together and to a median, lowest-common-denominator standard. Kids attending comprehensive schools are streamed to ensure they receive ability-appropriate teaching.

I think most people who are opposed to grammar schools do so for four main reasons:

1. It is damaging and divisive to separate out kids at age 11 into passes and fails, winners and losers, and thereby damage the prospects of the majority before a large proportion of them have even begun to mature and develop.

2. Grammar schools were always far better resourced, attracted better teachers and had better facilities than the Secondary Modern schools where the 11-plus failures were sent. There's no reason to believe that that same inequity wouldn't happen again.

3. Brighter kids from poorer backgrounds underperform in 11-plus exams. No one's quite sure why this is the case but in the cases of those counties where grammar schools continued to exist (Kent and Lincolnshire are two examples) it is clear that grammar schools receive a far smaller proportion of children from less prosperous backgrounds than the best comprehensive schools do.

4. Rather than the claims of the grammar school advocates, the evidence suggests that the selective system significantly reduces social mobility.

I hope that puts the case against the grammar school system in some context.
 
I can easily provide evidence, I just didn't think it was even necessary.

The impact of streaming on attainment at age seven: evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study. Similar studies exist for other countries, with the same obvious conclusions.

The MCS is a sample of 19,000 children born across the UK around the turn of the century and their families. Academic progress was compared between children in England in the ‘top’, ‘middle’ or ‘bottom’ streams, and among the majority of non-streamed children. Multiple regressions took into account child, family and school characteristics and showed that stream placement significantly impacted on the academic progress made by children. Children in the ‘top’ stream achieved more and made significantly more academic progress than children attending schools that did not stream, while children in the ‘middle’ or ‘bottom’ streams achieved less and made significantly less academic progress.

The beta coefficients of correlations between streaming and overall KS1 scores were +0.21 for children in the top stream, -0.04 in the middle, -0.27 in the bottom stream. In other words, average kids were barely affected by streaming while others were highly affected, in similar proportions.

Sorry, this is a straw man argument. We are not discussing streaming, and we are not talking about kids at 7 years old. Streaming happens in all schools - in primary schools, comprehensive, private and grammar schools. No one is arguing against streaming, we are arguing against selectivity - two very different issues.


First of all I think the problem is incorrectly formulated: it is not between bright kids and others, it is between poor but bright kids and others. Bright kids from the upper classes will be in elite systems anyway, even if you butcher the public schools.
We have seen evidence that poorer, bright students underperform underr the grammar school system than under comprehensive schools.

Now the answer depends on your ethical system:
* Liberals will tell you to shut down public schools and let every family decide where they want their kids to be. Where would YOU want your kid to be if he/she was bright/dumb?
"Liberals will tell you to shut down public schools"? Where do you get this? How about quoting a single person arguing this.

* Communists will tell you to trim talent and make all kids work in the farm 6 hours a day, 12 for the brightest, to prevent social division.
Oh, good grief! You can probably count the number of communists in British society in the single thousands.

* Old-school moralists will tell you to teach them the bible. New-fashion moralists will tell you to teach them to be vegan and to force boys to wear dresses.

* Utilitarians would wonder whether it is more profitable to raise the level of the bright kids or the least performing ones (maximizing the national wealth can eventually be profitable to both). They would also question the effects on the social ladder's fluidity and the consequences on the homogeneity of political elites. They would also look at children's well-being; I have no data but I know by experience that bright kids are happier with other children like them, and I suspect the same can be told about every other kid.

I've no idea where you're getting all these inaccurate, irrational and half-baked theories from, but I think I'll leave it there.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, this is a straw man argument. (...) No one is arguing against streaming, we are arguing against selectivity - two very different issues.
Streaming IS a form of selectivity! Grammar schools ARE another form of selectivity! They are merely two different models of division (per school or per classroom) and selection methodology. And since the hints from your govt are only coarse, i think the discussion is about selectivity in general.

And, damn, when it comes to selectivity, this is one of the best studies you will ever find, far better than anything else that has been provided in this thread. And you accuse me of a strawman?! The hell!

Streaming happens in all schools - in primary schools, comprehensive, private and grammar schools. No one is arguing against streaming, we are arguing against selectivity - two very different issues.
From what I understood many UK schools no longer use streaming but rather mixed-ability classrooms.

We have seen evidence that poorer, bright students underperform underr the grammar school system than under comprehensive schools.
And what would be the reason? The only thing I can think of would be a flawed selection methodology and instruction that favored social markers and social reproduction. Those do not speak for selectivity in general. I know that in France we had more social diversity in our elite superior schools than we do today since we generalized mixed second degree schools.

"Liberals will tell you to shut down public schools"? Where do you get this? How about quoting a single person arguing this.
I referred to liberalism per se, not the bunch of social-democrats who call themselves liberals but are only liberal when it comes to some topics. If you believe in liberalism then you do believe in the primacy of individual choices. So the choice of putting your kid in a mixed school or not should be yours.

Oh, good grief! You can probably count the number of communists in British society in the single thousands.
I've no idea where you're getting all this inaccurate, irrational and half-baked theories from, but I think I'll leave it there.
The parts about communists and moralists were sarcastic. The part about utilitarianism was however accurate and I fail to see what could surprise you there.
 
With respect, that wasn't my point. The Tories are saying that it isn't a return to the past. I want to know in what way it isn't a return to the past.

Yes, and that means all students, not just those who can shine at 11 years old.


Well, I haven't heard that being proposed. Perhaps you have. If so, can you link me to it? I have a fundamental objection to constant testing as if by testing students yearly and swapping them between different school systems you are going to improve the quality of their education. Constant testing does not improve education standards, it becomes an end in itself and detract from preparing students for higher education and the world of work.

The proposal I presented included an alternative that would not require swapping them except to the extent that someone applied to be be retested and then had high enough marks to warrant the transfer. The world needs plumbers as you will find out if your sewer line clogs. The world needs less coddling of the underperformers.
 
Streaming IS a form of selectivity!
Technically perhaps, but it's not the form of selectivity that's being proposed and not a form of selectivity anyone has any problem with.
 
Technically perhaps, but it's not the form of selectivity that's being proposed and not a form of selectivity anyone has any problem with.

But selectivity all the same. When you arrive at the comprehensive you are 'tested ' in all core subjects, and placed in groups according to ability.
 
part 1 of 2 parts

I'm not trying to convey a point there; it's not a rhetorical question. I think we do need to ask that question since there is plenty of evidence that shows that gifted children do indeed flourish under the grammar school system, but that the less gifted, and the gifted but underprivileged, really suffer.
those less gifted and underprivileged suffer only because they under-perform on a competitive test
isn't the point of the test to identify those who are most likely to enjoy academic success in a faster paced academic setting
i too, fail. i fail to see the problem. those who demonstrate the greatest aptitude are given the best opportunity to allow that aptitude to flower into ability

Not really. Grammar schools weren't élite academies. They catered for c.30% of kids.
but it would appear they are elite in that one must test into admission from among their age cohort

Here's a good site that explains a lot about the grammar schools system and explodes a few myths.
it was a good read but i disagree with its conclusions
it repeatedly tells us that kids from less affluent homes do not do as well on the 11+ as do those students from more affluent homes. and water is wet


That ¡s really not the issue since it's a myth that bright students do not receive deeper, more challenging instruction under the current system.
i do not know what is mythical about the reality that bright kids, who are mainstreamed with less able students, will not fully develop their potential. the teachers will teach to the lowest comon denominator. in the grammar school that LCD would be much higher

It's another myth that kids of different ability levels are always taught together and to a median, lowest-common-denominator standard. Kids attending comprehensive schools are streamed to ensure they receive ability-appropriate teaching.
and that is something i did not realize, previously. so, if ability grouping is found appropriate at the comprehensive school level, then why disband the highest ability group, those at the grammar school level?

I think most people who are opposed to grammar schools do so for four main reasons:

1. It is damaging and divisive to separate out kids at age 11 into passes and fails, winners and losers, and thereby damage the prospects of the majority before a large proportion of them have even begun to mature and develop.
by age 11, every kid in every school room knows which fellow students are gifted and which are not
now everyone would prefer to be smart, attractive, athletic, wealthy, and socially accepted. but most of us are not
those who are not academically gifted are not denied a further education, they are denied the ability to attend a faster paced school with more gifted students. again, i fail to see that as a problem

2. Grammar schools were always far better resourced, attracted better teachers and had better facilities than the Secondary Modern schools where the 11-plus failures were sent. There's no reason to believe that that same inequity wouldn't happen again.
in the states, my wife is a master teacher. she teaches in the least socio-economically mobile census tract in the nation where 100% of the students are eligible to receive free lunch and breakfast. despite offering a 10% salary premium to the teachers in such difficult-to-teach schools, there are few who will accept those higher paid teaching positions. teachers know that the job is much too hard to justify the additional salary. over 50% of the teachers leave each year. the bill and melinda gates foundation and local corporations pour money into this and other under-performing area schools. but the end-of-year exam scores do not move: 17% at grade level. no matter how hard the teachers work with these kids, they return home. and home is often a culturally and economically poor environment. a home where education is not valued. a home where the students do not get enough rest, or nutrition, or encouragement, or discipline. there is a good reason why many of the best teachers prefer to teach in a less challenging situation; one in which the students arrive each day ready and eager to learn. THAT is why so many of the best teachers prefer to teach at the better schools, so that they can spend their day actually teaching and not baby sitting

at least that is the situation across the pond
 
part 2 of 2 parts

3. Brighter kids from poorer backgrounds underperform in 11-plus exams. No one's quite sure why this is the case but in the cases of those counties where grammar schools continued to exist (Kent and Lincolnshire are two examples) it is clear that grammar schools receive a far smaller proportion of children from less prosperous backgrounds than the best comprehensive schools do.
there is a very good reason why kids from poorer backgrounds do not score as well. they often do not come from homes where education is valued. and even if the parents do push education, they often are without the personal ability to help their children succeed academically. students from affluent homes have no such problem

4. Rather than the claims of the grammar school advocates, the evidence suggests that the selective system significantly reduces social mobility.

I hope that puts the case against the grammar school system in some context.
here is where we part company
the purpose of school is not to change social mobility problems, but to teach all kids to reach their full abilities. your system seems to have an excellent mechanism to track students according to their ability to learn the material being presented

my wife and i spoke a couple of days ago about one of her students who would be taking the 11+ exam this year if she lived within the UK. that girl will succeed. her mom would not tolerate anything other than excellent scores and behavior. she would not allow the girl to interact with most of the other kids. when the other students played, this young student did her homework. at the end of each year my wife has a poster showing each graduating fifth grader's prediction of what they will be as adults. this young lady's prediction was that she will be a cardiologist. and every teacher in the school expects that will happen ... despite her poor financial circumstance. by comparison, most others predicted they were going to be singers or football players

i believe the argument that the 11+ is much too early to place a child on a track is a bogus position. while there may be exceptions, someone in a leadership role can accurately predict which of those 11 year olds has the right stuff to succeed. and unfortunately, which ones will likely be headed to jail

in short, i believe you have come up with a 'solution' in search of a problem

but then i have been wrong many times before
 
Back
Top Bottom