PeteEU

No I don't dismiss them at all, as the rankings are fine based on what their methodology is and that's not ranking the schools according to "how good the students are" or "how much they learn or do not learn".

What I disagree with is that you are using them as a litmus test that the top are the best schools in the world to learn at. The rankings do not, I repeat do not, use any academic methodology other than number of published works and prizes the educators have.

Like it or not, if you have enough money, you can buy a school at the bottom of the list and then hire a ton of nobel prize winners and people who publish stuff, and within a very short time be in the top 10 if not top of most of the rankings I provided and you dont even have to have many students at said school as that is no where near important as the other stuff.

The rankings do not take into consideration things like grades, graduation rates, drop out rates, what they are taught.. basic things that usually are used in judging if a school is good or not.

__________________
PeteEU

gunner

Now that i have debunked your conspiracy for Grammar Schools. I think they encourage excellence and give those children willing to learn the chance to push themselves without distraction.
You should in know way hold back the gifted of our next generation.

Paul.

__________________
Always judge a lady by the contents of her mind, never by the shape of her bum.

Scucca

You forgot to actually refer to my post. Go on, be a devil!

Try this paper and let me know what you think

__________________

mikhail

I was thinking about this thread at lunch while reading.One thing british "intellectuals" still do in books is put latin phrases in without translating them which i think is subconsciously a want to feel that the great unwashed cant fully understand their work.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

new coup for you

everyone does that. to be honest the only leftists in the industrialized world that aren't either consciously or subconsciously aping the European left to a strong degree are American West Coast New Left people. Ken Kessey wackiness, etc.

Otherwise we're all pretty much the same, it's just a matter of degree.

__________________
And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike.

gunner

What’s the date of the study? With the opening statement reading, “The election of a new government” i,ll presume it’s when Labour came to power, if so a tad out of date don’t you think? It states, “There are 160 Grammar schools in England” there are in fact, 164 but why split hairs over a thousand pupils or 4 more schools! The geographical position has little relevance to performance of Grammar schools, I am aware of children travelling for 1.3hrs a day via bus, I sympathise totally but, these children are willing to pay that price for a better education-it’s called dedication.
“Selectiveeducation involves choosing more able pupils for entry into Grammar schools” Wrong, children volunteer, choosing the potential candidate does not come into play. The “volunteered” participants sit an entrance exam, open to “everyone” bar none. The top percentages of that age group are enlisted into the available schools, often a school of their choice.
“Judging how well a selective school systems perform requires an evaluation of all pupils” Wrong, to judge a Grammar school is to judge “that” school by its performance in isolation, not as part of some “collective” system, that’s absurd.
Why are you convinced on penalising more able children who when placed in schools with peers of similar ability outperform [as to be expected] most other children. You cannot constantly “bash the Grammar schools” because of your ingrained anger towards what you see as “an unfair selective system” Succa we are not all equal in life! Some will be brain surgeons, most will not, get over it.
I refer back to my earlier link, where the results speak volumes.
Paul.

Scucca

Gosh! 4 additional schools? Wow, must have been a radical change!

Wrong? Of course grammar schools are about selective education. The only "hang on a moment" finger point is that selection has inflicted all of our system, given the consequences of the irrationality of league tables.

We're talking about schools systems. We therefore have to talk about how those systems impact on the distribution of performance. I see no worthwhile debate in that.

I'd still like to see you offer an attack on my original comment:

Selective systems are better for more able pupils? Not according to the DfEE 1998 Value Added study! Comparing non-selective and selective schools they find a greater % of "most able" pupils from selective schools score in the worst perfomance category. A much greater % (33% compared to 15%) of students from non-selective schools achieve the top 2 performance categories.

Your failure to do that is a tad confusing, given there isn't a consensus on the issue

Has anyone said that we are? I'll just go with Adam Smith: "The differences of natural talents in different men is, in reality, much less than we are aware of; and the very different genius which appears to distinguish men of different professions, when grown up to maturity, is not upon many occasions so much the cause as the effect of the division of labour. The differences between the most dissimilar characters, between a philosopher and a common street porter, for example, seems to arise not so much from nature, as from habit, custom and education."

Happy Days

In another thread I was told that I wasn't middle class because of my annual income. I think it's quite funny that America claims not to have a class system then become inverted snobs when it suits their argument.

Anyway, until around 10 years ago the British government paid for the university education of its students. On one hand, this was fair because it allowed poor kids, who were willing to work hard, achieve a wonderful education. Poor kids could pass the 11+, go to grammar school and then on to university. Now, like America, higher education has to be paid for which in a way puts it out of reach of the poor. That said, the Brits have always had a great trade school system which allowed those who weren't academically brilliant to still become trained.

Like everything else in life, the rich will always have more advantages than the poor. And the facts show that, in the majority of cases, educated parents will lead to educated children and vice versa. That's what makes it difficult to break the class system. It is not necessarily the fault of the government.

Scucca

Even when the university grant meant anything, the university system was dreadfully dominated by the middle and upper classes. There was never any notion of "fairness" as the tertiary education system reflects inequality of opportunity throughout.

Strange comment, given Britain has traditionally suffering from both skill shortages and a long tail of low skilled labour. When did this 'great trade school system' exist?

gunner

A link for you succa,Home of the National Grammar Schools Association - grammar, grammar schools, state grammar schools, parents, governors, headmasters, headmistresses, education, educationalists.

please read carefully.

paul.