Grammar schools
I'm a big fan of grammar schools. I went to one, and received a good education (even if it was only after I left that I truly appreciated it), largely undistracted by the yob element that seems to be in control of classrooms these days. Grammar schools give you, no matter what your social status or background, a chance to shine.
But, of course, these days nobody is allowed to be better than anybody else. This was to be expected under Labour, but not, traditionally, the Conservatives. Until now. They have made it very clear that they do not think grammar schools are a good idea. They won't close any existing ones, but won't open any new ones either. Rather, they are going to back the Academy schools conceived by Blair and his ilk.
The problem appears to be that they think that grammar schools don't take children from poor backgrounds, and that only middle-class children get into them. This thinking fails on a few counts:
1 - Grammar schools are ability only, especially now the 11-plus exam has gone. My old school, for example, has an entry test. The top 120 or so results get in, with a bit of weighting for those living locally or those with brothers already at the school. It doesn't matter if you are rich, you will not get in. Interestingly, it used to be known as "Wilson's School for poor boys" when it was oringinally founded (admittedly this was in the seventeenth century and they are now simply "Wilson's School").
2 - If children from poorer areas don't do well at school, this is basically down to the parents. At a young age, it is attitude and willingness to learn that is important. If parents treat school like an optional extra and don't encourage the child, it is useless. Similarly, if the "poor" child really enjoys it and works hard to learn independantly, he would make an excellent grammar school candidate, and shouldn't be forced into the local comprehensive if his abilities are clearly above it.
3 - Those that can afford private schools will pay for it, thus bypassing the problem, but even these are often ability-tested.
4 - Sending otherwise grammar-abililty pupils to other schools may simply slow them down and distract them. Not totally true, this, because even the most useless of schools chuck out the occasional straight-A student, but they are the exception not the norm.
Realistically, a higher-ability child will do better in a higher-pressure, tightly-focused school. A lower-ability child (and don't try and pretend they don't exist, because they do), would just not cope and would be a distraction to others. Streaming students into different abilities is the best way to ensure they each achieve an appropriate education.
Choosing a party to vote for in the next election is now looking even trickier. They are all exactly the bloody same.
But, of course, these days nobody is allowed to be better than anybody else. This was to be expected under Labour, but not, traditionally, the Conservatives. Until now. They have made it very clear that they do not think grammar schools are a good idea. They won't close any existing ones, but won't open any new ones either. Rather, they are going to back the Academy schools conceived by Blair and his ilk.
The problem appears to be that they think that grammar schools don't take children from poor backgrounds, and that only middle-class children get into them. This thinking fails on a few counts:
1 - Grammar schools are ability only, especially now the 11-plus exam has gone. My old school, for example, has an entry test. The top 120 or so results get in, with a bit of weighting for those living locally or those with brothers already at the school. It doesn't matter if you are rich, you will not get in. Interestingly, it used to be known as "Wilson's School for poor boys" when it was oringinally founded (admittedly this was in the seventeenth century and they are now simply "Wilson's School").
2 - If children from poorer areas don't do well at school, this is basically down to the parents. At a young age, it is attitude and willingness to learn that is important. If parents treat school like an optional extra and don't encourage the child, it is useless. Similarly, if the "poor" child really enjoys it and works hard to learn independantly, he would make an excellent grammar school candidate, and shouldn't be forced into the local comprehensive if his abilities are clearly above it.
3 - Those that can afford private schools will pay for it, thus bypassing the problem, but even these are often ability-tested.
4 - Sending otherwise grammar-abililty pupils to other schools may simply slow them down and distract them. Not totally true, this, because even the most useless of schools chuck out the occasional straight-A student, but they are the exception not the norm.
Realistically, a higher-ability child will do better in a higher-pressure, tightly-focused school. A lower-ability child (and don't try and pretend they don't exist, because they do), would just not cope and would be a distraction to others. Streaming students into different abilities is the best way to ensure they each achieve an appropriate education.
Choosing a party to vote for in the next election is now looking even trickier. They are all exactly the bloody same.
posted by Nej at
1:49 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home