The one political subject where I tend to have an almost schizophrenic attitude towards. The reason being that I have seen both the benefits and pain that the existence of these institutions can cause.
On one hand they are possibly elitist, have prevented many intelligent children from an education which would have afforded them great benefits, and can encourage snobbery. On the other hand they have helped children from many deprived areas have a head start in life.
I do have a vested interest in this subject in that, whilst I never went to grammar school, rather a decent secondary modern, my parents came from working class backgrounds and went to a grammar school, a well known one in fact (Although King Edward VII is now a seconfdary modern and is probably only famous because Graham Chapman was also a pupil there, and yes my parents were there at the same time and knew him). It probably helped them in all sorts of ways and I certainly wonder where we as a family would be now if one or both failed their 11 Plus. Not least the fact that they met at school! ;)
But what I do object to is the 11 Plus. Children have enough to contend with SATS tests without this, and it's unfair to stigmatise a child for life over one exam hurdle at such a young age. There can be other ways around this such as perhaps raising the age of Grammar School entry to 13 and having a form of Pre-Grammar School set up, although I can see the arguments against that.
Would be interested to know what you think?
8 comments:
The more grammars there are the more they lower the average results in an area - we have to get away from just educating a privileged few and start educating ALL the people or at least the majority. Yes it will cost more but every penny spent on education is beneficial in the long run.
I've said this before, but the only way we are going to ensure an equal spread of quality and quantity across our schools is to guarantee the top pupil in every school a place at Oxbridge. That way every school would have well educated children. Children learn as much (if not more) from their peers than they do from the teachers.
see my article on grammars here.
Neil, I am insympathy with your views but don't entirely agree with them.
For one thing, as good and worthy of respect as Oxford and Cambridge are, we need to work towards upgrading other Universities and creating more places of higher education. As for there being more grammar schools, I am not in favour of creating any, rather a desire to see changes in admission to the existing ones
I agree with you that Grammar schools have their obvious pros and cons and in actuall fact the idea of entering at 13 instead of 11 seems sensible. We agree. Amazing.
I do find it interesting that grammar schools seem to suddenly be finding more support from the left wing of politics.
And there was me groaning inwardly when I saw that I had another anonymous posting. Shows how cynical I am becoming :)
:-P
I really dont get the bloggers hating anon thing. Ah well - two sides to every coin i guess.
Weirdly I find I'm agreeing with you. Selection is useful, but it needs to be flexible and sympathetic to peoples aspirations. ( People/students should be given a chance to prove themselves and choice of what sort of area to do it in, rather than told they shouldn't be trying ).
Nick Cohen was interesting on this subject in his What's Left book (not yet finished - but I will soon.)
I don't buy the keeping the bright back helps raise the centre argument. Its just vandalism of peoples lives and potentials.
I have two children - one has special needs (high functioning autism) and will be doing well to be able to lead a normal life, but the other is showing signs of being very able. They should both receive what they need, not what the some current political theories say will help social engineering.
Now I find I am agreeing with you Shed, what is going on!?!
Anon, it's do with the fact that if someone leaves an abusive post it is seen as cowardice to be anonymous, the cyber equivalent of "Say it to my face!"
But does having a user name like "man in a shed" really make a difference? It's not as if it gives away anything more than "anon" does.
I think being anon is a beautiful thing as there is no PC and no discrimination e.g. i could be black, white, asian, man, women, lower class, upper but people purley judge what i say, not who i am.
Post a Comment