An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

ukcarper

MobileSaver wrote: »

Grammar School Statistics 29 June 2016

Is that empirical enough?

No grammar schools consist entily of pupils selected to pass GCSEs while Comps consist of pupils of all levels. So that proves nothing.

MobileSaver

ukcarper wrote: »

No grammar schools consist entily of pupils selected to pass GCSEs while Comps consist of pupils of all levels. So that proves nothing.

Ah, so only empirical evidence that supports your and Filo25's viewpoint is acceptable, any other empirical evidence is to be disregarded? Thanks for clearing that up, that's a conversation killer... I'm out.

virtually all pupils in grammar schools achieved five or more good passes at GCSE or equivalent compared to around two-thirds at comprehensives.

CLAPTON

MobileSaver wrote: »

Ah, so only empirical evidence that supports your and Filo25's viewpoint is acceptable, any other empirical evidence is to be disregarded? Thanks for clearing that up, that's a conversation killer... I'm out.

let's take 100 children and put them in green T shirts and get them to run a mile

then select the fastest 10 and put them in red T shirts

then get all 100 to run again

you notice that the ones in red T shirts win

this proves that everyone will be a faster runner if they wear red T-shirts

seven-day-weekend

BobQ wrote: »

I would say that a level playing field is never going to be achieved but that we should try. You speak of some people choosing a selective school. Selection if it happens should be based on ability not parental choice.

I agree that it would be wrong to stop parents sending their children to a private school. What I think is wrong is to allow the state schools to favour one child over another in terms of better facilities, better teachers etc.

That is what used to happen with the grammar/technical/secondary modern system. The grammar I went to in 1970 had sports field big enough for 6 soccer pitches and a language laboratory. The secondary moderns in the area had the local park and no language teaching facilities. Is that fair?


And you accuse me of being ideological!!!



If you read what I have posted I have not said that selection is wrong, only that it is wrong for the state education system to revert to a system where if you are selected you get better resourced schools and the best teachers but if you are not selected you get an inferior school.


I repeat I am not opposed to selection within a school. The more able are better taught with those of similar ability than in a mixed ability class. I do not have an up to date knowledge of the present education system but the idea we should go back to the grammar school system in which one exam at 11 consigned some to a better education and some to a worse one is unfair.

First you say that it is OK for parents to choose to send their children to selective schools. Now you advocate selection on merit. This seems contradictory?

But I agree that if you have a pass/fail system at any age it should not affect the quality of education you get which should be geared to letting the child make the best of whatever ability they have. Some who want grammar schools back hanker after a system that actually ensured that failing the 11+ meant focussing resources on those who passed.

What is absolutely not fair is selection by postcode, which is what we have at the moment. People who can afford to buy into the catchment of a good school do so, and therefore the catchment for that school gets smaller and smaller, leaving 'the rest' to go to the inferior school a mile away.

Selection on ability is at least selecting on something that is irrespective of the parents' wealth.

I may add that I was a child of working class parents, had no tuition for the 11 plus, passed it and went to a Grammar School where there were a lot of other girls like me.

It was the Secondary Modern Schools that didn't work, not the Grammar Schools. The answer should have been to make them better, not close all the Grammars.

Filo25

MobileSaver wrote: »

Ah, so only empirical evidence that supports your and Filo25's viewpoint is acceptable, any other empirical evidence is to be disregarded? Thanks for clearing that up, that's a conversation killer... I'm out.

I would have thought it was a pretty simple non-ideological question.

Where is the evidence that a system of secondary moderns plus Grammar schools produces better results on average across all ability ranges, than a system of Comprehensives.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect to see that evidence before thinking that investing funds in more educational "reform", otherwise its just a waste of resources.

Reading this thread it hardly sounds like its only those on the left politically that are being driven by ideology on this issue.

I attended a Grammar myself, as I already said, I am pretty much ideologically indifferent on the matter, I would just want to see us use the system that generally produces the best outcomes for the children being educated, I don't think that's a particularly radical outlook.

ukcarper

MobileSaver wrote: »

Ah, so only empirical evidence that supports your and Filo25's viewpoint is acceptable, any other empirical evidence is to be disregarded? Thanks for clearing that up, that's a conversation killer... I'm out.

Do you not understand what I said perhaps you are not as clever as you think you .

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

I would have thought it was a pretty simple non-ideological question.

Where is the evidence that a system of secondary moderns plus Grammar schools produces better results on average across all ability ranges, than a system of Comprehensives.

the facts are always useful and in this case the evidence does seem a bit mixed although I've not read all the different views

however there is the issue of what is the objective?

-it might be for the best 'average' result for all pupils
-it might be for the best outcome for the brightest
-it might be for the best outcome for the least able
-it might be for the difference between top and bottom

and then there is the issue of what do we measure :
at the moment it is GCSEs ... is that the best measure of education outcomes?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

also do you reject the research that shows that 'setting' increases the inequality of outcomes

what research are you refering to?

BobQ

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

What is absolutely not fair is selection by postcode, which is what we have at the moment. People who can afford to buy into the catchment of a good school do so, and therefore the catchment for that school gets smaller and smaller, leaving 'the rest' to go to the inferior school a mile away.

Selection on ability is at least selecting on something that is irrespective of the parents' wealth.

I may add that I was a child of working class parents, had no tuition for the 11 plus, passed it and went to a Grammar School where there were a lot of other girls like me.

It was the Secondary Modern Schools that didn't work, not the Grammar Schools. The answer should have been to make them better, not close all the Grammars.

I agree but we chose not to do this. Now we have some Grammar Schools in some areas.

The current initiative does not have to take us back to the secondary modern era, but my concern is that the advocates of grammar schools in the modern era see comprehensives as becoming the secondary moderns of today.

I do not want to harp back to the 60s and 70s either, but if we see funding diverted to grammars and comprehensives losing out that is not progress.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

what research are you refering to?

http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF%20Files/Brief025.pdf

make of it what you will