Display: Sort:
'Grammar schools should never have been closed' minister admits | 52 comments (52 topical)

Statistics and logic (#33)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:24:06 PM GMT

In areas where there is selective schooling, the schools with clever kids will have better results that the schools with the not-so-clever kids.

Where there is no selective schooling, in principle, all schools would have similar overall average results.

So where there is selective schooling, some schools will do markedly better than the average results of non-selective areas, and some will do markedly worse.

To say that those schools in selective areas whose results are markedly worse than the average are "the worst performing" or even "failing" is to completely miss the point.

The question is, are the overall results for children in selective areas better or worse than the overall average results for non-selective areas, and if not, obviously, why not?

By analogy, Man United do best because they have the best players. Maybe Leyton Orient (or whoever - no offence meant here) are, as a team "the worst performing" or even "failing", that is the inevitable result of every player in the League playing for the best team that will have him. Would the standards of English football as a whole increase if players were allocated to teams by lottery?


[ Parent ]

Re: Statistics and logic (#35)

by Mike Ion on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:53:45 PM GMT

Mark

What you appear to be saying is that bright kids in grammar schools do well and in comprehensives they do less well?

But where is your evidence? Jesson's reserach shows that bright kids do well whether they attend selective or comprehensive schools. Selective schools do well becuase of the quality of their intake and not because of the quality fo their provision. Selective schools are elite institutions masquerading as excellent institutions.

Please do not get me wrong - I do not want these schools to close. It is selection that needs to be abolished, not grammar schools. In a post-selection world these schools would remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same headteachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The change will be in the academic profile of the pupils.

It is also worth noting that there are no selective schools in Scotland or Wales and they are on the way out in Northern Ireland.

Mike


[ Parent ]

Re: Statistics and logic (#37)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:02:35 PM GMT

That is exactly what I am saying.

As to evidence, you have just presented it yourself.


[ Parent ]

Re: Statistics and logic (#41)

by Mike Ion on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 07:19:09 PM GMT

Mark - you are confusing me. The logical conclusion of comment #37 is that yes, you agree that grammar schools are simply elite institutions pretending to be institutions of academic excellence and that you agree that it make no difference whether bright kids go to selective schools or comprehensive schools.

Yoy also agree that selective schools are not socially inclusive, that they are schools for the middle classes.

What exactly is your point and where is the evidence to support your point?

I would suggest that it is you who needs to offer a sensible rationale for grammar schools remaining - I doubt you will be able to - you haven't as yet.


[ Parent ]

"elite" or "excellent" (#42)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:31:08 PM GMT

I fail to see any real distinction between "elite institutions" and "institutions of academic excellence", why would one pretend to be the other or vice versa?

I am wary of the expression "grammar school". I see no real distiction between the 11+, or selection or setting or streaming, they are all variations on a theme. At precisely what age the cut-off should be is not the subject here.

I am wary of the term "socially inclusive". Look at Abbott, Harmann, Kelly and the rest of them. Does it mean levelling down? Does it mean giving every child, regardless of background the best oportunity? Or does it mean, "Hey, I'm in the cabinet, f*** you all"?

You appear to use the term "for the middle classes" in a perjorative sense. I am not even sure what "middle class" means. Please elucidate.

It is not my point, it is a general point. Education should cater for the abilities and ambition of pupils.

If a parent has a choice between sending a child to;

  • a selective school with an average class size of 30, where he or she can learn the old-fashioned way, with chalk and blackboards, and discipline and uniforms and stodgy dinners; or
  • a City Academy with all bells and whistles, an average class size of 15 (assuming any of them can be bothered to  turn up) and some dodgy New Labour donor Christian fundamentalist backer hovering in the wings; or
  • a Secondary Modern, where at least the child learns to fill in a job application form and some basic skills of value to employers

... what would a rational parent choose?


[ Parent ]

Re: "elite" or "excellent" (#46)

by The Ghost of JD Bernal on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:32:44 PM GMT

The thing with "setting" and "streaming" is that a) there is not the stigma of being sent to a different school, of failing an exam, etc; b) there is ample opportunity to move up (or down) a stream if you do surprisingly well or badly; and c) it recognises that a child might be good at one subject, bad at another and middling at a third.


[ Parent ]

Re: "elite" or "excellent" (#49)

by Mark Wadsworth on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 11:38:44 PM GMT

Fair comment, I personally am 100% in favour of streaming and setting, and I am not quite so sure about actual 11plus and separate schools.


[ Parent ]

'Grammar schools should never have been closed' minister admits | 52 comments (52 topical)
Display: Sort: