Is selective education being reintroduced by the back door?

Agree with your post BRedhead59 today on this topic.

The introduction of a new form of division in society and between people by the use of the selective 'grammar school' creed plays to some of the worst aspects of human nature.

Are we guilty of being cruel to children with this form of education I wonder.

1. We now know much more about the brain and IQ is not static - there are not able and less able children there are motivated and advantaged children and not so.
2. I failed my 11+ and went to a Secondary Mod where I was destined to a low paid job. In my 3rd year the school became Comprehensive and new teachers and equipment were installed. We were told we could go on to higher education and many of us did.
3.Grammars are a vote winner -and for parents who want to keep their off spring away from a perceived less able and lower class of children. That is morally and ethically wrong.
4. "Behaviour in Comps is bad" is a myth and behaviour in Grammar Schools is controlled by the threat that "you could end up with the lower class children"
5.More adults have moved along the social ladder (what ever that is)from Comps than from Grammars
6.Many children in Grammars have been tutored within an inch of their life to get into Grammars.
7.Successful countries like Finland have little/no selection or national exams until 16. They have vocational and academic universities also.
8.I left Kent in 1993 so my own children didn't have to go through what I went through in the 60's. They both went to University from a Comp.
9.Grammars are needed because the fees at public schools are rising.
10.The pass mark for the Grammar depends on the number of chairs available.
Theresa May is totally going against what she said in her Downing St speech.
This was in no particular order but as a retired Headteacher I find it totally depressing we are even debating the issue.

I did want to try to do the A Level for one, but the energy and enthusiasm has evaporated since I became really old. I'm on this little Future Learn course on successful aging which makes the point of attitude to aging can have consequences but I've already "wilted"!

nah - time polishing medals or halos is wasted ;)

How about taking 1 or 2 to the next stage, AS then A... and beyond? Now that takes real guts!

polishing my medals!!

Of course- and well done you. Learning something new, be it for the sheer pleasure or hell of it- or for exams- is a fabulous way to remain young and active and keep ze little grey cells working - bravo x

Thanks, Ana. She made me feel like a liar. If I was able to have children, I wouldn't have got bored and went to night school. Apart from a long break, it was something I did every year from 14 years old. Big deal....one night a week! Does anyone remember the actress Alexander Bastedo? She sat be hi d me in a German class! In 1965.

wot, no education is every wasted! And you're very welcome on here whether you're a mum and/or gran or not

But u unfortunately I am neither a mum or gran

No, I'm 65! I went to night school every year since 1994 (to keep boredom at bay!)

Nope- but you must be very young then, for a granny ;)

So I haven't wasted my time then, achieving GCSE,s??

I agree.

But GCSE and O'levels are 'comparable'. O' levels had much more rote learning of facts, and GCSEs much more analysing of facts and concepts, sometimes to the detriment of the 3 rs, unfortunately.

A friend of ours teaches engineering in a Midlands University and said the first term or more was totally wasted teaching basics that should have been acquired by then. In Modern Languages (my field) O'Level students had to know all their verb tenses and pronoun use, etc- but couldn't put 2 sentences together to communicate. With GCSE, effective verbal communication and aural comprehension was much more evident- at times to the detriment of basic grammar. Since the change over, huge efforts have been made to re-establish a balance and improve written accuracy ALONGSIDE communication, especially oral. So yes, O'Levels and GCSE's are definitely different- mostly for the better, overall.

Yes, it was me who made the comment about numeracy and literacy, and while I accept that it wasn't comparing like with like, surely I'm not the only one to expect that all graduates should be competent in both?

There was a comment made earlier in the thread about the literacy etc of today's graduates. That is the "not fair". It is not evidence of anything because not comparing like with like.
I don't think my own grammar school education was that good. Some of the teaching was dire. Far more is expected of teachers these days - OFSTED crank up their expectations of what a "good" or "outstanding" lesson looks like about every 3-4 years.

Oh well. Sigh.....

I suppose GCSE's aren't really comparable to 'O' levels anyway.

Ana most pupils took 9 'O' levels at my school, although I dropped Art for some reason.
However, I took up art again in later life and passed a B Tech.

I think the standard for getting into university is probably lower - simply because there were far fewer universities in the 1960s, and many students went to Technology colleges and polytechnics, as well as those who went to Technical College, then entered the world of work and carried on at night school.

And in those days many parents expected a child to start contributing to household expenses as soon as they could. It was markedly noticeable that, although grants were available, it was the few who had more wealthy parents who were able to stay on for 6th form and then university.

To suggest that someone should have declined a place earned at a grammar school at age 11 because they may not stay on after 'O' levels and offer that place to someone else is ludicrous.
Some children took the scholarship again at 13 and could move schools then. A couple of my friends did that.

Having said all that, I do believe that comprehensives should offer all children a fair and equal opportunity to be educated and learn to the best if their abilities, and no, my view of comprehensive education has not been learned from the tv as I have never seen any programmes about comprehensive schools (apart from a couple of episodes of 'Big School').
My knowledge of them is from real life but only relates to the schools in the areas where we have lived.
It depends where you live as to whether they are good, mediocre or have been put into special measures and if you have no choice then DC and DGC have to take their chances.

way

It is not fair to compare todays graduates with those of 30 + years ago. Back then only a small % of 18 year olds went to university now nearly 50% do.

In what was is it not fair to compare them, Jess? Just because there are more of them now shouldn't mean standards should be so much lower than they used to be, surely?

Let's face it grammar schools are selective and therefore always will get good results - better, on average, than even the best comprehensives - based on the selection of the pupils. The best predictor of results has always been the level the child is working at when they are 10. (not the teaching or type of school)
There were undoubtedly some truly awful secondary moderns, judging by the schools some family members attended. And back in the 1950s and 60s most pupils left school at 14 or 15. Levels of adult illiteracy were terrible.
Today's comprehensives are, on average, incomparably better than they were back in the 1960s when they were just starting out.
It is not fair to compare todays graduates with those of 30 + years ago. Back then only a small % of 18 year olds went to university now nearly 50% do.

Before WW2 only 2% went to Uni - and very very few women.
Overall participation in higher education increased from 3.4% in 1950, to 8.4% in 1970, 19.3% in 1990 and 33% in 2000... and since then up to nearly 50% with, I believe, slightly more than 50% of them being women.

At my secondary modern school, there was a class officially called The Remedial. The children in the Remedial class were aged 11 - 15, all in one small class room. They lived a separate life to the rest of the school, I remember them going everywhere as a group. I didn't know what Remedial meant but the other girls in 1A soon explained 'they're all backward, tat's what remedial means".

At my grammar school the 'remove' was a top class reserved for the kids who were expected to get good GCE (as it then was) results, followed by sixth form entry and then university. The rest of us were not officially streamed and were randomly allocated to a,b,c,d,e or f forms but it was noticeable that there was more trouble in the forms labelled 'e' and 'f'.

A great link- ignored by those who love to believe the myths.

Thanks for the link to the previous thread about grammar schools Wilma. It is excellent!