|
Post by Moose on Sept 16, 2016 21:41:36 GMT
Theresa May apparently wants to bring grammar schools back. I am in two minds about this. On the one hand yeah, I can see that it's elitist but I spent an unhappy three years at a local comprehensive (before I went to a better one thirty miles away) walking with my head down in the corridors because people wanted to beat me up for doing well. Eventually I pretty much stopped trying at all to stop drawing attention to myself (unfortunately still did quite well ). I think I would have enjoyed a grammar school more and spent less time miserable. But at the same time the idea of classifying someone for life based on one exam at age eleven is not a good one.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Sept 16, 2016 22:59:20 GMT
That sounds terrible. Why were grammar schools abolished, did the politicians worry that some children did too well?
The problem in Sweden is that it is the girls who study and do well. The boys find it not macho enough, this is especially true of boys in the country and in the subarbs. Also, even if the schools are of the same type, some are much better (due to the parents' own education).
In Sweden we don't have the "public schools" you have in Britain. Otoh, there are "free schools" which are private but paid by tax money (no fees for the parents). It is of course schools which the most interested parents choose.
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Sept 17, 2016 0:14:26 GMT
Forgive me, but what exactly is a grammar school?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Sept 17, 2016 4:43:19 GMT
A long time ago there was a system called the eleven plus, whereby children were set an exam and on the basis of their results, they were assigned to different schools. Those who did well went to grammar school. Those who did not went to secondary moderns, which were more vocation based. Eventually grammars were largely abolished - some still exist though the eleven plus was gone even before my time - and comprehensive schools are what children who are not in the private sector go to. See google for more details.
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Sept 17, 2016 6:41:03 GMT
Our system is based on exams at age 11 and the evaluation of the teacher. Depending on your level you can go to different level schools. We have 6 different levels. During your years in secondary school you can switch levels depending on your results. Most schools offer several levels. Mine offers 5 out of 6. Because different levels have different lengths of schooling, it's also possible to go to a higher level after graduating from a lower one. Our tertiary education is also leveled like this. It's not perfect, but at least you're generally among peers on an academic level.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Sept 17, 2016 7:25:31 GMT
When I saw grammar schools, I thought it was something to do with grammar nazis wanting to have schools just to teach proper grammar!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Sept 18, 2016 9:45:56 GMT
Mari's school system sounds very much like the one we had when I was at school, except that the best schools were called grammar schools. There were eight or nine grammar schools in Sheffield and our parents were asked to list the schools in order of preference. I did well in the 11-plus and was assigned to my first preference, which was generally regarded as the best grammar school and most sought after. Within the school there was a flexible streaming system but once assigned to a grammar school you could not switch.
The system worked well for disadvantaged kids. For most of my life before the age of 11, I lived in a 2-up, 2-down council house with an outside toilet, in a run-down area that was ripe for low quality secondary schooling*. But instead, I went to the top grammar school and subsequently gained a scholarship to Cambridge.
That system was constructed and run by a conservative council. After I left, Labour took over the council in Sheffield and abolished all grammar schools. You went to the nearest secondary school, which in my case would have been one full of disadvantaged kids. If you wanted good schooling, your parents had to move to a house in a good area. As a consequence, house prices in good areas rocketed. Generally speaking, rich parents had their children go to good schools, poor parents the opposite.
Had Labour taken over Sheffield City Council before my 11-plus (and had my grandfather lived until I was 15), I would never in a million years have ended up in Cambridge. As a consequence, I am deeply indebted to the Conservative local government even though my heart is now with Labour.
* This was true up until the age of 9 when my grandfather died and we moved to a similar house in a much better area.
|
|
|
Post by Elis on Sept 18, 2016 21:26:07 GMT
We have grammar schools as well, although they do not seem quite as common as they used to be and A-levels can be done at High Schools now which are comprehensive schools. I went to a grammar school which was a bit 'special' back then because of the bilingual English-German programme. It was a good school. Back then, I knew three types of school: grammar school, "Realschule" which went up to 10th grade and "Hauptschule" which ended with 9th grade. It was possible to move up to a better type of school, but grades had to be really good. Now the "Hauptschule" is seen as the place where the neglected or misbehaving kids are prepared for unemployment. Those, as well as "Realschule" are becoming rare and are being replaced by comprehensive schools, where pupils do their MSA after 10th grade (like GCSE's) and can move on to Grammar school if they did well enough. There are some advantages to that system, but I still think grammar schools are important for the kids who do better. Having all kids at one level doesn't seem to work too well. Admittedly,in comprehensive schools, kids have E-courses and G-courses in German, English and Maths,so they can take E-courses if their grades are good enough.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Sept 18, 2016 23:20:31 GMT
In Sweden we have had for a long time a 9-year long comprehensive school. (Earlier we had parallell systems, folkskola, realskola and gymnasium). All children have the right to a good education, it is said. Children went to the school nearest home. There were schools with a profile of music or sports but otherwise they schools were all alike. To, me 11 year sounds too early to decide what you want to study. The comprehensive school is compulsory. The secondary school/high school is in theory optional but it is hard to get by without any more education than the compulsory one. The secondary school has different programmes, some theoretical (can go to the university afterwards) and some practical (vocational schools).
But the system is rather confusing nowadays due to all private "free schools" (charter schools) and religious schools. And the Pisa results have fallen for Sweden.
The positive side is that even if you live in a poor suburb, you can go to a good school (or a school with status) if you have parents who are alert. It is easier to change school. The negative side is that the gaps between god and bad schools have widened. There are schools in the subarbs where 90% of the pupils talk Arabic or other non-Swedish languages. They don't learn enough Swedish. The boys often shirk school and get criminal. The girls either switch to better schools outside the suburb or get married off. Good schools for everyone now seems like an unrealistic dream.
Another downside is that some parents now see schools as shops and teachers as service personnel. If you don't like the service you turn to another shop (school). This has lead to headmasters and teachers trying to please the parents and grade inflation. The teachers have lost status.
|
|
|
Post by yooperguy on Sept 19, 2016 16:26:46 GMT
I always thought grammar schools and elementary schools were the same, Kindergarten through 6th grade.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 2, 2016 20:14:35 GMT
I think that in the US they are .. different things here though.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Oct 4, 2016 0:12:51 GMT
I passed the eleven plus (a sort of general knowledge written exam taken back then by all children at age eleven). So I went to grammar school. A couple of years later the eleven plus was phased out in the area I lived, so there were only two sets of kids younger than me at the school. The school was then gradually converted in to a sixth form college (so the new students coming to the school were aged about sixteen instead of eleven). Those of us already at the grammar school continued till we were sixteen and then filtered into the sixth form college part housed now in the same buildings.
There was a real change in culture as it converted from a grammar school to a sixth form college: the grammar school was old fashioned and strict - we wore uniforms and had to change between indoor and outdoor shoes in changing rooms. We called the teachers sir or miss. The sixth form college had no uniform and we called the teachers by their first names. We had a common room where we were allowed to smoke and gamble. There was always rock music on the record player in there.
My maths teacher used to take me and a couple of mates to the pub at lunchtime in his car. We would enjoy a pint and a game of darts before he took us back for the afternoon lessons. He left the school after he got a girl in my class pregnant - but he still carried on teaching at another school not far away.
Times have changed eh?
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 4, 2016 1:04:28 GMT
Hmm well, I wonder how far your school was just a bit different . Even at the comprehensive we wore uniforms and called the teachers sir and miss .. and definitely did not go out drinking with the teachers
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Oct 4, 2016 3:28:58 GMT
Oh I know the sixth form college was unusual - even back then. I think most of them had no uniforms and allowed smoking in designated areas, but allowing the pupils to call their teachers by their first names was going a bit too far, I think.
For foreigners I should explain that grammar schools were for pupils aged roughly eleven to seventeen. They were mostly paid for by the state (tax payers). The pupils were selected by the so called 'eleven plus' exam, sat at age about eleven by all children attending state schools. The top-scoring children went to grammar schools which were geared to provide academic education leading children towards college. The other children went to 'secondary modern' schools where they were given a more vocational education that usually finished a year or two earlier than at grammar schools - and the people leaving at age fifteen or sixteen were then expected to get jobs rather than go on to college.
I think more money per pupil was allocated to grammar schools than secondary modern ones. I forget what fraction of children qualified for the grammar school education - but I think it was less than half - maybe as low as a fifth?
I don't know why they were called 'grammar' schools - grammar wasn't taught at mine, other than as a small part of the 'english language' classes.
That sounds dated now too - English was split into two subjects : English language and English literature - in the language classes we were taught how to spell and punctuate; how to format correspondence. In the literature classes we studied prose, poetry, and plays.
The 'split at age eleven' system has been mostly replaced by comprehensive school education over the last thirty years - where all the children in an area all attend the same school(s), but now Prime Minister May wants to reintroduce grammar schools ( a few survived in some parts of the country). I think it's a bad idea. I think comprehensive schools are a fairer and better system.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 4, 2016 19:30:06 GMT
I dunno .. I didn't enjoy the first comprehensive I went to. It was rough and anyone who did well ran the risk of being beaten up in the corridors. I deliberately stopped trying academically after a couple of years there to stop drawing attention to myself.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 4, 2016 21:36:00 GMT
Why do kids hate people who do well?
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Oct 4, 2016 22:20:44 GMT
Maybe they take it as showing them up in a bad light. Pointing out their errors and failings by comparison. Like correcting people in the countdown thread.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 5, 2016 2:29:26 GMT
I don't know ... I suspect it's a class thing. People who do well are perceived as being middle class 'snobs.' There were bright kids who came from the estates but they seemed to learn very quickly not to show that they were bright - more quickly than I did. I heard of someone who wanted to go to a FE college but her family teased her out of it .. 'they' didn't go to 'college.'
|
|
|
Post by Elis on Oct 5, 2016 6:34:10 GMT
I'm other sure having just comprehensive schools is a good idea. If kids are bright and do well, they should be able to go to schools where they can get a really good education. I have seen quite a few kids who seem to get lost in comprehensive schools. They do badly, but can't be held back anymore, often don't get grades till year 7 or 8 and just get ignored and dragged along.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 5, 2016 9:24:25 GMT
In Congleton, where we used to live, one of the comprehensive schools was split into two with two buildings, an upper school and a lower school. At age 11, children took an 11+ exam which separated them into the two streams. A friend of mine who was a teacher there was proud of the system. Children could switch between the schools after two years depending on their ability. So I asked how many children actually switched schools. "Almost none," he replied. So what chance did pupils in the lower school have of getting a good education?
|
|
bill
Senior members
Posts: 891
|
Post by bill on Oct 5, 2016 11:56:20 GMT
Two things spring to mind. First of all I hope that the children in the lower stream were getting a 'good' education in line with their ability. Secondly, perhaps the fact that few children migrated between the streams meant that either they were happy where they were and/or the selection system got it right in the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 5, 2016 12:23:57 GMT
Children develop at different stages and so you would expect some changes. But once in the lower stream you progress at a lower rate.
In my first year at grammar school, I was very good at some subjects and very poor at others. My average wasn't good enough to put me in the top stream overall. But my school was flexible and allowed different streams for different subjects. So my education in maths was first class whilst my education in history was poor. Had my school been split in two, like the Congleton school, I would not have had a first rate education in anything.
I feared for my son, Richard, who was a late developer and was borderline between the lower and upper schools in Congleton. Fortunately, they changed the system just before he took his 11+.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 5, 2016 21:05:39 GMT
I don't see why we can't have a grammar system but not based on one specific exam and more on the basis of continual assessment. That said, I guess it must have made kids feel like a failure at a very young age if they did not pass the eleven plus.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Oct 5, 2016 21:54:08 GMT
I'm sure it did. That can be changed by calling every school a grammar school.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 5, 2016 21:57:43 GMT
Well not really ..
|
|
|
Post by Elis on Oct 9, 2016 9:38:19 GMT
I don't see why we can't have a grammar system but not based on one specific exam and more on the basis of continual assessment. That said, I guess it must have made kids feel like a failure at a very young age if they did not pass the eleven plus. In some states in germany it is similar, among them the state where I grew up. Kids need to have a certain grade average when they finish 4th year to be allowed to attend grammar school. If they fail to get that grade average, they can do a special test, but if they fail that as well, they are not at all allowed to go to grammar school. By that time they are 10 years old which is a bit young for such decisions to be made, and it causes a lot of panic and pressure in primary schools. They can still change to grammar school later, but that is harder and seems to happen more rarely. A good thing is that kids who attend comprehensive schools can now get their A-levels as well if they pass their MSA with a good enough grade average. But at comprehensive schools, they often just learn English and not other foreign language. The option is often there, but that depends on their grades again. In Grammar schools, children learn first English and then French or Spanish and often Latin as well. I remember one kid who was very bright, as were his two older sisters. I tutored him in year 5 and 6. At that time he was at a comprehensive school and he wasn't doing well, getting distracted easily and not focusing on the work he had to do. He changed to Grammar school after year 6, repeated that year and when I met him again when he was in year 7, he had good grades, was very popular with the teachers and was doing very well in Grammar school. He just came to the place where I tutor because his mother had frogotten to write the letter to end the contract with us. I think he was bored at comprehensive school.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Oct 10, 2016 20:32:31 GMT
I was bored at comprehensive school too. My brother went to private school and was a lot more stretched.
|
|