Sunday, October 01, 2006
Two-tier: Grammar and Comprehensive. We'll leave private schools out of the argument for the moment.
Let's have a look at the arguments for a two-tier education system:
- Comprehensive schools are mixed-ability and the sheer range does not allow good teaching as the current rules stand regarding discipline.
- Grammar schools allow the very best pupils to get high quality, high level teaching more ably than a comprehensive
- Comprehensive schools do not allow teachers to stretch the able pupils nor allow the low ability pupils to become better except at the expense of those "in the middle"
- Removing the two-tier education system i.e. eradicating grammar schools does not allow the parents to choose which would be best for their child, particularly if their child is bright
- Removing grammar schools forces a common education system for all, it makes no difference to those in comprehensive schools if grammar schools exist
And against:
- Comprehensive schools encourage pupils to recognise there are a wide range of abilities and respect that
- Grammar schools are elitist and pass on this elitism to their students
- Comprehensive schools can produce good results and allow the best pupils to reach their potential
- Intelligent pupils are not necessarily disciplined ones
- Comprehensive schools would work if good quality discipline and teaching was consistently applied
- Grammar schools are unnatural as in the working world one has to work with many different types of people
11 Comments:
<< Home
Anyone who wants to know what really goes on in the average secondary school these days needs to read It's Your Time You're Wasting, by Frank Chalk. It's his real-life diary of his time teaching in a 'bog standard' comprehensive school.
It is a brilliant read, funny, shocking and reveals the state to which education in this country has sunk.
He also has a blog: http://frankchalk.blogspot.com/
Maybe Grammars are better academically but if you want to come out socially ready for the big bad world, I would say it's gotta be a community school.
And...seeing as you can also do well academically at a community school (even if it's harder), I would say community schools are the way to go.
If you're bright and commited, you're going to do well anywhere and if you can't do well unless at a grammar school, something's wrong!
Abi - of course!
I linked to Frank Chalk's blog in the main body of the post, it partly inspired me to write something in defence of a two-tier education system.
How, then would removing grammar schools help? If you're bright but need a strong work ethic to succeed, isn't it unfair to say, you aren't cut out for being clever?
Furthermore, the fact that grammar schools still exist show that there is a demand and thus people still believe that they are right for some people: surely a reason to continue the way we are.
"If you're bright and commited, you're going to do well anywhere"
This is true; however there are other problems at a community school. For example, pupils of different standards and abilities. At Tamarside, they decided to abolish setting in English for one year; the SATs students in Year 9 got an average mark of just under level 5. This shows that the higher achievers were dragged down by pupils who would have been in a lower set. If I went to a community school, then I wouldn't like to spend my lessons watching the teacher hopelessly trying to teach the non-achievers anything.
Setting does abolish this to some extent, but still problems arise, even at a grammer school. Personality clashes (naturally) do arise, and this is a very hard thing to avoid; unless there is a teacher:student ratio of 1:1. At a community school, then this is more likely to happen (in my experience) as pupils are of a more spread out standard. Sorry if you're in a community school and are reading this; I'm most probably very wrong :P
Amazingly, I shall post in half-defence of Abi :P
"If you're bright and commited, you're going to do well anywhere"
Untrue for the majority of schools. A good comprehensive e.g. Saltash, as far as I can tell, will allow those who are bright and committed to do well. Those in a school such as Mr Chalk's, or as Matt points out, Tamarside and various other schools: you probably won't reach your full potential.
Note that there is a difference between doing well and fulfilling your potential.
i would definately say yes to grammars
although it is dispiritng to fail the 11+ exam, i think it beifits many more that way. for example, the bright ones who go to comprehensives are, lets face it, gonna get beaten up a lot.
plus it allows mixing with people of similar ability. i dont think i could perform as well in a class of dumbasses who have to ask what "accuracy of information" is.
i like the fact that it gives more inteligent pupils the push to be better.
perhaps the failure is in the schools after all...
there is litteraly no disipline whatsoever at eggbuckland, the people next to me seem to watch videos of people hitting eachother all the time. the teacher dose know this but doesn't do a thing about it. It wastes my time aswell.
And i am sure that we cannot get to our highest potential at any old school.
oh yes and:
lesson not challenging=boredom=misbehaviour=disruption=more bored pupils=etc
Well if you do choose Tamarside as the example of a community school...haha!! It's one of the worst in Plymouth isn't it?!
Abi, you are kind of right...it's pretty much a dump (my mum's a maths teacher there), but isn't as bad as Parkside, Sir John Hunt and Stoke Dameral (to name a few).
Well Saltash Community School rules :) More than DHS I'm afraid. We have a pig and two sheep and all three are pregnant!! How cool is that? And chickens! Delores is due on Sunday - piglets anyday now, check out the pigcam hahaha!!
We're not arguing about which school is better, Abi :P