Separate Schools?

[*Bob*]

Anecdotally:

The grammar school I went to was about 10% 'Asian' (mostly Indian though, I would have thought) when I was there.

It's now over 50%, with over 20% who don't have English as their first language.

They did a Bollywood musical for the school play this year.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Went to a Comprehensive School, they're actually not as bad as people make out. We all got our GCSE's in Woodwork, Rural Science, and Media Studies.

[cdonline]

I don't believe that a single faith or race school is the future. There is a problem with children under achieving, especially in minority communities, and I'm not sure of the solution, but it ain't this.

I went to a single sex school and at the time, did not feel I was missing out particularly. I think co-education is probably best, if for no other reason, it may have improved the personal hygiene of the boys. On a wet day, the smell of a few hundred boys drying off at assembly, is someit else.

The school has always had a good reputation, is always more over subsribed. Keef talks about the streaming of arty students and science ones. I wasn't aware of that, must have had my head somewhere else. One of the things was, there were a sizeable group of students, who were not really interested in studying and causing disruption to others, who were interested.

[*Bob*]

The stupidity of the recent "everyone's a winner" approach to education extends into University now, of course.

Everyone has a degree but no-one can actually do anything.

[David Mc]

The only time I ever wanted to throw my radio on the floor, stamp on it violently and then fling it hard through the window was a couple of years ago when they were interviewing Miliband (then Education Secretary or whatever) on the "exams are easier therefore more kids are passing" vs. "the kids are better educated so of course they'll get better marks" debate. His arguments (in the latter camp of course), and arrogant (you are stupid, I am clever - when in fact the exact opposite was true) tone were TOTALLY specious and infuriating!

David (rapidly becoming grumpy old man) Mc!

[SimonM]

I love all this rose-tinted spectacles bollocks that seem to attach to the nostalgia attaching to the old grammar schools. What people tend to conveniently overlook is that grammar schools took the "top" 20% (as at age 11, assuming the kids were not having a bad day when they took the 11+) and the remaining 80% went to secondary modern schools (or similar). The latter schools were given less money, fewer facilties and inevitably attracted a different kind of teacher (cough). Basically you were telling 4/5ths of the country's kids that their future education was just killing time until they went into factories, mines or whatever

And yet for all that they were not hotbeds of violence and anarchy, the way many modern comprehensive schools ar portrayed. I am confident that the reasons schools are such different environments now have nothing to do with the non-selective systems currently in place and everything to do with other things going on in society...

[*Bob*]

Sorry to differ, Simon

Our grammar school was the worst funded school out of about 25 local comps - passed-over time and time again for any sort of useful investment (by the Labour council, naturally).

So much so that the school was forced to go cap in hand to the parents at the start of each term for voluntary contributions - a fiver.. a tenner.. nothing if they couldn't afford it - so that they could buy things like, you know, books and the like.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Our grammar school was the worst funded school out of about 25 local comps - passed-over time and time again for any sort of useful investment (by the Labour council, naturally).

Is this a "virtual fact" or a "hard fact"?

[*Bob*]

SimonM Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

(Comprehensives) were

> given less money, fewer facilties...

It's as hard a fact as the above.

[????]

So SimonM - we now have a system where many comprehensives (especially in deprived areas) have become as bad academically as the old Secondary Moderns and far more dangerous! So rather than 20% getting an 'elite' education it's a far lower share and largely determined by money (private education / moving to expensive areas with different schools) and for bright working class kids in deprived areas that has been a disaster and is a disaster for us all in terms of social mobility, equal opportunity, etc...the music and drugs may have been good but the 60s didn't half foook up lots in our country...

[James]

>>Firstly my Grammar School with 350 years proud Academic history became a "Sink School" within 8 years of losing its "Grammar" status..Pretty impressive one feels.

Secondly must have read 500 stories of Guys in the Public eye who were held back at School because the disruptive kids not only did not want to learn as it was boring and uncool but made damn sure no-one else did either!

This is my point! Your school became a sink school Tony - unless we have full, enforced comprehensivisation there will always be a brain drain towards any kind of selective school. If there were no selective, private or faith schools and your school's comprehensive intake had been truly comprehensive (ie. a proper, enforced mix of each ability level) it would not have become a sink school.

[*Bob*]

I'm not going to get down on my knees and give Grammar schools a blow job or anything.. there are downsides of course. And I'm not blind to all the arguments against them (most of which are points of principle and are fair comment).

But until someone comes-up with a solution which isn't based on the premise of just making everybody adequate instead of making everybody better (to whatever degree and in whatever way in which they can be) then I'm afraid I selfishly reserve the right to do whatever I can to get the best for my children.. just like my parents did.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

James Wrote:

> This is my point! Your school became a sink school

> Tony - unless we have full, enforced

> comprehensivisation there will always be a brain

> drain towards any kind of selective school. If

> there were no selective, private or faith schools

> and your school's comprehensive intake had been

> truly comprehensive (ie. a proper, enforced mix of

> each ability level) it would not have become a

> sink school.

What happened James is that once the "selection" process finished then the School:Archbishop Tenisons,Kennington,Oval was simply the School for the local kids of (presumably) all abilities.It was not the equivalent of a Secondary Modern,where as pointed out earlier,these were the "80%" who did not pass the 11+ but a mix of the local kids i.e A true Comprehensive mix.

Important to note how well many have done despite their "Sec.Mod." education NOT because of it!

Our local Sec.Mod. school was rough though...I do not know if this was an apothrecal story but my schoolmate swore that he saw only one window there that was not broke and as he passed by a chair went thru' it!..If that was not true of The Borough Of Beaufoy it should have been!

Also my first experience of a mugging (me being the victim) 3 Boys(I White/1 Black/1 Mixed=Clint his name was) nicked my money in 1968 in Kennington Park and when I lied and said I lived in Bromley-By-Bow gave me a "refund" of 2 old pence!(Tea-leaves with a Heart:Bless!)::o

[Jah Lush]

I haven't had enough time to read all this thread yet and perhaps I should and probably will later. I just think that to go down the road of segregation is totally wrong. As someone posted earlier it's like being in South Africa in the 60s or the deep south of America around the same time. Jeez!

For the record I went to an all boys comprehensive in SW2. A whole melting pot of different cultures at that time in the early 70s, but mostly West Indian, English, (about half an half actually) then Asian, Irish, a few Greeks and Turks and a couple Maltese and Italian.

It was a shithole with 2,000 kids in there that all wanted to kill each other. I walked out at 15 and told them to stick it up their arse and never went back. Maybe I'm still a little scarred by it but I had quite a lot of fun there but mostly when I was bunking off with my mates.

Err...oops, sorry, maybe I'll come back and be more constructive when I've read through the thread properly.

[kristymac1]

Ooh this is a tricky one and I'm likely to contradict myself throughout the post - apologies in advance.....

My immediate repsonse would be to say that any form of segregation is wrong, but I think probably I mean in the case of race and gender - when my little one goes to school I want her to be in a school which reflects the racial and cultural diversity of London - otherwise why live here if we don't want to embrace the immediate Society in which we live.

I have a personal dislike of single sex schools, and I'm aware of all the statistical research concluding better for boys, not so good for girls etc (interestingly the opposite findings of another post) but I went to both and hated the girls school environment and values (although made great friends and enjoyed school despite the values), my hubbie went to a public boys school and whilst his friends from there are good people, most of them have only just learned how to respond to me (we've been together 15 years!). I'm less concerned about Faith schools, it would be difficult to expect all schools across the country to deliver the levels of religious teaching desired by some parents and so I can see a place for specific faith teaching in some schools. Personally I want my kids to go to a school which teaches tolerance of all faiths, not necessarily faith teachings.

At the moment though, I'd settle for a good choice of good schools which meet the needs of all kids - not asking too much am I?....

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

So rather than 20% getting an 'elite' education it's a far lower share and largely determined by money (private education / moving to expensive areas with different schools) and for bright working class kids in deprived areas that has been a disaster and is a disaster for us all in terms of social mobility, equal opportunity, etc...the music and drugs may have been good but the 60s didn't half foook up lots in our country...

See, I find this a bit irritating. Lots of "bright working class kids" do well in the comprehensive school system, maybe more than the small number of them incuded in the "20%" that went to grammar schools. The grammar school system undoubtedly worked for a lot of people (mainly those who couldn't possibly have studied in the presence of thickos) but it also let down an equal, if not greater, number of children. How many dyslexic kids went to grammar school? Or Asperger kids, or 11yr olds who just didn't perform well in exams?

[????]

Universities have a lower number of entrants from working class backgrounds, Oxbridge ditto and social mobility is now actually falling........crappy old elitist Grammar schools eh...

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Universities have a lower number of entrants from working class backgrounds, Oxbridge ditto and social mobility is now actually falling........crappy old elitist Grammar schools eh...

Thats fairly disingenious. There isn't a "working class" now as comparable to the 60's so the figures are skewed, there are, however, many more non-public school educated students going to universities. Even Oxbridge.

[Marmora Man]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Universities have a lower number of entrants from

> working class backgrounds, Oxbridge ditto and

> social mobility is now actually

> falling........crappy old elitist Grammar schools

> eh...

>

> Thats fairly disingenious. There isn't a "working

> class" now as comparable to the 60's so the

> figures are skewed, there are, however, many more

> non-public school educated students going to

> universities. Even Oxbridge.

Both are confusing % with absolute numbers. More people attend university - but the % from lower income income groups is small and reducing.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

The view of The Managing Editoron The UK's leading Black Site...

Black Teachers: is an overhyped cliche that for me holds absolutely no solutions...Putting more black faces in school for me solves nothing... What i would like is motivated, committed and passionate teachers BLACK or WHITE to be encouraged... unfortunately we don't have that and the current culture of targets, tick box and school tables culture is the real enemy... Schools appears to have STOPPED teaching and started to feed the government agenda instead of teaching children...

Parent choice: the Government need to scrap this artificial School choice merry go round that occurs every year... This is one of the primary reason why thinks are spiralling out of control... What happens is the so called 'best' schools cream of the least troublesome children..and dump the reat..and its the rest that then gets placed into schools that quickly become sink school that can keep teachers, can't attract a children of mixed abilities and worse discipline plummets...its a recipe for crime and gang culture it needs to stop!!

However for the key issue is that there is simple no order or discipline in schools, you have children literraly running the ruddy school..because the teachers are too soft and too stupid to control the classes the problem is the ruddy parents do not teach their children basic manners.. and any teacher will struggle to teach is the student are unruly..and they truly are...

For me they need to reintroduce proper codes of discipline in ALL schools, and then stick to it. If there are no consequences for actions, then you have little hope of promoting education I don't care what colour you are...

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Both are confusing % with absolute numbers. More people attend university - but the % from lower income income groups is small and reducing.

No, I'm not. What I am saying is that there are many more non-Public School educated kids going to University, Poly's etc now than there were in the heyday of the 11+ system. For clarification, non-Public school used to mean Grammar + Secondary Modern but now largely means Comprehensive.

[indiepanda]

Well, I went to an all girls Catholic school from the age of 11-16. It was billed as having a grammar stream - meaning the people who passed the 11+ were in the top two sets and the people who failed were in the bottom 3. It was a bit of a con to get the parents of the brighter kids not to send us to the local single sex grammar schools - in reality the school's results were no better overall than the local comprehensive in my home town.

I didn't enjoy single sex education at all - I was shy & lacking in confidence, dreadful at sport and smart enough to come top of the year on average (which says a lot about the standards because I'm not that smart), and the bitchiness I was exposed to as a result was really upsetting - I didn't feel I could trust anyone very much, friends included.

I engineered an excuse not to go into the school sixth form but to go to the local comprehensive 6th form college which all the comps in the area used to feed into, and I was so happy there, whether it was having the boys around to stop the girls from being bitchy or whether it was just being that bit older, but it was a totally different culture.

I would never dream of sending a child of mine to a single sex school. Even now, my chosen career means I am in a male dominated profession (less so as time goes by but was very much so when I entered) and I'm sure there is no coincidence in that. Don't get me wrong, most of my close friends are female, but given the choice between working with a team of 10 women or 10 men I would probably choose the men every time, and I suspect it is mainly because of the memories of school. I have nightmares about being made to go back still and it's over 19 years since I left.

Do I think black schools are a good idea. No way... as people have already said, sounds too much like South Africa and the days of apartheid.

Unusually for me (as I don't generally have a problem with private sector things) I would quite like to see an end to private education. I feel like no matter what someone's background they should have a good chance at school to get beyond their parents economic background and discover their innate talents, and having the kids from the wealthiest backgrounds out of the state schools able to get better education doesn't seem to support that.

I was lucky, despite my school experience not being good personally, academically it was good, I was the first in my family to stay on beyond 16 and ended up not just going to university but doing a tough professional qualification after. My mum was smart enough to do all that, but generally in the 50s working class girls didn't. By the late 80s opportunities were really there for people from a working class background. Don't get me started on the hash they have made of the university system in more recent years though!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Really interesting Indie! Glad you pulled thru' after your experiences.

I went to an All-Boys Grammar School and enjoyed it thoroughly but it did leave me failing in my teens with Girls as there were no young females in my Family/Neighbourhood or School!

Having worked in every kind of environment for 35 years now I can promise you that while my preference is a mixed environment even if came down to a choice of "10" from one gender then it would be Men every time.

I now work in a (virtually)all Male setting of around 30/40 Guys and the banter is incessant but great and affectionate. I love going to work to be honest and thats a primary reason.The banter.>:D<

[PeckhamRose]

I want society to be great and to do that you have to specially concentrate on kids who are obviously gifted no matter their background. They can be identified and then put in hot house schools but if they're unhappy send them to the school they wanted or would have gone to otherwise. Special schools for gifted children can give society great people who could be the greatest scientists, philosopherd, social reformers, doctors or whatever.

Sounds great. But unworkable.

I went to a boarding school for sick children ("Delicate children" to be accurate). I had the worst time of my life there but "ordinary" school ws not an option. I could not understand why all the other kids seemed so happy. Going home in the holidays I was also unhappy as home life was a nightmare. So I would spend holidays in hospital. Now, I am a happy adult and over all that. But I use it so as to explain stuff.

Meeting about 10 of those kids since from FriendsReunited has been what helped me. I found out what THEY were thinking. They loved the place because it saved their lives and made them feel good about themselves. We were treated all the same. We were all the same. Segregation (of sick kids) worked for most of the kids there. Going home in the holidays made a lot of kids sick again. When I left I went to a Secondary school and sometimes it felt it was me and the wheelchair user against the world. I made a few friends but being a sick kid I was different and never part of the crowd. That's kids for you.

Let's be frank. Kids are bullies. Kids can be cruel and kids can be cleverly cruel so they're not caught. And they are specially cruel to people outside their experience, colour, body type, postcode! So segregation does make sense.

But in an ideal world of course we want society to be all the same. To all go to the same schools and mix and be "tolerant" (a word meaning to me, that you want to bully or say bad things but you are being taught not to).

Well the comprehensive system sounds great but there's one big chunk of society missing from it. The rich kids. They're in separate schools, many of them boarding. So why can't poor kids go to separate schools and be concentrated on too?

Of course, sending them off to such schools is not the answer, the answer is the unspeakable truth that many people should not be having kids. They can't look after them. They often don't want them. Money is not always the answer here. Seems to me such schools in the current political climate are probably going to be a good answer. My fears are when those kids go home to their estates in the holidays, they will be picked on.

If people do not like the idea of sending poor kids to boarding schools they should close down every public boarding school in this country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7523211.stm

[????]

er..... there's now many more public school kids going to universities too fairy - it's the expansion in both the population but also the massive increase in Higher Education since the 11+ heyday (50%+ now go to..er, 'university' compared to less than 10% 20+ years ago) the point is that proportionally those in the lower 10th income household make up less of a share of students than they used to...and , even according to the goverment figures, social mobility has decreased.