I've often ranted about the Kent's grammar school system, for the simple reason that I think its bent. What's my reasoning behind this, well apart from the fact, that deciding the winners and losers of public examinations years in advance by making some clumsy selection at 10, the fact many parents pay for extra tuition to help their children pass the Kent test (eleven plus) seems to make the whole process unfair.
I found tonight's report on BBC South East Today, on children receiving extra tuition quite revealing, clearly parents doshing out cash to tutors, obviously feel their buying their children an advantage and who could blame them.
As someone who had rather mediocre education, in this county I cannot help feel that I along with 75% of the school population, had a piss poor experience which I don't doubt continues today for the majority, since from the age of ten, competition and aspiration is taken away by Kent's third rate politicians.
Ask yourself this if Kent's education systems is so good, how come most of Britain gets along with a comprehensive educations system, which produces better results. The way I see it is the grammar school is set up in Kent by conservatives, to give the well heeled a better education system.
If you would like to see the report that I refer click here. Finally if you need extra tuition in what's wrong with Kent keep reading Bignews Margate, I promise free education at the click of your mouse and wont make you take a test or judge or send you to an inferior Blog.
I found tonight's report on BBC South East Today, on children receiving extra tuition quite revealing, clearly parents doshing out cash to tutors, obviously feel their buying their children an advantage and who could blame them.
As someone who had rather mediocre education, in this county I cannot help feel that I along with 75% of the school population, had a piss poor experience which I don't doubt continues today for the majority, since from the age of ten, competition and aspiration is taken away by Kent's third rate politicians.
Ask yourself this if Kent's education systems is so good, how come most of Britain gets along with a comprehensive educations system, which produces better results. The way I see it is the grammar school is set up in Kent by conservatives, to give the well heeled a better education system.
If you would like to see the report that I refer click here. Finally if you need extra tuition in what's wrong with Kent keep reading Bignews Margate, I promise free education at the click of your mouse and wont make you take a test or judge or send you to an inferior Blog.
Oh Tony, we seem to have been here before, and I have corrected your statement before that the national comprehensive system is better - it isn't! I have just presided over the best ever results at GCSE, which beat the national averages of comprehensive education.
ReplyDeleteIt would be accurate to say that the spread of achievement is greater, by which I mean the grammar schools stretch their ability range further than comprehensives do, and the high schools struggle to compete with schools that have grammar ability pupils in them as well, but, overall, the average is better, whatever the myths of those who are against it!
I've taught in both high schools and grammar schools and am vehemently against selection at 11 for many reasons not least the way it 'fails, children at 10/11. Many grammar school children in my considerable experience adopt an elitist attitude towards others that from an early age divides our society.
ReplyDeleteHigh school children feel failures from Year 7 and many, despite the best efforts of teachers, continue with that feeling all through school.
My children went to grammar school and when they went to university were the only ones to come through a selective system. In the end there was no difference in their A levels or degrees from those who'd come through a comprehensive.
I taught A level and the best results were from those who'd fought their way through a high school to get good results at 16. They knew what a struggle it had been to achieve. I taught pupils who at A level got straight A's, better than those who'd gone through the grammar school yet at 11 were told, 'Sorry, we don't want you in our grammar school'. What sweet revenge for the pupil who got a PhD after going through one of our high schools, then a grammar 6th form then university.
The Grammar School system does far more damage to pupils than the Comprehensive system.
ReplyDeleteGrammar School squeezes its victims between the needs of parasitic teachers for a job and the aspirations of parents for their children.
The childrens' brains then have to adapt to survive the Belsen of the Brain institution aka Grammar School. The brains do this by changing long term memory chemistry.
Tortured by the exercise of five years (what should be formative years) in which the camp officials attempt to treach nothing about everything. The pupil's brain cunningly adapts so as to treat all knowledge as equally useless apart from keeping adult pressure off. Hence retain the information the exams seek until the exam is passed and then allow the brain to rinse it out and avoid polluting the damaged long term memory with it.
By the time they hit sixth form they don't give a toss if the ex High School kids out perform them.
Discuss
To add to above a positive note.
ReplyDeleteThere is or was a maths lecturer at Thanet Tech teaching access to higher education maths to ex High School pupils. I read some of his own written teaching material a few years back. Trying to teach maths as a language with understanding and equipping the students with a learning tool instead of a programm,e of methods.
Well done that man. Visionary.
Forgot his name (Long term memory damage)
But I think his former pupils tended to go on to shine at University. Possibly because he was a superior teacher to those at the Grammar Schools. Anyway well done.
At age 11 my son was written off - "will be lucky to stack shelves at a supermarket". Luckily he was in a comprehensive system. He was just a late developer and went on to get extremely good A Levels - a very good first degree and then a Ph.D.
ReplyDeleteIf we had lived in Kent at the time he probably would have ended up stacking shelves in a supermarket. Is this why there seems to be such a leck of educational attainment in Thanet with many young people lacking self confidence and self worth?
Well Chris it seems as if your outnumbered on this one.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if I'd have had the opportunity to have aspirations instead limitations at school whether I would be doing what I'm doing now.
I really do think Kents Grammar schools are corrupted by a lack of fair competition, good luck to those kids whose parents have assisted in getting them in.
The fact parents have their kids coached to pass the test just proves that grammar schools are their in the main to create a them and us society.
Some argue that at least 25 percent of pupils are not disrupted by those who would rather not be at school. If this is true then the remaining 75 percent contain the disruptive element and its obvious that selection puts these children at a bigger disadvantage than under the comprehensive system where the disruptive element is spread over the 100 percent. If you want selection why only select 25 percent when at least 90 percent of children are entitled to the best.
ReplyDeleteAbolish Grammar Schools, Comprehensives and Secondary Moderns and lets have a High School system. Selection at 10/11 is damaging. I remember failing my 11+ and I knew it and I knew the perceived consequences that I could look forward to being a carpenter, bricklayer, postman, soldier, police constable, plumber but not a solicitor, accountant, surveyor, stockbroker or doctor. I'm in my mid-40s now, I hold down a very responsible position in the Civil Service and all my colleagues have A-Levels, Degrees and passed through Grammar Schools. Me, I went to Secondary Modern School, the title alone makes one feel 'secondary'.
ReplyDelete