Exams

The issue about Grammers is that it gave something for a few and then didn’t do well with who was put in the “other stream” at what is an early age.

If you failed the 11-plus, yes.

It consigned some to a poorer, from a point of expectations, level of education and that included some very able acedamic kids who didn’t make the Grammer.

Was it poorer, or more relevant? Not everyone is going to be cut out for exams, more exams and then university.

Only about 20% of children at Grammers in the 1950’s were classed as being from family’s with parents from Unskilled or Semi Skilled jobs so not so wealthy backgrounds then only made up a small proportion and you still think it didn’t matter?

That figure is pretty meaningless without knowing what proportion of the population was classed as unskilled or semi-skilled, and also the relative academic potentials of the children. Otherwise you’re aiming for a perfect figure of 50% without any reason beyond that it’s a nice round number. What matters is whether there were children who should have been at a Grammar and weren’t, or were at one and shouldn’t have been.

And closer to home, what you say does not match at all with several relatives’ stated experience of going through just that system in the 50s.

Grammers were a sop to enable a few to raise to the heights of what the middle classes had, as I have previously stated, whilst keeping the rest at a level to take the jobs others didn’t want.

You’ll need to explain that better, given that AFAIK Grammars, at least in the part of the UK that I’m thinking of, were open to anyone who passed the 11-plus. Money wasn’t a requirement until they were taken out of the state system.

better ditch the badge I kept as a momento :-)

Amazingly, I have (had?) one too. But a bit of a cheat. Fifth formers were allowed to go home once they’d sat their final exam. I chose to stay until the end of term, but the majority left, including everybody who was (at the time) a prefect.
So I got promoted as one of the last fifth formers there…

I was popular too, “lights off” meant “lights off but you can keep the telly on until the film ends” and getting up on Sunday meant “whenever you want as long as you’re not late for breakfast”.
And my assigned “punishment” for the boy that didn’t go to church? Was to do absolutely nothing…because he was Jewish, a fact intentionally missed by the other prefects.

Well, that’s pretty much my… what was it, ten days? two weeks? of being a prefect. But not having an important parent meant that I had zero actual authority.

Grammers/Secondary was about segregation where you had all types at Comprehensives and the idea was you gave the same stanard of education to all so hence you hopefully drove up standards though i concede some may say drove down and levelled it in some cases.

That figure is pretty meaningless without knowing what proportion of the population was classed as unskilled or semi-skilled

Agree and it would around 30% plus percent in eduction as a whole came from that back ground and Grammers perhaps accounted for around 25% of the school population.

Your point about relative potential of the children perhaps can also be scoped in the relative expectations that some stereotyped them with. Expect someone not to achieve and they will reward you with that expectation turning in to a reality, challange them to succeed and you may just be surprised.

I suppose my arguement about honesty in grading of pupils falls down on that basis, if I am being honest in reflecting on what I ahve written, as isn’t it sometimes about confidence.

So we had Grammers based on Selection for a few and may be not an expectation for a fair proportion of society to be represented at them.
Secondary for others and perhaps missed a middle section who didn’t quite get in to a Grammer and so had a lower expectation put on them as result.
Independents based on ability to pay

We now have:
Grammers for an even more select few based on ability and also on if you can pay for a tutor for the exams.
Comprehensives/Academies for most but based mainly on catchment areas, though some use other criteria including assessements, so you have some selection by ability to pay for housing in the area.
Independents based on ability to pay.

I am not sure we have progressed and give all an equal opportunity and perhaps it is time to look at what other countries do.

Any way time as always adds a set of rose tinted glasses to things hence why the Tories get a good number of votes based on bring back Grammers.

Your point about relative potential of the children perhaps can also be scoped in the relative expectations that some stereotyped them with. Expect someone not to achieve and they will reward you with that expectation turning in to a reality, challange them to succeed and you may just be surprised.

Not really, as you’d know if you’d read what I’d written and not what you wanted me to write.

I know a number of people (not the Grammar lot; a generation or so younger) who do not thrive at exams or that kind of theoretical academia. They struggled at school (your favourite comprehensives by then), but succeeded very well when allowed to train vocationally.

Not everyone is the same. Some people respond to the theory and exams well; others are better with a more practical approach.

Why insist that they all go through the same comprehensives, holding back both groups due to the need to attempt to meet both requirements, when you can provide two more appropriate environments where both groups can be challenged, thrive and reach their potential in their own different ways?

Not really, as you’d know if you’d read what I’d written and not what you wanted me to write.

It’s been a long day so thanks for clarifying that.

My thing about Comprehensives/Academies as opposed to Grammer/Secondary/Technical is that it is about delivering a consistant standard of eduction and not splitting off kids in to seperate schools based on High/Low Academic ability or Vocational bias etc as it stills allows them to mix.

They gave/give, hopefully, a complete education across everything including more vocational and still do today as they also offer Btec’s as well but they allow children to select from the age of 14 not 11 so hopefully before that change at 14 they all get a good rounded education and are better prepared to go make that decision.

Crucially they still stay together in one social group, though I agree a social group based on a catchment area that may bias that split at 14, though driving up standards at each school should negate that in some way but most likely not in practice.

Also rightly or wrongly adults gave a social construct to Grammers that said if you didn’t you were some how less on a social level, a bit like todays construct that not attending University means you are of a lower standing in the eyes of some.

You will see if you read my previous posts that I agree with you that University is not the route for all and perhaps as you say I could of explain things better.

The idea about Comprehensive/Academies is I concede not always matched by reality and hence I do think we need to review our system to improve it and make it better and part of that may be to tone down the university is god message.

I reserve the right to claim incoherence tiredness in my defence :-)

Grammers/Secondary was about segregation where you had all types at Comprehensives and the idea was you gave the same stanard of education to all so hence you hopefully drove

The Comprehensive I attended worked with a “house” and prefect setup where right from day one the students were segregated into ability streams.
The head ran it in a fashion reminiscent of the stereotypical Grammar.
So, segregated to an extent.

Perhaps we need to look at Germany for the answer?

Germany can teach you a lot about different schooling systems ranging from bad over worse up to completely failing. Because of the federal structure, you have a lot to choose from and you can follow the various “reforms” (aka changes for the worse) over the years and decades Bundesland by Bundesland.

The most recent epic failure can be seen in Baden-Württemberg, which was a model for a good school system up to around 1990, and then got gradually worse, with a rapid decline starting around 2011. Apparently, it got a bit better again in recent years.

Germany can teach you a lot about different schooling

I retrained as a teacher in the 70s, but am now unconvinced about the value of “education” at all!

I went to a “minor public (secondary) school”, in common with many “famous” people, but wonder what was the point.

It seems that one of the few things I learnt was how to spell, for instance, “Grammar” – but what does it really matter? Grammer is perfectly understandable!

Grammar, grammer, let’s call the whole thing off!

Does it all really matter?

Now coding has to be byte-precise, but spelling?

After all, it’s just meaning!

It seems that one of the few things I learnt was how to spell, for instance, “Grammar” – but what does it really matter?

I don’t recall how old I was when I was told that correct pronunciation helped fix the correct spelling in your mind and vice versa¹ hence one of my pet hates being “could of” which is an increasingly used item derived from massively sloppy pronunciation.
My grammar is poor, but I know it’s far better than most people I meet day-to-day, so I’m not too badly off.
BTW. I hadn’t actually registered that grammer was a proper word until today.

With regard to education I think the problem is the fascination with trying to instil facts rather than the techniques of learning and research.
i.e. It is better to know how to find possible answers rather than specifying the answer.

¹ Bugger all use with place names, particularly in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire.

Now coding has to be byte-precise, but spelling?

Of course. Because if we permitted spelling to be slap-dash, we’d have less reason to complain about those on the other side of the ocean messing up the English language. Where color is a word (and, annoyingly, the proper spelling is not accepted in HTML/CSS), where through is a four letter word, and where aluminium is missing an entire syllable.

;-)

Ah, the quirks of merkin vs. English.
Some are due¹ to modification on this side of the pond after the squatters moved into native American lands (fashionably adopting French spelling) some are down to pure ignorance on the other side of the pond.

A “meter” is a measuring device and should not be confused with the internationally recognised distance unit “metre”

¹ That one gets abused massively by the trans-pond crowd

I hadn’t actually registered that grammer was a proper word until today.

It isn’t.

What my queries came up with was a series of variants of the same text. One such can be found here

Dialectal word for grandmother too – not that I’ve found any references for that.

Dialectal word for grandmother too

That’ll be a misspelt contraction from the French, then!

Just as you thought things couldn’t get any worse on the Exams front

Exam board Pearson
appoints ex-Disney executive as CEO

Brings a whole new meaning to Micky Mouse qualifications.

How much worse can it get!

I do not know what the current system is in Denmark, but when I was there the exams were oral, and in public. The examiner held out a fist full of questions written on folded slips of paper. The candidates were invited to come up three or four at a time to pull out a slip. If they did not like the question on it they had the option to pull out another; after that they were lumbered with it. They were given ten minutes to consider their questions, then they had to give their answers. Members of the public were free to come and watch. Often there might be parents present. What I liked about this system was the economy – no multiples of man-years preparing and checking papers, all over in a flash – and the fact that the general public could observe the proceedings.