h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It has been reported that the Tories are abandoning support for Grammar Schools in favour of something called City Academy's, which the Labour Party are touting.

I must confess to being a little lost on this. Being Scots, I went to my local Primary School, then my local High School. Everyone I knew did; apart from the Catholics who went to a different school, miles away. When I moved to England, there seemed to be an inordinate interest in what kind of school I went to. When I said High School or Secondary school, it was pretty much sneered at. The people I met went to Grammar Schools, or boarding schools or somesuch.

Anyways, I gather the debate is between schools that are open to all or "State Academies" and Public Schools which select on ability.

Why are the two (or three?) mutually incompatible? Do we have so few schools that an element of choice is impossible?

Can I ask here for views on the issue, along with a description of current secondary education provision written a little more concisely than my question?

The basic problem here is one of harsh reality: many kids are not that bright. Many, many kids are not going to do well at academic exams, even the ludicrously easy multiple-choice garbage that passes for exams these days. Not all kids have bright parents who can do their assessed coursework for them. So, not all kids are going to get A* results.

So... if your school is non-selective, you have to tolerate a certain degree of basic thickness in your pupils, and deal with the adverse effect on your school's position in the league table.

If your school IS selective - i.e. doesn't let thick kids in - then there are two results:

1. Your results get skewed upwards through no actual effort on the part of the school beyond setting an entrance exam. You are therefore given a flying start towards the top of the league table by virtue of not having to deal with kids who can't spell their name.

2. All those thick kids have to go *somewhere*, so other school proportionately suffer the effects of a disproportionately low level of achievement from their intake. And it's a fact that a classroom full of thick kids drags down the results of even the best of them. These other schools' reputations suffer, therefore, and parents don't want to go there. Vicious circle.

This ends up with the situation where there are "good" schools and "bad" schools. And of course in an ideal world all schools would be good schools. However, in the real world, the only way to iron out the differences is to make all school mediocre schools.

It is straightforwardly and, I hope, obviously impossible for all schools to perform as well as the best. Therefore the only hope for equality has, as its starting point, an ambition to make the best schools worse. Sensible? Of course not. We should, instead, acknowledge that some schools simply aren't going to do that well in exams, give up on that, and start measuring them on something else instead. One suggestion might be this: track pupils for three years after leaving high school. Create a combined metric of the following:
1. How many are in further/higher education?
2. How many are in paid employment, and what is their salary?
3. How many are in neither employment/training nor education?
4. How many are in jail/dead?

Score positive 1 point for every kid in university studying a degree with application (i.e. approved for membership of a professional body, e.g. engineering, medicine, law, etc.). Score zero for every kid studying a non-approved degree (e.g. English, Art History, Media Studies, or any other "hobby" degree course). Score one point for every kid with a paid job. Score half a point for every kid on a training placement. Score minus one for any not gainfully employed. Score minus ten for any imprisoned or dead of non-natural causes. Average over the number of kids in that year.

That would sort the good schools from the bad and no mistake...

Part of the problem is that our ideas of an education system often hark back to some mythical 1950s where life choices were straightforward. One child in a hundred needed greek and politics because they were destined for the diplomatic service, the City or parliament. Public school and Oxbridge for that lot. One in ten or twenty needed to know calculus or Latin in order that they become an engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. These types went to grammar school and universities other than Oxbridge. And finally the unwashed masses needed to know how to count, spell and tell the difference between a gasket and a grommet because they were going to work with their hands in some mine or factory somewhere as soon as they could leave school. Secondary moderns for those boys. Girls, of course, needed to learn to cook. Nuff said.

In a more gender balanced and more service sector oriented economy, that model of education simply doesn't work. I don't have any idea what would work, but I'm 99% certain that sending fully half of our school leavers to "university" to get a "degree" is not it.

Personally, I'm all for selective education. Employment is selective, why shouldn't education be?

SoRB

Thanks SoRB

>English, Art History, Media Studies, or any other "hobby" degree course<

Putting it bluntly, you. By which fluent, witty and inventive use of invective you can guess which 'hobby degree I possess. er.

Oh Sorry - forgot to add -

Question: is your specific degree required by you to do your job? As in, if you hadn't done that degree, would you be able to do your job?

SoRB

Not my specific degree, no. But a degree, yes.

It's the insufferable arrogance that equates a science degree with being 'more worthy' that put's peoples backs up, you know.

I always have difficulty with the concept of a job that *requires* one to have a degree, but isn't bothered what it's in. It rather smacks of just being a way to cut down the number of CVs they have to wade through and slightly increase the chance of getting ones from people who can spell "CV". (I jest, but I once had to sort through a list of curriculum vitaes from chemical engineering graduates, one of whom had headed this most important document proudly, in large, bold type, with the words "Ciriculum Vitae". He didn't get the job...).

I'm not equating a science degree with being worthy. I'm equating certain degrees as being *worth more*. Different thing.

I don't have a science degree, myself. And I'm pretty down on what they're worth, to be honest. You only have to look at the paltry salaries offered in the job ads in the back of "New Scientist" to see why university science departments are closing left right and centre. Who would study something *difficult* like chemistry for three years, live in poverty for a further three getting a PhD, only to find that they can expect a salary in the range of £15k-£18k for a job that requires their specific doctorate? Much preferable to do something easier like media studies, then get one of those jobs where it doesn't matter what you studied as long as you turned up for all your lectures.

My degree is in chemical engineering. I simply couldn't do my job, or any of the 'proper' jobs I've had since graduating, if I'd done any other degree - even superficially similar ones like mechanical engineering or chemistry. I have the career I have solely because I have the degree I have. No other would have done.

The same applies to doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists, opticians, accountants and a host of other professions, including most of the other engineering disciplines (e.g. civil, mechanical, electrical, aeronautical).

Sure, there are other ways into these professions, but the *standard* way is by a course of university study aimed entirely at preparing one for that career. That is what I would regard as a degree that is worth something - it's a degree that's going to get you a job, basically, and make you a contributing member of society. For that reason, and because our society actively needs more of the kind of people these course turn out, I believe such courses should be free to attend and attract a generous maintenance grant, because the odds are good that graduates will be paying higher rate tax pretty soon after graduating.

Other degrees may well be jolly interesting, and broaden the mind, but don't prepare you for a specific role in life. They don't set you up for the sort of career that's going to pay its way. I'm all for the universities teaching them, but if someone wants to spend three years studying the poetry of Keats or the films of Fellini, then as far as I'm concerned they're welcome to entirely at their own expense. The country is not crying out for more poets or literary critics. It IS crying out for more dentists, for example.

SoRB

Are there not tables of how much pupils improve whilst at a particular school (e.g. divide standard test result at end of school career by standard test result at beginning of school career, divide that quantity by the nationwide average of it and you get a measure of how well the school does given that not all schools have equally talented pupils)?

But that's still assessing how good one is at passing tests, and
(a) not all kids are and
(b) the fact they are doesn't necessarily matter.

SoRB

Right, English education. In most cases there has been a switch away from grammar Schools. People leave primary school and move on to secondary.

Some counties, however, still has a selective school system. This is still paid for by the state. Primary school pupils take an exam called the 11+ (basically you have to solve some logic puzzles). Those who score over a certain score get into grammar schools and high schools, those who don't get stuck in secondary schools.

And then there are also 'public schools', which are what in the US would be called 'private schools'. A public school you pay to attend. A state schol you don't.

What are the issues, well: supporters of grammar schools argue that the system does better for everyone, and may have some stats to back them up. However, many who fail the 11+ feel condemned to be forever lower on the education and employment ladder, trapped away from the opportunity to improve.

Moreover, in the past decade or so there has been a trend for the wealthy to pay for 11+ tutoring for their children, skewing the results as the exam is not really supposed to be prepared for. You get a couple of practice papers, but otherwise most kids simply haven't taken that sort of exam before. Paying for 11+ tuition and getting into grammar school is a cheap and effective alternative to a fee paying school.

To add to this mess is the fact that many grammar schools are also single-sex. Again, some argue that this helps academic pursuits by removing distractions, but I reckon its stripping away a very important part of growing up and learning to be sociable. Also, in all-boys schools the pupils tend to fight and burn things a lot.

I say all this as the rather bitter voice of experience. I got into a grammar school, and I have no doubt it is partially responsible for how good my exam results eventually were, but I have to say I hated the place. It was infected with, run by, the most pompous, hypocritical prats. I'm rather pleased to say that the whole place has been wracked with scandal since I left: the deputy head charged with paedophilia and the head master sacked after revelations in the national newspapers about adultery and drug taking.

"I got into a grammar school, and I have no doubt it is partially responsible for how good my exam results eventually were, but I have to say I hated the place. "

Do please, when you relate this story to people in the future, punchline it all with the phrase "Made me what I am to day, what?"

SoRB

Hi SoRB

Judging by the length, breadth, and 'humour' of your recent works on various threads, I reckon that you studied English to a pretty high level - or are you hiding that light under your chemical engineering degree?.

On the matter of degrees I am entirely with you...

Novo

"I reckon that you studied English to a pretty high level"



I have an O level in English Language, grade B, and one in English Literature, grade C. And that's it. But thanks.

SoRB

I'm somewhat in agreement too.

A note about the 'value addd' scores in league tables. These are as useless as test scores.

Test scores do not reveal the highest level that a pupil is capable of reaching, as they only take tests up to a certain level at each stage. So a school with many bright pupils may actually appear to have a poor value add.
The way value add is calculated ignores that fact that not all pupils progress at a steady rate. Pupils are expected to rise an attainment level for every two years in school whatever their starting point.

Also, all this testing takes no account of the 'whole child' development which can in some cases be more relevant than academic achievement.

I'm all for selection & streaming. It's a problem in rural areas though, where there may be only one school within reasonable reach.

Those O-level grades are very respectable. We were taught to different standards in those days!

Oh and here's all about these new academies. Doesn't sound very inspiring to me.

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/academies/what_are_academies/?version=1

"Those O-level grades are very respectable."

I was disappointed with them. Especially the Lit one. I could have literally written down the entire text of Romeo and Juliet that year, and explained in detail any line. Appearing in the play had helped. On the other hand, it's possible my absolutely hatred and contempt for Thomas Hardy and all his tedious, dull, uninspiring hackwork seeped through. And possibly I got a marker who though the sun shone through his every page. Who can tell? And since I had no intention of pursuing hobby subjects like English further than absolutely necessary, who cares?

SoRB

"The same applies to doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists, opticians, accountants and a host of other professions, including most of the other engineering disciplines (e.g. civil, mechanical, electrical, aeronautical). "

SoRB, I'm sure I've told you this before but you are plain wrong about accountants - practically every accountant I've ever met (quite a few as I worked for one of the big five) did an arts degree of some sort.

Dunno if it is still done, but there was, about 10 yrs ago, a review done of english universities that rated them according to the input/output academic ration.

I.e. OxBridge didn't score very well cos those going in had top grades and came out with top grades. As I recall the top rated uni was Derby because their intake academic level was quite low but those graduating were getting good grades. Ergo, their teaching must be quite good.
Obv. there are some flaws with this as well (i.e. are they just getting mickey-mouse degrees) but it was an interesting take on the whole thing.

p.s. I'm bang on with streamed education. The ideal situation would be to have each student (pupil, whatever) have the teaching modified for their strengths and weaknesses. This obv. isn't going to happen so anything that gets away from one size fits all is progress in the right direction.