The End of Top Schools

Chris's picture
by Chris
 118
Reading and Kendrick school, two top 10 schools, are in danger of being radically altered by a small group of disgruntled parents, who have been affected by changing catchment areas. These two schools that serve the brightest pupils from the Greater Reading Urban Area are being threatened with ending selection.

This proposal would end the possibility for pupils in Reading to experience top quality education, Reading School won the Times School of the Year 2010. Both are recognized as excelling academically. Also both schools run extensive community support schemes, over one hundred pupils are involved in such schemes throughout the year. These numbers are further bolstered by the running of Tag rugby festivals. Reading, in particular, is recognized by the Sutton Trust as having sent a large number of pupils to the top universities, 62% go to “Top Universities”. Reading school is recognised as a top institution for sending pupils to Oxbridge, 16% of pupils will mange this.

This is all done in sub-standard facilities. Previous administrations had barred the schools from applying for money to improve facilities, this means Reading school has a pool that regularly floods with chlorine, a gym that’s roof collapsed, a squash court that’s roof collapsed and no indoor dining facilities. It has to rely on other sources of income to get facilities built, as did Kendrick when they finally got their new 6th form centre built.

Rob Wilson, the local MP, said on the issue “Removing the grammar schools' ability to select their pupils would fundamentally change those schools. Rather than jeopardising the future of the outstanding schools, that we're lucky enough to have in our area, we should focus on the work of creating more good school places in Reading.” This reflects he feeling of the members of the school community, we feel that selection will ruin our schools unique nature, and therefore the results will slide.

Thank you for reading; hopefully we will be able to work together in saving these fabulous institutions for Reading.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook
Category: 

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

'Chirs''s picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:57

Wow, you must have a real passion for Classics. It must be so satisfying to attend a school which caters for that.


Dan W's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 21:27

As a student who has studied at both a comprehensive and a grammar school I can quite confidently say that the learning environment at a grammar school is far better. I feel more confident to put forth my opinions, to ask questions, I feel more free to express and interest and to learn. Also I am free from the endless tyranny of back-of-the-class idiots who's only aim in life seems to be to disrupt others. I'm sorry to say this, because I loved my comprehensive, but they are ruined by the attitudes of a minority who restrict all from reaching their potential. I haven't found this problem at all at Reading.


Andy Smithers's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 23:03

Sarah Dodds,

You may be 40 but I think the boys on this thread are asking you to grow up.

Sarah Dobbs's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 04:31

Andy
One of us is clearly misreading things.....
I thought we were all just having a little bit of tongue in cheek fun.
No harm in that now.
I also think, with the greatest of respect to everyone here is that we should all "man up" just a wee bit about what we expect to get from the site.
I get very useful tips, interesting debate, an understanding of what people who think differently to us LSN folk think, and practical tips for my own campaign. What I don't do is come on this site to change my mind about anything. People who care enough to come on the site are passionate about these issues - I know I am. It is not that I don't get new insights, it is just that my core principles about education have been formed over a lifetime of leaving and breathing schools. They are not about to be shifted by one night on line. I don't think anyone here, on either side is going to wake up to a Damascus type conversion.
This site is NOT the education debate. It is a useful - and for me an essential tool - in that debate, but not the debate itself. What strikes me most about the threads about Reading (which I confess I have not had time to fully read but I easily grasp the points by a quick scan) is how hard the students are trying to influence people - spending what must be hours of their time in doing so. But has it not got to the point where they are only talking to each other? The fact that other contributors go away is not a sign of "victory" for one side or another, but a sign of the futility of trying to change the minds of the quite deeply converted.

So where is the real education debate???????
It SHOULD be in every community and school. I hope that anyone who cares enough to come on here because they care, becomes engaged enough to actually DO.

Luke Barratt's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 18:01

There IS no debate in school. EVERYONE who is being educated at Reading School/Kendrick (the only people who really have ANY authority on the matter) believes that the schools are a good thing and need to be preserved for the good of education.


Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 07:37

Enough already! As if 820 comments (mostly similar, and some abusive) on the other thread dealing with this topic aren't sufficient. Now we have another one, and the same points are being made.

I ceased contributing to the other thread because of the repetative nature of the posts. Making a point a few hundred times does not make the point any more valid. As one poster, Ollie - a pupil at the school, I think - said: when the thread first began it was a sensible debate but was then highjacked by people treating it as a joke.

The standard of the debate declined to abuse, unsubstantiated and generalised statements, prejudiced hyperbole, personal attacks and one-up-manship of the "I'm reading Cicero" type, all mostly hidden by the anonymity of the internet. Even data from the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, whose global research and analysis is used by governments to inform their policies, was dismissed by one poster as mere opinion because it didn't uphold what the poster thought. Obviously that poster knew better than government heads.

All children need to achieve their full potential - and society as a whole needs this. OECD evidence - cool, calm and collected, measured and analysed from global data over many years - shows that selection does not improve a country's average education score but does impact badly on those who are already disadvantaged. And the top-scoring European country is Finland - a fully-comprehensive system where all teachers are expected to deal with pupils of all ability and aptitude.

B's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 10:43

I think that fact that you just referred to 'the reading Cicero' type with negative connotations is precisely the reason why grammar schools should not be converted into comprehensives. Is reading cicero something to be discouraged? I think you have inadvertently revealed exactly why grammar schools are needed - so that someone such as yourself does not destroy the enthusiam for things like this and make children feel as if having an interest in some way makes them posh or even worse a geek.


Sarah Dobbs's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 14:17

A voice of reason as even Janet :o)


J's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 09:56

But the UK is not Finland!! Changing these 2 exceptional schools out of 164 to comprehensives will not bring about the supposedly better fully-comprehensive system that you wish there was. Because of these 2 schools (and others), teachers can specialise in either teaching the ones who really want to learn and aim high, or helping those who do not think they can achieve as much think they can! Bringing in the slightly less able into a great school will result in an overall drop in standards.


Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 11:36

I was not condemning the reading of Cicero. Careful reading of my post shows that I was highlighting boastful one-up-manship. I'll repeat the sentence:

"The standard of the debate declined to abuse, unsubstantiated and generalised statements, prejudiced hyperbole, personal attacks and one-up-manship [example follows] of the "I'm reading Cicero" type.

Perhaps I could add "deliberate misunderstanding and distortion" of statements to the list about how the standard of debate has declined. The negative connotations were made by B (hiding behind anonymity) and not by me.

I'll all for people reading great literature, fantastic stories and writing which is just downright enjoyable, including the classics. However, there's no need for anyone to boast. That's what I was condemning.

B's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 12:12

How is saying that one read's Cicero a form of boasting? Apologies if i've missed something but i fail to see where one of these boys has used that in a boastful way.

I have not attended either of these schools and thus consider myself unpartial in the matter. Reading the arguments presented by both sides I have seen little evidence of any of these boy's boasting (aside from perhaps some of the younger boys who claim to be of the younger years). In fact there arguments seem to be rational and they appear on the whole to be profoundly grateful for the education theyve recieved rather than boasting about their academic achievements.

Luke Barratt's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 18:06

The whole point of comments like 'I'm reading Cicero', in my opinion is that this is a preserve of grammar schools. I personally study Latin and Ancient Greek for A-Level at Reading School and have ambitions to continue studying these subjects, which have become my passion, at university (hopefully Oxford). I don't tell you this because I'm boasting, I tell you this because you seem determined to take from future students the chance to study subjects like these for free. The only reason these subjects are taught at such high levels is because of the (relatively) high uptake. I doubt there are very many other state schools IN THE COUNTRY that offer Ancient Greek for A-Level, and I would be so sad if one of the last ones that did was prevented from doing so for purely selfish motives.


Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 06:33

You are right. Very, very few schools offer Ancient Greek - that has been true since the 50's. It is a minority subject. I'm pleased you are so passionate about the subject but a nationwide educational system cannot cater for ALL minority subjects - there has to be a compromise between what pupils/parents want and what the country as a whole needs and can provide. And it is disingenuous to say that a school is better because it offers a minority subject - you could equally say that about any school that offers Urdu.

You say that it is "selfish motives" that make people argue for a fair, fully-comprehensive system. Could it not be the opposite?

You don't know what you are chatting's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 14:20

This whole debate is pointless. Those disgruntled parents whose children didn't get in don't have a valid argument. We have put our point across perfectly in a structured manner on why grammar schools should remain and it is a much stronger one.


Chris's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 16:24

Please, I don't know who you are, but can you not post such things as this. Its good you want to help the school's point, but there are better ways to do so than this, and it undermines what we are, actually, taking very very seriously.


Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 16:53

A structured argument is not necessarily a valid one. Neither is it stronger, particularly when it is not backed up by impartial evidence. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, the evidence (from highly-respected organisations) indicates that the argument for selection is the weaker one.


Chris's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 18:50

Janet you're "evidence" consists of nothing more than the solitary figure that only 0.4% of pupils receive FSM. Honestly, I fail to see how this is any indicator at all of how selection will not provide a better education system.

Not only that, there has *still* been no hint of evidence as to where this data comes from.

And, furthermore, it is an isolated bit of data that has not been backed up by any other sources. For all we know, it could be mistaken. Unless there are many sources- and they all agree- there is nothing to discuss.

Let us begin properly, the RS data for FSM is distorted because it has no canteen. No canteen obviously means that pupil's will not receive school meals- as there aren't any! Pupils will, in 95% of cases, bring their own packed lunches from home.

That leads to another similar point. Many parents are unaware of the provision of FSM owing to the absence of the canteen.

Ok, second point, (assuming you're still reading) FSM is discrete data (i.e. Yes or No (as opposed to 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 etc)). What this means is, you could quite definitely have a situation where every individual is just past the threshold for FSM. They are still from a relatively poor socio-economic background, but they do not feature on such statistics.

I think another, most important point to be raised here, is that just because you are not entitled to them, does not mean you are rich. There are plenty of people in my school, who live in not-well-off areas, or come from those sorts of backgrounds. The point is, FSM cannot distinguish between those not eligible, who may still not be able to live lavishly.

Now onto the matter of selection. The evidence has already been set forward- both of these schools consistently feature at the very top of the League Tables. They are clealry achieving more than the other comprehensives out there!

Honestly, how can you believe that they provide a worse education system than their counterparts.

You will, undoubtedly, insist that it is a social prejudice, or class discrimination. Why so? It is an examination like any other, that affects your academic future.

It is a total myth that you need private tutoring to get into a grammar school- I, and many many others are testament to that. And equally, many of those who failed but received tutoring are testament to it.

After all, selection is done on a smaller scale in every single school across the country. They "set" the students. It allows the people who will learn best to spur each other on, and the ones who need most attention to be in a smaller group where they can get help from their teachers.

Can we, as a society that promotes everyone to achieve the most they can, seriously allow our most gifted and talented students to sit in idle, coasting along, unchallenged and unmotivated because the teaching is tailored to lower ability students?

And what about the fact that selection will always occur. Private schools are dominant when it comes to Oxbridge entries. They can afford to pay their teachers more, so ultimately its a more appealing environment for a teacher. What Reading School does then, is private-standard success, but offered to pupils with the best brains, and not the richest parents.

That can only be a good thing, if you make the school a comprehensive, the teachers will leave as they are kept in the school by their wish for everyone to do well. That means that an exceptional education is closed to ALL but the very rich.

Even worse.

The nature of a comprehensive school is to make everyone "good enough" in the eyes of The Wall. A grammar school (Individual ones, not the whole grammar system of the 60s and 70s) will push their pupils to the very limit of their ability. It would not be uncommon for a Reading Boy to have covered most of GCSE maths by year 9, or to have made deep inroads to the A level course by the time they come to take their GCSEs. In fact, by the end of A levels- in every single subject- most students, because they are intelligent and willing to learn, and because the teachers have an environment where they don't need to hold the brightest back to cater for the less able, will have experienced (knowingly or not) some undergraduate-level education.

Please, I would love to continue this very interesting discussion, and therefore I will eagerly await your response.

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 06:58

Sorry Chris - I think you're confusing me with someone else because I have never mentioned the Free School Meals figure.

You are right about the selective schools being at the top of the League Tables - you would expect them to be because the schools have selected the pupils whose results will ensure they are at the top. As Clinton might have said, "It's the intake, stupid." Unfortunately, schools in England are judged merely on their League Table position without taking into account the intake. This is unfair on those schools who cater for those pupils that the selective schools reject.

OECD, in its document Economic Surveys UK 2011: Reforming the Education System in England, says there is an excessive focus on grades in the English school system. As it is these grades that determine the "success" or otherwise of schools then this is a cause for great concern.

You say that private schools dominate Oxbridge entries - this too is a cause for concern. Again, it's partly because of the intake but also because of the social networks and influence that private education brings. The Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning, Mr Hayes, said recently in Parliament that this was the way that the already-advantaged "cemented their advantage". He said that working class parents had the same ambitions for their children as other parents but lacked the "wherewithal". As a country, we must ensure that ALL children have the wherewithal and reach their full-potential. The Minister would actually agree with you about grammar schools - but I have written to him to say that I disagree and given him the same evidence I have given you.

You say that teachers would leave because they are motivated to stay in the school "by their wish for everyone to do well". This is true of all good teachers even those in comprehensive schools - even those teachers who teach in socially-disadvantaged schools who face particular challenges. If a teacher is only motivated by the high grades that their pupils might achieve, then this teacher is not a good one (even if s/he achieves "good" exam results). Teacher training until recently was paid for by the state - it behoves all teachers to be willing to teach pupils of all abilities, as in Finland.

I am unfamiliar with The Wall - are you referring to Pink Floyd? If so, I'm sure that Andreas Schleicher - Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division at OECD - would be amused to know that his carefully collected and analysed data has been trumped by a pop group.

And what is the point of pushing pupils so they take exams early? Isn't this a form of hot-housing? What are pupils going to do in the sixth form if they've already covered the content? And, as the Sutton Trust has shown, grammar school pupils (and those from independent schools) do not outperform comprehensive school pupils at university. So why does this supposed "superior" education offered by grammars and independents not translate into a higher standard of degrees than those achieved by comprehensive school pupils of comparable ability? Could it be that the excessive focus on exams is crowding out other skills which are needed at university?

Tom Hayes's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 00:35

Ms Downs, may I clarify that at Reading school, very few exams are actually taken early, mostly native speakers taking MFL qualifications.

'And what is the point of pushing pupils so they take exams early?'
It's the content which is covered when the pupils are ready to learn it, and due to the learning environment at the school this is often sooner than suggested by the national curriculum, which holds back many aspirational students throughout the country.

The way the school does maths, and other subjects too, is that much of the content required for the qualifications is covered early on so that much enrichment has time to happen. The pupils are encouraged to aim above the required standard, a quality that is required for great success in the workplace.

'What are pupils going to do in the sixth form if they’ve already covered the content?'
It is a sad day when all that is done at a school is work for exams, apparently that seems to be the norm. Reading School offers students a chance to go above and beyond, and I believe that this should be encouraged.

The Wall says it all really.

One more thing, the statistics are too broad, the education system is not great, and the statistics reflect this. But every school is different, and every area is affected differently by a unique makeup of schools. You can't use such statistics to support the argument that the selective nature of two individual schools is unfair, and is affecting the education of other students, in entirely different schools. The education system can not be generalised, every case such as this should be analysed with respect to the schools in question, in depth and only relevant and specific data should be used.

In short, the OECD's data is not specific to these two schools, and as these are the only two schools in question on this page, it should not be cited as hard evidence. The best evidence is the personal experiences of people involved.

Just to say's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 15:41

The reason this thread was started was to get rid of the abuse from the other and debate in a more polite manner.


Tom Hayes's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 17:32

This is my opinion:
Selective schools offer academic children of all backgrounds a chance to a greater academic success than a local comprehensive.

The large catchment areas of the two selective schools in Reading mean that none of the comprehensive schools in the area are affected significantly due to many gifted and talented children going to these schools. And are able to achieve just as well with the presence of the selective schools.

I believe that whilst selective education has benefits, if an area has too many selective schools, the other schools suffer, such as areas of London, but not the area in and around Reading. I believe that the balance is in the area is good.

With the existence of private education, I fell that selective state education is needed to allow social mobility. The majority of comprehensive are unable to compete with the standards at private schools. And schools such as Reading and Kendrick allow students to excel, rather than have to attend the local school, no matter how good or bad it may be.

I do not believe in 'local schools for local children' this is unfair on people from deprived areas. A very good local school would result in the rise of house prices in the immediate area, so less well of families would be unable to move into these area and would be unable to send their children to their school of choice.

Many things need to change for the education system in this country to become fairer, such as addressing the issue of private education, which is on the most part financial differentiation, and the poorly performing comprehensives need to be able to sorted out. The issue concerning these two schools is much lower on the agenda than the true examples of unfairness on both ends of the academic scale.

To sum up:
Theses schools operating as they do at the moment allow children who want to learn a great environment for academic success.
Children from any background are able to take the tests, which are designed to be 'tutor proof'.
Whilst FSM is an indicator of the make up of the schools, it is only an indicator, a much wider and more in depth range of statistical evidence is needed to even claim that these schools are 'for the rich'.
The real issue is why there are not enough comprehensives which offer places to children in east Reading, and why are the ones that do seemingly undesirable.
These two schools offer children from a large area a bright future, which local schools do not, they have to be situated somewhere and it just so happens to be in the middle of Reading.

Laura's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 17:32

I wish people would understand that the way of teaching in grammar schools is almost entirely different to the style of teaching at comprehensives. My younger sister attends Maiden Erleigh and when we discuss the way our lessons are undertaken they differ massively.

At a grammar school less of the syllabus is ‘spoon fed’ to the pupils and much more of the learning is undertaken through debate and discussion, which allows the children to reach the conclusion for themselves and thus grow. At comprehensives it tends to be a much more rigid classroom environment with much less discussion simply because a large number of the children don’t want to learn and discuss with their teachers.

Surely you must be able to see that the style of teaching at grammar schools is as different to that of comprehensives as the private school method and even the methods of Montessori schools. This style of learning simply does not suit all children! Not all children are the same, contrary to what many of you seem to believe.

I am sick and tired of adults claiming that we have less of a knowledge of grammar schools and the education system than them. I just spent 7 years at Kendrick School and thus feel that I have a knowledge of the school that is just as good, if not better, than the parents of children in the area.

Yes, there are two grammar schools in Reading. May I just ask how many comprehensive schools there are around here? Quite a lot. So you comment on parents wanting to have more of a choice on what school they want to send their child to. That’s fair enough, but as I said there are a wide variety of comprehensives which focus on different things. They vastly outnumber the grammar schools and in the end what difference would it make having two more schools to add to the choice? The schools might currently be good, but without selection the academic standard would undoubtedly slip, which would actually result in both the schools being fairly low on peoples choices, given that in all honesty they both have awful facilities. For example, Kendrick has no sports fields of any kind, hardly enough classrooms to fit the entire of the student body, no form of drama studio, a lack of musical resources and insufficient common space to accomodate their entire sixth form.

In fact, by removing grammar schools you are reducing the choice of schools by removing an entire _type_ of school from the pile.

Surely your efforts would be better spent on improving the schools which are already comprehensives and have a far large intake than ruining your already successful schools.

Person Who Talks's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 17:41

Laaura chaplin?


Laura's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 17:42

No? Who's she?


Harry Gosling's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 17:51

It does not seem sensible to me to try to destroy the two best schools for academic achievement in the country by undermining the very structure that is the foundation for both schools: selective intake.


William Blackmore's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 17:53

I am a Reading School Old Boy, and I personally think the status quo should remain as it is. However, I am not going to talk just about grammar schools, I would like to know the views of people who think it should become a comprehensive - what about private schools? Because at the moment, grammar schools provide a top-notch education for free, bridging a gap to private schools and preventing a split in society between rich and poor. In the current system, if grammar schools are to be converted to comprehensives then so should private schools to prevent this social divide. And faith schools etc. Is this also a feasible target? I will admit that if all private, grammar, faith etc. schools are willing to convert to a comprehensive, then this topic should be visited. And if the figures add up then go for it (though this is the United Kingdom not Finlandso it may not work like that). Until then i think this kind of discussion is irrelevant as there will always be people complaining about not being able to go to a certain school (e.g. intelligent people seeing rich people get a better education at private schools.).


Charley's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 19:10

Yes, I'd add that I fell out with the comprehensive system at the age of 10, as I was bored in lessons, not supplied with additional work, and got away with some quite awful behaviour. I went to a private school at great expense to my parents, who both had to work and remorgage, and would probably be in the private sector if there were no grammar schools.


Ollie Russell's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 19:36

All of the people who keep referring to their reputable source of OECD should maybe look for another source? I mean it's really not hard to find one source to back up a point... And to those who are speaking of this "lack of choice" or "lack of secondary places" in Reading, have you looked at the figures? Look at this:

•As at May 2010, there were 1,596 surplus primary places (14% of total capacity) in Reading; at secondary level there were 977 surplus places (15% of total capacity). Nick Gibb, written answer, HC Deb, 21 December 2010, c1245W)

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 07:03

If you have a source for evidence from a source as reputable as the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, please provide it. Governments all over the world respect the analysis of the OECD to such an extent that they base policies on it. If you wish to make a point, you must base it on evidence (you will learn that at university).


Ollie Russell's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 08:28

You misunderstood my point. What I was trying to get at was the fact that you have only used this as evidence. Also, I believe you are trying to undermine my data which has come from a written source from an MP, which in my understanding would not be made without significant data and statistics. I also find it rather ironic that you constantly call students from the grammar school "arrogant" but then you mock me to the extent you think I can not complete the simple English excersize of writing a PEE paragraph (which you do in fact learn in Year 8 at school), rather discrediting your calling us "arrogant", as you are being both arrogant and ignorant I believe.
I can see where the sides of your argument are coming from, but I can not get along with the evidence you are using to back them up. Take a look at the used-to-be boys grammar school in the Wokingham area, Winnersh. It used to be high achieving selective grammar school, in the same way that Reading and Kendrick are now, but became a comprehensive school due to a change of policy in the government causing it to have insufficient funding. Since then it's results have spiralled downwards. It has also become known for stories such as these ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3205747.stm , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290292/Binge-drinking-teenager-... ) rather than stories of educational excellence which it could be receiving... In my opinion, this shows what will happen to these two brilliant schools if they become comps: All of the superb teachers (many with PhDs etc.) will leave because they no longer enjoy teaching as the pupils are not of the same standard.
And can I add, with knowledge of the school I can safely say that an extremely large proportion of people in my form and year, do in fact live in areas such as East Reading and lower Caversham ( they got in because of their IQ not "private education") and that the previously mentioned FSM data is made irrelevant by the fact that the school contains no canteen, so many parents just opt to send a packed lunch with their children to school.

Just Another Reading Boy's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 22:09

Sarah Dodds and "Janet". May I ask you if you have sons who have failed to gain entrance to the school? Because that would appear to give you emotional and personal motive rather than "what's best for the area". If not, then what real reason do you have to argue? I mean as far as I can see the facts for keeping the selective system far outweigh you one or two point argument (FSM / "rich=richer education").
It really upsets me that you are arguing with such a passion to end two brilliantly run and amazingly high achieving schools without having sufficient justification.
The fact I posted above, rules out any points about insufficient school places.
Finally, may I point out that the people who are entitled to vote for this reform are in fact parents from FEEDER schools. This means that according to you, only private and upper class school parents would be able to vote or sign a petition... However if you take a look at the list of FEEDER schools, you will see many of the local comprehensive primaries from the east Reading area and from around the district. In
my opinion this fact discredits your argument that the school is more accesible to richer people; especially if the petition goes to ballot! Your argument is without sufficient research and statistics in my opinion, and to destroy such a fundamental part of our British heritage would be a BIG mistake. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Reading School was founded in 1125...

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 07:06

I see there is another distortion here. All my opinions are backed by solid evidence from an internationally-respected organisation yet this is regarded as being "emotional". And I have also avoided mentioning Reading - I have kept my opinions solidly based in evidence. I have also avoid rhetorical questions, capital letters and exclamation marks (all signs of high emotion).


Just Another Reading Boy's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 08:40

Janet, I am emotionally attached, because I have reason to be. My school has provided me with amazing opportunities I could not get anywhere else ( as it has to thousands of others before me) so I am grateful and do not wish to see it's unique ethos go down the drain. You also failed to answer my question... Therefore I am Assuming the answer was yes? And this in no way alters you view on the schools? Just because you don't write with emotive and rhetorical techniques doesn't mean you don't have emotional attachment, it means you can hide it. or are hiding it ,well.


Janet Obviously Knows Everything.... It's an acrostic (hope 's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 22:22

Don't you think you made a mistake starting a debate with boys from the best school in the country (ie. The most intelligent boys in the country)?


Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 07:22

Not at all - and I didn't start the debate. Francis began the first one but this degenerated into what Ollie described as a joke so I have ceased following it. Chris, who has remained polite and engaged throughout, starting the next one. I have responded politely and seriously, treating posters with respect. The "debate with boys from the best school in the country" has proved instructive - but not in the way that boys like Ollie and Chris would have hoped for.

Chris - I'm sorry that your thread has been highjacked.

Tom Hayes's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 07:51

'J.O.K.E' I'm afraid that you are being arrogant, and justifying an incorrect stereotype of grammar school children. You are also causing people such as Ms Downs to waste time replying to your comment. Meaning that some other posts have been ignored, I would be interested to hear what she would like to say about my comment, and some other ones which have been unanswered.


lobopúrpuro's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 16:26

I think the biggest mistake that has been made here is boys from the 'best school in the country' answering this debate in the way that they have.

A lot of responses on these two threads have strengthened the idea that grammar schools breed elitism and arrogance, and have painted the schools they are trying to keep selective in a very negative light, discrediting the more well-thought out, reasoned arguments of their colleagues.

I would advise them to be careful about what they write and seek to disprove this negative 'elitist' image, instead of supporting it...

J's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 20:45

Please, a small selection of students have not been taking this as seriously as they should be, but that does not mean we are all elitists and arrogant. If you took the chance to visit either Reading or Kendrick, you would see this is not the case.


Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 10:32

Sorry, Tom, you're right, I got distracted by the other comments and didn't attend to yours. On the specific points you made (any that I haven't already covered elsewhere):

Exams being taken early - it was Chris who said that Maths GCSE was covered by Year 9 and part of the A level syllabus by Year 11. I was responding to that.

You are right about it being a said day "when all that is done at school is to work for exams". OECD is also worried about this, believing that too much emphasis on grades in England is squeezing out other skills. However, it was Chris to said the pupils covered exam syllabi early - this would suggest a heavy emphasis on exams. And such early exposure does not necessarily translate into a higher level of degree.

You referred to The Wall. Sorry, the only Wall I'm familiar with is Pink Floyd, and I don't think this can seriously be offered as evidence. However, please let me know if you are referring to something else (with links, if possible).

The OECD evidence is based on global studies which, among other things, looks at the consequences of selection on achievement within educational systems. Governments must ensure that all their school pupils reach the highest possible standard, that's why they take such notice of OECD data. Reading is part of the English school system so OECD data is relevant.

And remember, personal experience can be partisan and present a narrow view. That's why we need to independent, objective data. And also why I avoid using my own personal experience.

lobopúrpuro's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 20:58

I'm sure it's not the case. I'm just saying: people could take a lot of the stuff that's been posted on this site and use it to strengthen their argument against grammar schools. You know how the media can distort things based on the tiniest of statements, and I hardly need remind you that one of the people that runs this network is married to Alastair Campbell...


Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 10:34

Apologies for typos - should be "sad day" and "Chris who said". Must improve my proof-reading skills.


Harry Gosling's picture
Sat, 04/06/2011 - 08:04

Exams do encorporate all of the basic skills and knowledge needed for life; and what about the 9 years that went beofre exams? However, once in year 10, yes, exams should be heavily emphasised on because frankly, the only reason for doing exams at school is to then get into university and then learn the skills that one needs for their later life


J's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 13:50

The reverse is also true seeing as we students have been called "cunts", "arrogant posh boys" and been told we deserve to get shot. =/


lobopúrpuro's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 14:00

True, it's not all one-sided. That said, I would hope that the students in question would not lower themselves to those standards of comments...I get the feeling they have a lot more to lose than some of these opposing adults.


Harry Gosling's picture
Sat, 28/05/2011 - 07:50

The argument that schools in Reading should be for pupils who live in Reading only is nonsense. At some point, some sort of selection, division must take place. It is everywhere in society: would you tell the top employers that they can only employ people from the area around where their base is, just because it's 'unfair'? Would you tell Oxford university that they can only take on undergraduates that live within a 5 mile radius of the university? Would you tell Manchester United that they can only play foootballers from within the Manchester area because it's 'unfair' that many footballers in the area can't play for a good football club? And if the answer was yes to this, as many of you on this thread are suggesting in regard to Reading and Kendrick, then one can see that the quality of Manchester United would fall, the reputation of one of the most famous universities would fall and so on. This argument cannot be uptaken. There must be separation in life because even though I agree that life must be fair, at the end of the day, we are not all equal beings, as we are not all the same.


Nigel Ford's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 05:36

A rather specious argument seeing as Reading School is funded by taxpayers.

If your local GP or hospital couldn't treat your illness because outsiders were bypassing their local medical services so you were suffering due to their selfishness I don't suppose you would be too impressed.

Maybe your school needs to teach you a few lessons in the concepts of logic and altruism?

J's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 09:32

Seeing as Oxford is still funded for (partly) by the taxpayer, there is still a valid point in there: No need to undermine our knowledge of logic and altruism.

I fail to see your reasoning in this local GP/hospital point. GPs and hospitals are not selective, therefore I don't see how someone could get medical treatment before you would... And if they did, it's probably because they were more sick than you, and it would be a simple case of waiting an extra half an hour or so. Please tell me if I've misunderstood your point.

Harry Gosling's picture
Sat, 04/06/2011 - 08:01

It is irrelevant whether organisations are funded directly by taxes or not. Everyone organisation is funded by people at the end of the day, and correct me if I'm wrong, but every single child in Reading Borough Council is given a place at a school that is at least satisfactory.


Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 10:04

You are correct - GPs and hospitals are not selective. No NHS specialist could select his/her patients by saying "I am only going to treat less-serious patients who have the best chance of responding to treatment. I'm not going to treat the most serious, the ones who are most unhealthy or the challenging - they can go to the hospital down the road. And I'll be judged a better doctor because those down the road have to treat patients who are less likely to respond to the treatment. And if the NHS (swines!) say I must treat the less-healthy I'll leave and take my skills to BUPA."


Nigel Ford's picture
Sun, 29/05/2011 - 10:09

At present you have to live in the catchment area to be registered with your GP but if your excellent local GP was allowed to choose his/her patients from outside the catchment area based on subjective criteria and you or your parents were excluded because you fell short of his/her standards even though you lived in the locality you would probably feel a bit miffed especially if you could only see a less popular GP outside your locality.

I think you'll agree that the above scenario of a public service funded by taxpayers and operating a social apartheid is not much different from the school you attend where a publicly funded service is selecting its intake based on subjective criteria.

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.