I am going to duck the argument about the value and place of Grammar Schools in our school system because I know that it has foaming-at-the-mouth adherents to both sides of the debate. But I was interested to come across this piece in the Independent today which suggested that they were no better for pupils than a comprehensive.
I have so far failed to find the actual research on which the article is based because the journalist has not been kind enough to link to her sources so I don't know if this is politically motivated and am prepared to be corrected or correct myself when I find it.
However,
One of these days government might wake up to this and start funding primary schools commensurately rather than continuing to pander to the secondary lobby.
Thoughts?
I have so far failed to find the actual research on which the article is based because the journalist has not been kind enough to link to her sources so I don't know if this is politically motivated and am prepared to be corrected or correct myself when I find it.
However,
"The researchers concluded that the apparent success of grammar schools was due to selective school pupils coming from more advantaged social backgrounds and having higher academic attainment at age 11."Rather than casting aspersions on the value of Grammar School education doesn't this actually restate that it is primary education which matters most in affecting the life chances of children...?
One of these days government might wake up to this and start funding primary schools commensurately rather than continuing to pander to the secondary lobby.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment