Grammar schools to return

You will find most students in grammars live in more expensive houses than those in secondary moderns.

So what?

This is a good idea.

I was in a state primary school and my class held me back from reaching top levels in my SATs.

Grammar schools don't hold you back and push you. Many friends I have from comprehensives say the work is too easy but a grammar schools they do give you hard work and the workload is more.

I don't get how the 11+ is unfair. Sets is unfair in comprehensive, GCSE is also unfair because it splits people into classes doesn't it? I don't see what's wrong with giving people who are poor but smart enough to go to a grammar school. Why should everyone be forced to go to comp schools if they don't want to? Parents deserve to have a wide-range of choice when choosing what school they want their child to go to.

I just really hope this gets passed. But I predict Labour will block this and that will only make me hate them more.

wat are grammar schools

Proves you are wrong but you are right, who cares what you think.

A false hope for the gullible.

I don't understand why comprehensive schools can't introduce sets.

How is it false hope?



Comprehensive schools do already have sets which splits people up according to ability, that's the same for the 11+ exams so the argument about it being unfair is completely flawed because you get judged by ability in comprehensive schools and when you do formal exams such as the mandatory GCSE exams.

Grammar schools are a bit like a slimming club that only admits thin people. They only take in people who are good at passing tests and surprise, surprise, they do well in exams and people think they are magic. You could admit the same people and let a monkey teach them and they will get similar results.

If schools already do sets according to ability, what is the point of separating an arbitrary number of them and sticking them in a different building and calling it a grammar school?

Yes exactly! Success in education is mostly determined by 9 months. What grammars do is segregate people in ways that make them feel comfortable.

You can say the same for universities. What is your point? That smart people should be forced into comprehensive school education where everyone goes at the pace of the dumbest person in the class.

Lefties: "If some people benefit, then no one shall benefit" - disgusting from people who claim that they want to give everyone a chance huh?



How do grammar segregate people in ways that make them feel comfortable? That makes no sense at all.

What they are tying to get passed in Parliament is a grammar school policy that is completely different to the one in the 1960s. They are proposing to lift the ban. They will focus on building grammar schools in less affluent areas and in areas of high demand for them, which means more grammar schools in cities and not only that it won't be forced unlike academies, so it's hardly harmful.

By banning grammar schools you have set a limit. Because now we cannot create grammar schools there is more and more demand for it from parents, they need a wider choice of where they want their child to go to. By banning grammar schools in fact makes the 11+ harder because more people are doing it therefore you have less of a chance of getting into a grammar school. Isn't that unfair?

Everything is unfair. Life isn't rainbows and bunnies. If you can work hard and you are poor you have every right to go to a grammar school and not be oppressed and thrown into a comprehensive school.

Grammar schools are a bit like a slimming club that only admits thin people. They only take in people who are good at passing tests and surprise, surprise, they do well in exams and people think they are magic. You could admit the same people and let a monkey teach them and they will get similar results.

If schools already do sets according to ability, what is the point of separating an arbitrary number of them and sticking them in a different building and calling it a grammar school?

What evidence do you have grammars are better than comprehensives?

There should be separate entry points.

Year 7 entry for kids from low income families who show academic potential/desire to do well. No selection by exam, merely through applications completed by teachers.

Year 10 entry for top achievers from state schools. Selection by exam, similar to Y9 SATs.

As someone who went to a grammar school, the main benefit was attending school alongside students who were of a similar academic ability and inclination as myself. Not only did that help me, but it helped teachers, who then didn't have to cater to as wide a range of abilities/attitudes as in a non-selective school.

How vague can you be. Results? Teaching? That's a bit "unfair" isn't it?

I went to a comprehensive and had the same experience in streams. It was actually better for me as I moved up the streams after each year getting to the top "O" level streams for all my subjects. If I had taken the 11+, I probably would not have done "O" levels because I would have gone to a secondary modern.

You want to spend a lot of public money and cause a lot of disruption, surely, you must have a very strong case for doing that.

There is already seperate entry points in some schools. You have the 11+ exams and then you have the 13+ exams but they are slightly harder because only a small amount are excepted in and it's not on as much of a large scale as the 11+ exams.

I don't agree with doing applications completed by teachers. You can examine kids from low income families and if they are smart enough they can be accepted, I don't see anything wrong with that. Because then what you have is teachers just writing good stuff about each kid so that makes it harder to accept people.

Just because a kid has academic potential/desire will they cope with the hard work and workload in a grammar school? Can they cope with fast-paced classes? That idea sounds good but, being realistic, I don't think it would work.