Grammar schools to return

Scroll to see replies

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.

How is this spending a lot of public money? We already spend a lot of public money on education anyways what's wrong with that? You don't want to invest into the future workforce?

And how is it going to cause disruption in anyway?

Reply 81

DanB1991

Original post by Paraphilos

What about those who don't make it? Do you think at present our economy is sufficiently diverse enough to support those people when apprenticeship funding is being cut? When's the last time you met somebody who qualified as an engineer through an apprenticeship? Probably never since they got axed over 30 years ago along with Britain's industry which was providing jobs to those who weren't so academically inclined.

If you can't properly address these important points, I don't see how you can call yourself a social democrat. You've got to acknowledge that there are two sides to this and right now the public is allured by the argument of giving working class kids a chance. It really does hark back to the age of the american dream in more ways than one.

Those who don't make it would go to the local comprehensive....

Even current grammar schools show more chance of social mobility than the current comprehensive school which mostly fail, seeing it's most successful students still tend to come from middle class families and those who receive extra tuition. So all the support and funding for the high achievers in comprehensive schools still go to the middle class, while everyone else, even the average achievers are simply left by the way side.

That's unless the local house prices are so high the comprehensive might as well be a grammar school anyway.

Reply 82

username1751857

Original post by jamestg

I know there are separate entry points, just not to this degree.

You can't examine kids from low-income families at 11, it's ludicrous to suggest people can. When I talk about teacher applications, I'm not talking about "why x school should accept y pupil". Just socio-economic questions like parents' salary, background and the area they live in. Teachers can easily tell whether a student can achieve better but are in the wrong environment, especially at primary school where they spend more time together.

The whole reason of having two entry points is that there are 3 years for the pupils most in need to have all the resources, expert teaching and contact time to do very well. Everything is built up in stages, and by Y10 they should be at the same level as those top achievers from state schools coming in.

So that means you don't support SATs if you don't want kids being examined at 11. That doesn't make sense.

Many grammar schools do consider socio-economic reasons actually. There is a King Edwards Trust in Birmingham that has lowered pupil premium and are accepting more low-income families in order to give them a chance. To say that grammar schools don't look at these issues is untrue.

I agree with your last point. Two entry points make it fair which is why some grammars have a 13+ to give another chance to kids if they don't get through in 11+.

Reply 83

jamestg

Hang on, you can't say...

Original post by MrMackyTv

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

And then say "You can examine kids from low income families and if they are smart enough they can be accepted".

Surely by this logic, if you were smart enough you would've reached top levels in your SATs.

Reply 84

remiremi

It seems the Tory tactics to deal with a growing UKIP is simply to adopt their policies.

First the EU referendum, then a U-turn on the France/Chinese Nuclear plant deal and now new grammar schools,

Reply 85

username1177050

Ethos at grammars much better. Comprehensive does not encourage studious atmosphere causing children to think it is uncool to study. Teachers are concerned with getting all students 5 C grades. Thanks.

Reply 86

username1751857

Original post by jamestg

Hang on, you can't say...

And then say "You can examine kids from low income families and if they are smart enough they can be accepted".

Surely by this logic, if you were smart enough you would've reached top levels in your SATs.

Yes and I did. Sorry I worded that wrong.

In primary school the class were doing basic stuff and I ended up finishing most of the work very quickly. They had to pull me out of class to do boosters with a seperate teacher but I didn't end up getting the Level 6 in SATs but I still got into my grammar school. It was nice of my primary school to do that but just saying, not all primary schools do that. Not all primary schools pull kids out of class to do more challenging work.

Reply 87

jamestg

Original post by MrMackyTv

SATs and the 11+ are completely different. SATs essentially mean nothing and the 11+ can really be life-defining.

You're right many do, in fact all of them do but not the extent I'm talking about. I'm also not trying to imply grammar schools don't either, I'm saying some perhaps don't look at them enough. Also the example you gave is true, but there are very few grammar schools like that.

Yes, 'some' grammars. It should be all.

Reply 88

Asurat

Original post by dairychocolate

None of that makes sense to me, I'm afraid.

The user's point was that it was only in high school where they realised their full academic potential. Had they been streamed into a secondary modern after an 11+ they believe they would never have achieved the same O-level results.

Reply 89

jamestg

Original post by MrMackyTv

But your logic still stands?

How is someone from a low income family meant to get around something like that, especially in a school where no help is available?

Reply 90

jamestg

Anyway, I'm off to watch a film.

Reply 91

username1751857

Original post by jamestg

SATs and the 11+ are completely different. SATs essentially mean nothing and the 11+ can really be life-defining.

Yes I am aware of that. Despite my SATs results I still got in because I did the 11+ before. I agree, it can be life-defining.

You're right many do, in fact all of them do but not the extent I'm talking about. I'm also not trying to imply grammar schools don't either, I'm saying some perhaps don't look at them enough. Also the example you gave is true, but there are very few grammar schools like that.

There aren't a lot of grammar schools like that maybe because most are in rich areas. In my example, it is a trust within a city so this could also be seen with new grammar schools and current grammar schools in cities. Even though it's some it is a start! We could see similar actions like this in grammar schools in cities across the country.

Yes, 'some' grammars. It should be all.

I agree, this is why I like this policy because it's forcing grammar schools to accept more poor children.

Reply 92

username1751857

Original post by jamestg

But your logic still stands?

How is someone from a low income family meant to get around something like that, especially in a school where no help is available?

Low-income families could ask the school to do something similar to what mine did but I doubt that would work.

But my logic still stands. If you are poor and are smart enough you deserve every chance to go to a grammar school. And it wasn't my school that helped me get into a grammar school it was my parents (they only helped me at the end of the year after my 11+ exams and before SATs).

Reply 93

DanB1991

Original post by jamestg

Well at 11 nothing rally matters because sets don't become a thing until year 8/9.

When I was at school Exams or SATS in year 9 could make or break you GCSE potential which is in reality no different. My comp couldn't find my Sats results and because I was from a poor income area decided to guess my ability level. Sets were decided directly on SATS results, albeit they are optional now. As a result many of my grades were capped for the first 6 months which directly led to poorer than expected results, seeing in some cases I simply couldn't make up the grades to get higher than C's or B's, despite getting full marks in my capped exams.

Reply 94

Paraphilos

Original post by neal95

A much bigger factor is your parents and family values. Nothing to do with structure of schooling.

Reply 95

Maker

Original post by dairychocolate

None of that makes sense to me, I'm afraid.

Grammar schools don't receive preferential funding.

Clearly, the 11+ did not do its job of discriminating between those who are academic and who are not.

Any changes to the education system costs money regardless if the schools themselves are cost neutral. One of the reasons why Margaret Thatcher got rid of grammars was it was too expensive to maintain 2 different school systems.

Reply 96

username1177050

Original post by Paraphilos

A much bigger factor is your parents and family values. Nothing to do with structure of schooling.

wrong. my parents wanted me to sit the 11+ and I would have passed that **** test no problems. however what parents don't realise is that in not sending their kids to the best schools possible as a youngster they are opening themselves up to variables having more of an influence on their kids than themselves. what kid wants to leave their primary school mates if they have a choice? the teachers at most state schools are there because they are **** lefties who don't have many other options lets be honest. the minimum is fine for them and they will actively encourage this, they wont move people up sets and they will have tory ***** as the headmasters who are in it for themselves rather than the kids. my old headmaster was a right **** and he never thought I would amount to much, well that **** can do one because I am at a russel group studying law and will one day go back to school in a assembly and publicly diss him.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 97

Maker

Original post by dairychocolate

None of that makes sense to me, I'm afraid.

Grammar schools don't receive preferential funding.

Reply 98

alevelstresss

Bad - we shouldn't be encouraging schools that select people based on a test that they do aged 11. One singular year in academia can massively change someone's aptitude.

Reply 99

Maker

Original post by MrMackyTv

Are you trying to ironic or just don't understand how things work in the real world.

If grammar schools were to be permitted, who is going to create the policies for them to come into existence, who will do the local parent consultations, who will do the change management from single tier to a 2 tier education system across the entire England and Wales? How much would it cost to administer the entry tests and handle the appeals?

And that is just the stuff off the top of my head. Its going t costs hundreds of millions to create new grammar and secondary modern schools.

Its going to be disruptive because kids who would have gone to their nearest school could find they can't because its become a grammar and they didn't get in and have to travel to a school further away so the local council has to pay fro their transport.