Grammar schools to return

Terrible idea. The surprise Brexit outcome was a result of longstanding class and generational conflict in our society, and now the reintroduction of grammar schools will reinforce this. The real world does not contain safe spaces for your precious 'gifted' children so they will have to learn how to interact with a wide range of people at some point, and better sooner rather than later.

What they should do is provide the best teachers and streaming in non-academy comprehensives with one national exam board, and fund this program with monetary resources taken from private and religious schools.

Awful. 11+ exams instill a huge sense of failure amongst those who don't pass.

Both my father, hailing from a fairly working class background, and his sister passed theirs. My other aunt didn't and never got over it, in spite of later obtaining excellent A-Level results, studying at Cambridge and becoming a headteacher in her early twenties. It caused massive rifts not just in their family, but their community as a whole, between those who went off to grammar schools and those who stayed put.

Not to mention the fact that my father hated his grammar school with a passion, and had to commute for a couple of hours daily to get there which was hard enough to afford.

My point is that you'd have to be resoundingly naive to believe that assessing a child at 10 or 11 is a good measure of their intelligence in the long-term. In any case, the exams themselves tend to favour children who have already received decent tutelage in Maths and English.

Statistics don't lie; children from poorer backgrounds are hail from parents who aren't as smart and the child is less likely to be smart considering that intelligence hails from both nature and nurture.

As a response to your post as a whole; you seem to think that bright students from poor families have no chance of getting into a decent grammar, however unless you provide some sort of evidence to further that claim then all I can do is disagree with that idea. Rich people would choose private schools, and the grammar exists so the common man can give their child a decent education considering this nations attitude towards education in which a B is seen as a successful grade.

You don't have this problem in Japan or Korea in which all the good middle and high schools have entrance exams because the culture realises that hard work pays and everyone is encouraged to work hard. Whereas here we just accept C's as a pass somehow when it's hard to get less than a C.

You have this delusion where everyone should have the same education as if that's better. That doesn't help anything, potentially grammar tier students would go to trash comprehensive schools where they don't get pushed at all and they fail. Those same students who wouldn't be in a grammar won't be pushed anyway.

I'd rather give my money to students that I know will be pushed and will achieve greater things.

inb4 every student should be pushed amirite haha

Right listen up.
I go to a grammar school and I have done for the past five years. A grammar school setting is not that different to a comprehensive except the behaviour is slightly better and the grades we are expected to get and the level we work at is obviously higher (and the uniforms are uglier). Nonetheless, I personally think that the talk about seperating students being negative is not a good argument.
It is not about differentiating children, it's about providing the facilities for every student to reach their full potential. It's very hard in a comprehensive school classroom for the teacher to cater for a student at the lowest end of the spectrum and a student at the highest end in just one lesson, especially in subjects like English.
If the students who are more intelligent go to a seperate school, it narrows the ability range of a class in a comprehensive, making lessons easier to teach and more effective for students. As well as that, students at grammar schools can have teaching content that can push them further.
I repeat, it's about ensuring every student can reach their full potential - that's why we have schools for students with disabilities (so they can have an environment and work tailored for them to maximise their potential), comprehensive schools and grammar schools.
I don't think I could have reached the level I have reached at a grammar school at a comprehensive; not at any fault of the comprehensive, but because the teacher would have to fit the lesson to the needs of lower-ability students too, therefore not pushing the higher ability students.

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.