[Ocassus]

(Original post by mabelbarc)
Theres 3 Grammar School still in Plymouth, I go to one of them... theyre not gone.

3?!

I thought there was only 1? O.o

[mevidek]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Yes you do, and that's fine. I would debate you on it if I thought it would change anything but it won't. You know I think your reasoning here is foolish and have explained to you why previously in one of our PM conversations I believe. We can still be friends

I don't think we can... I shan't talk to you again.

Spoiler:

Show

Spoiler:

Show

So you would have preferred to have gone to a comprehensive school instead?

[tobes676]

I think grammar schools should be brought back to be honest. I've been in an all boys grammar school for 6 and a bit years and its really good. We get pretty good exam results as well as people getting offers to Oxbridge and top unis and the teachers make it so much more bearable. I live in High Wycombe where there are 3 grammar schools and an all girls private school, so I've never really considered the fact that there are less of them.

While I do believe that they should b brought back, I really do not think that the 11+ is a good way of deciding who gets in. They are fairly irrelevant in regards to academic skill and potential as in my school there are people that scored the borderline pass mark yet achieved loads of A*s at GSCE and loads of As at AS. If a decision is made to bring in more grammar schools, I think a new test should be done and it should be more academically focused as the 11+, to me at least, seemed like a bit of an aptitude test

[faber niger]

(Original post by mevidek)
So you would have preferred to have gone to a comprehensive school instead?

You're not much of a socialist, are you? I see that you've removed most of the quotations from your signature and replaced Castro or whoever you had as your avatar with Stephen Fry, so why don't you just be done with it and get rid of your remaining quote?

[mevidek]

(Original post by jismith1989)
1. You're not much of a socialist, are you? 2. I see that you've removed most of the quotations from your signature and 3. replaced Castro or whoever you had as your avatar with Stephen Fry, 4. so why don't you just be done with it and get rid of your remaining quote?

1. Yes, I am.
2. Because I needed to a) Put in a poster for Labour in the Labour election, and b) Put a in a poster to show that I am the representative for DPRK in the MUN. On both occasions I did not remove them for political reasons.
3. That's because I got sick of having the same avatar for a long time and went for a change. It's not a political move at all.
4. Because I don't want to, and I agree with that quote very much.
5. You're simply judging my political beliefs on a few changes I've made over the period of a year or so on my account. Perhaps if you were so closely observing my alterations and actions on here, you'd realise that I posted my political compass result on a thread. I'll post it here below:

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

[Nix-j-c]

I think I would have done a lot better on my gcse if I had had gone to a grammar school and would probably have got in. But of the few that are left, none are round here. Instead I ended up in groups where the teachers were just glad if they could get everyone to pass, let alone focussing on helping people to get As/A*s apart from in english, maths and science, where we had sets . . . So it meant the failing people got the most attention and help because teachers would prefer everyone to get a C than half to fail and the other half to get A/A* . . .

[cheekymokeyxxx]

(Original post by LipstickKisses)
Yes, they give everyone a chance to access great education, and allow the more intelligent to get away from those who don't want to learn and will end up disrupting classes. I don't see why they were reduced

i agree in my area there is one grammar school, this means that there are thousands and thousands applying (i understand that thousands aply normaly to grammar schools but the aplicant numbers for this school are well above normal). If there were more grammar schools it would allow thoes who would have got into a grammar school , when there were more of the schools, to get in now, i make this point as many bright students who should have got into a grammar school don't make the incredibly high standards that have to be used to wittle down the numbers.

Grammar schools gave the oppertunity for thoes who wanted to focus on more acidemic subjects to do so, and thoes who wanted to focus on more practical skils to do so seperately, by going to a different types of school, this meant that either group would not be disrupting the other in class, because they are bored and want to be doing something else.

For the record i go to an ex-grammar school.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by jismith1989)
...

Fair enough, I can see your point. According to the Guardian article Grammar schools students did earn more than their parents though so there is a advantage and not any disadvantage hence can't see anything wrong with keeping them. They won't solve the problem entirely but they do help a little. My only problem with Grammar schools is that they tend to be filed up by the middle class considering their location hence don't really help those that need it i.e. working class high-achievers.

(Original post by und)
Have you at all considered the fact that the people who go to Oxbridge and enter top jobs in the city from state schools today, are the same people who would have gone to grammar schools under the old system?

I don't understand your point.

(Original post by ForKicks)
Sorry, since when was that the case? haha. There isn't enough aristocrats to fill places for a start, secondly they were too busy managing estates to get a job in the city!

Sorry, using aristocrats loosely. Aristocrats = those who went to the infamous 9 public schools/upper middle class +.

[mabelbarc]

(Original post by Ocassus)
3?!

I thought there was only 1? O.o

yeah theres 3, devonport high school for girls, devonport high school for boys, plymouth high school for girls.. and i have a feeling that notredame and st boniface also take the 11+ but im not sure they class as grammars since they're with the church...

[und]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
I don't understand your point.

You give the fact that more people from state schools now go to Oxbridge and end up in high-paid jobs to support your claim that social mobility has increased, but those people are the same ones who would have gone to a grammar school rather than a secondary modern under the old system. Thus, the evidence you provide does not necessarily support your claim, since there are other factors involved.

[hannahyak]

Comprehensive schools are a mixed bag; some are indeed dreadful, but there are also some outstanding ones out there. Whether possible or not, it would be much better to have a country full of good state schools than the grammar school system.

My school is one of the better comprehensive schools in the country, and I think a big reason for this is that there is an atmosphere of wanting to learn- people who succeed in school aren't mocked or ridiculed, but praised. If the 'top 20%' were taken away from that, then this atmosphere would definitely change.

Also, something no one has mentioned yet is streaming, which is now incredibly common in most schools. It is effectively the same as the grammar school system, but within a school- those who are best are placed in sets which cater for their learning, and those who are worst get teaching which will most benefit them. However, most importantly, these sets are designed for different subjects, meaning someone who is bad at English but good at maths will be placed in different sets for each, meaning that they can still excel in things they are good at. There is also a lot more mobility between sets, meaning that any changes in ability after the age of 11 (which everyone undergoes) can be taken into account. It is a lot harder to change schools.

The grammar school 11+ tests a very small amount of knowledge, and from looking at past papers, can most certainly be learned to an extent. They remind me of IQ tests in that regard. They will separate the best for the most part, but they are by no means perfect. For example, my cousin failed her 11+, but retook it as the 12+, and passed. She went on to get A*AA at a level, so is obviously bright.

I think there are things to be said for grammar schools, of course, such their past record for helping social mobility. But frankly, the fact that their numbers are declining isn't exactly a bad thing...so long as comprehensives with high teaching standards and streaming are also on the rise.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by und)
You give the fact that more people from state schools now go to Oxbridge and end up in high-paid jobs to support your claim that social mobility has increased, but those people are the same ones who would have gone to a grammar school rather than a secondary modern under the old system. Thus, the evidence you provide does not necessarily support your claim, since there are other factors involved.

Huh? That's my point, poorer pupils back then didn't have as much chance to enter high-paying jobs as they do now. The fact that pupils went to grammar schools back then yet didn't enter high paying jobs but those who go to grammar schools now and do enter higher-paying jobs is evidence of this increase of social mobility.

[und]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Huh? That's my point, poorer pupils back then didn't have as much chance to enter high-paying jobs as they do now. The fact that pupils went to grammar schools back then yet didn't enter high paying jobs but those who go to grammar schools now and do enter higher-paying jobs is evidence of this increase of social mobility.

Sorry, I thought you were excluding grammar schools when you mentioned state schools.

[MonkeyNews]

Absolutely they should, they gave working class kids of all backgrounds the chance to succeed, and the most intelligent got the best teaching, as it should be, as they are the future business owners and wealth in the country.

Those who oppose them, are class snobs, and are responsible for the terrible state education that our children get today.

They need to be brought back in a huge way, the education system needs a huge shake-up, the left wing has utterley murdered it.

[TheHyacinthGirl]

There are none in the north east of England. I wish I'd gone to a grammar school. The rate of learning in my school was so slow.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by TheHyacinthGirl)
There are none in the north east of England. I wish I'd gone to a grammar school. The rate of learning in my school was so slow.

Present your arguments for grammar schools, keeping in mind that those rooted in personal preference will be laughed at. If you wish to neg me (which you did) then I wish to see what your arguments are for why their existence and/or comprehensive inclusion in our education system is the best, indeed fairest, thing for everyone and not just those who are lucky enough to have the privilege of going to one based solely on the result of a watered down IQ test that the children of more affluent families are trained to pass anyway.

I went to one and I can assure you they are not filled with children who are more intelligent than those at comprehensive schools.

Good luck.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by MonkeyNews)
Absolutely they should, they gave working class kids of all backgrounds the chance to succeed, and the most intelligent got the best teaching, as it should be, as they are the future business owners and wealth in the country.

Those who oppose them, are class snobs, and are responsible for the terrible state education that our children get today.

They need to be brought back in a huge way, the education system needs a huge shake-up, the left wing has utterley murdered it.

how are people who oppose gramma schools class snobs?
selecting children of 13 on their ability is stupid and divisive ... 13year old males are statistically far more immature than girls so there would be a vast and unfair imbalance anyway.

[py0alb]

(Original post by adobe)
Nigel Farage certainly thinks so

but whats the argument against Grammar Schools, why the hell did we get rid of them?!

Because splitting people into "smart" and "stupid" at the age of 11 on the results of some flimsy IQ test is clumsy and regressive and correlated more closely to parental income than development potential, you'd frankly be better off making it a lottery.

Why not just have more effective streaming on a year by year, subject by subject basis? Oh no, because that would make sense.

[secondtimearound]

I went to a grammar school, so obviously have a bias here (although some of my fellow pupils now campaign against them...)

For my two pennies worth, I would obviously bring them back. The standard of teaching was obviously excellent, but to my mind the way we were taught was different. I went to university and found former comp pupils learning essay structure, which is something I was taught at AS. (I know this is probably not a full representation, but it was noticeable). Additionally, a couple of my teachers were able to teach us the syllabus in a single term of sixth form, and the rest was devoted to expansion of our education (I like to think of this as the difference between knowledge and wisdom).

As for the local comprehensive, my younger brother attended, and when helping him with him homework, some of the things he was getting taught were 20 years out of date! (Geographical theory in particular was awful!).

Of course the system is biased towards those who can afford private tuition for the 11+, but not so far as people might believe. My parents couldn't afford tuition, but my primary school took the few (I think 4) of us that wanted to do the 11+ for an extra lesson per week for a term for preperation, and my mum (the most qualified of our extended family with 4 O-Levels, by no means an Einstein) got hold of previous 11+ exams and answersheets, and I sat 3 mock exams/week in my room, that she would then mark, before we both went through what I had got wrong and improved.

The whole debate, to my mind, focusses on the wrong issue. Grammar schools were never the problem, it's the previous institutions and parents that don't cater for their children to attempt the 11+.

(As an aside, it's a similar issue I have with Oxbridge criticism- blame low secondary school support rather than elitist admissions. And I didn't go to Oxbridge.)

Anyway, that's my little piece over, muse and discuss :-)

[LETSJaM]

We SHOULD bring back the original Grammar Schools, they give clever but disadvantaged students a chance to excel.

<3 x