Do Grammar Schools help social mobility
Purely in terms of helping social mobility, do grammar schools work? There's oe hell of a lot of contradictory evidence in this matter.
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Interesting piece from Conservative Roger Scruton about grammar schools here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26480053
There's a prettty good and relativley balanced article here too: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools
Its my understanding that grammar schools do better than comprehensives, but this retards comprehensives in that area- so for instance comprehensives in non grammar school areas do better than those in.
Should we ban all grammar schools or should we create more?
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Interesting piece from Conservative Roger Scruton about grammar schools here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26480053
There's a prettty good and relativley balanced article here too: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools
Its my understanding that grammar schools do better than comprehensives, but this retards comprehensives in that area- so for instance comprehensives in non grammar school areas do better than those in.
Should we ban all grammar schools or should we create more?
Scroll to see replies
You've pretty much answered it yourself. There's just no evidence at all to suggest grammar schools promote social mobility at all. As you've mentioned it, the only people who seem to gain are those from wealthy backgrounds already.
The biggest period of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools and instead invest hugely into state schools. The increase in social mobility may be causal, it may just be a correlation but one thing is for sure is that grammar schools have been shown in no way to improve social mobility.
I wouldn't ban all grammar schools that currently exist but i'd prevent any more from being built.
The biggest period of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools and instead invest hugely into state schools. The increase in social mobility may be causal, it may just be a correlation but one thing is for sure is that grammar schools have been shown in no way to improve social mobility.
I wouldn't ban all grammar schools that currently exist but i'd prevent any more from being built.
No, because richer children naturally do better academically.
But why punish rich children? You can have both grammar schools and good comprehensives.
But why punish rich children? You can have both grammar schools and good comprehensives.
Original post by Davij038
Purely in terms of helping social mobility, do grammar schools work? There's oe hell of a lot of contradictory evidence in this matter.
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Interesting piece from Conservative Roger Scruton about grammar schools here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26480053
There's a prettty good and relativley balanced article here too: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools
Its my understanding that grammar schools do better than comprehensives, but this retards comprehensives in that area- so for instance comprehensives in non grammar school areas do better than those in.
Should we ban all grammar schools or should we create more?
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Interesting piece from Conservative Roger Scruton about grammar schools here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26480053
There's a prettty good and relativley balanced article here too: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools
Its my understanding that grammar schools do better than comprehensives, but this retards comprehensives in that area- so for instance comprehensives in non grammar school areas do better than those in.
Should we ban all grammar schools or should we create more?
It depends.. is your priority to push the most academic to the best of their ability or is your priority to push the less academic to that C grade. Wilson (and everybody until Cameron who's allowed expansion by the back door) chose to focus on pushing the less intelligent up because the thing that people hated about grammar schools wasn't the grammar schools but rather the secondary moderns.
Personally i support grammar and private schools because although i'm poor i know that i'm far brighter than the average person. Unfortunately though while my friends in grammar school were told by their teachers that anything less than an A* will be a disappointment to him, my Maths teacher stood in front of the class and said "i'm only teaching B grade material, you'll have to do it yourself if you want more".
The real question to me with grammar schools is how we balance the trade off between meritocracy and using them as a means of social mobility. We know for example that middle class parents buy property within the catchment areas, something that poor people can't do (this leads to a higher number of middle class children) and we also know that the middle classes often use private tutors (something that should be the norm i feel) so it may be prudent to set aside the first 20% of places (assuming free school meals is 16% on average - i think i remember that number) for children from families without a high rate taxpayer (they'd still have to take the entrance exam, it's just you would have 2 piles to mark).
Equally i think that Singapore has a brilliant school system (Netherlands has similar) whereby because it costs say £6k to educate a child at a state school, the state gives a voucher to that amount to parents and allows them to find a private school (who often have a grammar like entrance exam too).
Ultimately you have to choose whether you want the brilliant and thick surrounded by their own or whether you want a mix. Your philosophical view will probably inform this.
Original post by Bornblue
You've pretty much answered it yourself. There's just no evidence at all to suggest grammar schools promote social mobility at all. As you've mentioned it, the only people who seem to gain are those from wealthy backgrounds already.
The biggest period of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools and instead invest hugely into state schools. The increase in social mobility may be causal, it may just be a correlation but one thing is for sure is that grammar schools have been shown in no way to improve social mobility.
I wouldn't ban all grammar schools that currently exist but i'd prevent any more from being built.
The biggest period of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools and instead invest hugely into state schools. The increase in social mobility may be causal, it may just be a correlation but one thing is for sure is that grammar schools have been shown in no way to improve social mobility.
I wouldn't ban all grammar schools that currently exist but i'd prevent any more from being built.
When did New Labour close lots of grammar schools. The bulk of them had the axe taken to them by Wilson, never stopped by Thatcher and then Labour just presided over the bottom (more or less stagnant at about 5% of pupils vs a peak of 25%.
I'm also incredibly sure that statistically the greatest social mobility occurred during the post war consensus and wasn't any higher under Labour. That was back when the state dished out non-jobs though and we had mass house building ect.. The way social mobility is measured basically means that increased home ownership and wage growth (the first lower since 01 and the second lower since the 70's) are more important that house price gains which made the middle class much better off but not the poor as much during the last business cycle.
Social mobility increased after world war 2 due to changes in the economy that needed more educated people. This coincided with the increase in state funded grammar schools. The grammar schools themselves did not increase social mobility but provided the workforce for the new ecoonomy.
Original post by Davij038
Purely in terms of helping social mobility, do grammar schools work? There's oe hell of a lot of contradictory evidence in this matter.
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Since Grammar schools were closed, it forced up the cost of housing near good Grammar schools, and so pretty much only wealthy families can now send their kids to them.
Original post by Bornblue
The biggest period of decline of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools.
The biggest period of decline of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools.
Fixed that for you:
Original post by Bornblue
You've pretty much answered it yourself. There's just no evidence at all to suggest grammar schools promote social mobility at all. As you've mentioned it, the only people who seem to gain are those from wealthy backgrounds already.
The biggest period of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools and instead invest hugely into state schools. The increase in social mobility may be causal, it may just be a correlation but one thing is for sure is that grammar schools have been shown in no way to improve social mobility.
I wouldn't ban all grammar schools that currently exist but i'd prevent any more from being built.
The biggest period of social mobility in recent decades coincided with New Labour's decision to abolish many grammar schools and instead invest hugely into state schools. The increase in social mobility may be causal, it may just be a correlation but one thing is for sure is that grammar schools have been shown in no way to improve social mobility.
I wouldn't ban all grammar schools that currently exist but i'd prevent any more from being built.
Which grammar schools did New Labour abolish?
Original post by Johann von Gauss
Since Grammar schools were closed, it forced up the cost of housing near good Grammar schools, and so pretty much only wealthy families can now send their kids to them.
The cost of housing increasing is more to do with laws around catchment areas as opposed to grammar schools per say. Basically, everybody that can moves to a good school catchment area because they have to.
Original post by Rakas21
The cost of housing increasing is more to do with laws around catchment areas as opposed to grammar schools per say. Basically, everybody that can moves to a good school catchment area because they have to.
Sorry Rajas, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.
School catchment areas do drive up house prices because people want to live in those areas.
I've just had to spend an additional £20k and settle for a lesser house because of the catchment area issue.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Sorry Rajas, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.
School catchment areas do drive up house prices because people want to live in those areas.
I've just had to spend an additional £20k and settle for a lesser house because of the catchment area issue.
School catchment areas do drive up house prices because people want to live in those areas.
I've just had to spend an additional £20k and settle for a lesser house because of the catchment area issue.
You just agreed with me.
Original post by Rakas21
You just agreed with me.
I know now
I misread your post.
Pretty much every study says that in general, grammar schools do not increase social mobility.
At best, those who are already doing well do better at the expense of those doing badly, who do even worse.
At best, those who are already doing well do better at the expense of those doing badly, who do even worse.
Original post by mojojojo101
Pretty much every study says that in general, grammar schools do not increase social mobility.
At best, those who are already doing well do better at the expense of those doing badly, who do even worse.
At best, those who are already doing well do better at the expense of those doing badly, who do even worse.
I recall reading that the main benefit if there was any was from students who get C/D in state schools but tended to perform better in grammars. Not many studies i imagine though and i don't have a link.
Original post by Davij038
Purely in terms of helping social mobility, do grammar schools work? There's oe hell of a lot of contradictory evidence in this matter.
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Interesting piece from Conservative Roger Scruton about grammar schools here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26480053
There's a prettty good and relativley balanced article here too: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools
Its my understanding that grammar schools do better than comprehensives, but this retards comprehensives in that area- so for instance comprehensives in non grammar school areas do better than those in.
Should we ban all grammar schools or should we create more?
For instance, since Grammar schools were largely abolished, social mobility has not increased- however the evidence show that in existing grammar schools only around 3% of pupils are eligible for free school meals.
Interesting piece from Conservative Roger Scruton about grammar schools here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26480053
There's a prettty good and relativley balanced article here too: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/14/ofsted-chief-war-grammar-schools
Its my understanding that grammar schools do better than comprehensives, but this retards comprehensives in that area- so for instance comprehensives in non grammar school areas do better than those in.
Should we ban all grammar schools or should we create more?
Yes they help but let's be realistic here, half of kids are going to uni.....
It's too many and has to be cut that is the sole problem at the moment and it needs to be fixed
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Yes they help but let's be realistic here, half of kids are going to uni.....
It's too many and has to be cut that is the sole problem at the moment and it needs to be fixed
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's too many and has to be cut that is the sole problem at the moment and it needs to be fixed
Posted from TSR Mobile
Good luck with that. Can you see universities willingly cutting their own income?
In the heyday of grammar schools in the 1950s and 60s there was much greater social mobility in secondary moderns than there is today in non-grammar schools in grammar school areas.
Most truly independent schools were boarding schools. Many day schools that are today independent were direct grant grammar schools and were effectively part of the state system, at least for admissions. There were relatively few independent day secondary schools. Until the 1980s schools operated fixed catchment areas. Parents didn't have a choice of school with tie breaks to determine who got in to oversubscribed schools. You went where you were sent.
Therefore the choice for most parents whose kids failed the 11+ was paying for a boarding school or going to the local secondary modern.
Most truly independent schools were boarding schools. Many day schools that are today independent were direct grant grammar schools and were effectively part of the state system, at least for admissions. There were relatively few independent day secondary schools. Until the 1980s schools operated fixed catchment areas. Parents didn't have a choice of school with tie breaks to determine who got in to oversubscribed schools. You went where you were sent.
Therefore the choice for most parents whose kids failed the 11+ was paying for a boarding school or going to the local secondary modern.
There is just no evidence whatsoever that grammar schools improve social mobility. None.
If anything the evidence is to the contrary.
There may be arguments in favour of them but social mobility is not one of them.
Blairs decision to invest hugely in comprehensive schools achieved far more social mobility than grammar schools ever did. Crumbling schools were rebuilt, given state of the art facilities and teaching. That was an extraudinary success.
If anything the evidence is to the contrary.
There may be arguments in favour of them but social mobility is not one of them.
Blairs decision to invest hugely in comprehensive schools achieved far more social mobility than grammar schools ever did. Crumbling schools were rebuilt, given state of the art facilities and teaching. That was an extraudinary success.
Original post by paul514
Yes they help but let's be realistic here, half of kids are going to uni.....
It's too many and has to be cut that is the sole problem at the moment and it needs to be fixed
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's too many and has to be cut that is the sole problem at the moment and it needs to be fixed
Posted from TSR Mobile
Although I kinda agree there're too many universities, it doesnt seem to be the case that most students go to university:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/jun/04/higher-education-participation-data-analysis
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Best Neighbourhoods For Secondary Schooling In Bucks & Hertfordshire counties?
- should i stay at a grammar school sixth form or my old state school sixth form?
- moving sixth forms
- help!! regular sixth form or grammar?
- What are the Best Sixth forms/colleges in Birmingham
- Is it worth moving for sixth form?
- Does LSE favour private school applicants
- Social work interview/test @ uel
- will my gcse results or a level subjects hinder my admission to a top uni?
- St. Michael's Catholic Grammar for Sixth Form
- Sixthform Choice
- one day exclusion in year 10 please help im going crazy
- distance, or academic vigour?
- I HATE year 8
- How I got into Westminster School Sixth Form
- How well do you have to do to get into LAE Stratford?
- Seeing/studying with people from a previous school?
- Really great state sixth form or a good grammar school?
- advice for moving schools for sixth form??
- Grammar or private sixth form with scholarship?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
