Grammar schools to return

Grammars have too many downsides and the transition period to grammars would be horrendous.

In my area there is a comp with really good academic results and people pay over the odds to buy a house in the catchment area meaning most of the students are middle class.

If new a grammar school was established in a nearby area, it would pull all the well performing students from that school and the house prices in the catchment area of the comp would crash which means very few parents would want a new grammar in that area.

But if that comp was converted to a grammar, it would make little difference as it already has the sort of students that could pass the test to go to a grammar and very few poor students could afford to live in the catchment area anyway.

Isn't that the main issue with the current comprehensive system? You have to be rich/lucky enough to live in the catchment area of a good comp. If your parents can't afford to move you're stuck in a bad comp? Whereas the grammar school system arguably wouldn't car where you lived. With transport costs be covered how they are currently, aka if your eligible to go to the grammar school and are within it's catchment area you get free transportation.

The other thing you have to do if you are arguing grammars are more accessible for the poor is how do you stop rich kids being coached and getting a lot of preparation by paid tutors for the entry tests while poor kids can't afford it.

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.

There are plenty of arguments against grammar schools, but "safe spaces" have nothing to do with it, and neither does the social interaction of the children - or do you think everyone who goes to a good school is a toff? Not sure what you're trying to imply with the quote marks around gifted; some kids are brighter than others, that's the way it is.

The main argument is that grammar schools are unnecessary and therefore economically unwise. The 'gifted' children-and yes I will use quotation marks in the absence of a satisfactory definition-will do well anyway: they do not require enough resources to fill a whole new type of school. They can receive all they need in terms of extra tuition, ISO testing, Oxbridge preparation, summer camps-certainly more than they deserve-in a standard streamed comprehensive environment.

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.

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.

Nobody got any of that at my secondary school. Perhaps the problem isn't that kids can't receive what they need, it's that they simply don't receive it, at least not at most comprehensives. Ultimately, it's about resources/money.

I went to one of the best comprehensives in the country, having not taken the grammar school test, and there was high academic achievement in an environment of mutual respect, despite having students across the full spectrum of academic achievement. But it didn't just happen. It took investment of time, money and very good teachers to reach Ofsted Outstanding status.

Theresa May thinks regressing to an older school system will be an easy solution but it will bring its own set of problems as well as being a disservice to the successful comprehensives. In my humble opinion we should invest our resources to raise the worst comprehensives up to the best so we can ensure good schools for everyone, and then technicalities can be solved by streaming.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, here.

This is a problem that exists in peoples' imaginations. It is actually very hard to make unintelligent people perform well on tests. If it weren't, all schools would work much better than they do. The difference in result between prepared and unprepared candidates on IQ tests is not very large.

Grammar schools already exist, we'd just create more. Opening new schools is going to cost money regardless of their type. The other proposals are also positive, such as forcing private schools to sponsor struggling state schools + provide financial and professional support.


I do think that the intake of students during later years needs to be increased. Perhaps large intakes from entrance exams in year 10 etc. would be a good way of doing this, in fact I think that that is being proposed currently.

Who said anything about opening new schools, why should new schools be opened now?

"So I want to relax the restrictions to stop selective schools from expanding, that deny parents the right to have a new selective school opened where they want one..."