Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Poll: Do you support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools?

Scroll to see replies

In that case my parents are DAMN good at planning ahead.

I didn't have any tutors to pass the exam, had I not got in to the grammar school, I would have had no choice but to go to the local comprehensive (I'm not talking about all of them, just mine), where my chances of going to Uni would have been obliterated by the stupid kids who misbehave and kill any chance of my learning in lessons

and *Grammars. They teach us to spell too.

I can't stand people who can't spell Grammar correctly

Reply 41

Limitless

Original post by Elipsis

I think people only need to watch 5 minutes of 'Jamie's Dream School' to realise why we need Grammar schools. It's not fair to put good students with these children, who are disfunctional because of their home lives. I mean that school must have cost hundreds of thousands and would have cost millions per year to run if those teachers weren't giving their time for free, so the idea that if we pump rubbish schools with tons of money has been blown thoroughly out of the water. It would be nice from my perspective if state schools were actually worth sending my children to, given that I have paid for them already. There are some good state schools in places like Guildford though, where they don't really have council estates.

Not all people that go state school behave like the people from 'Jamie's Dream School'. I go to a Grammar school and during high school, there were some very disruptive people in my classes.

Reply 42

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by Maker

Grammers are a waste of time. All they do is allow better off parents to buy houses in its catchment area and tutor their kids to pass the entrance exam.

It fixes social classes rather than promote social mobility.

Err, no.

I went to a grammar school in Kent, which still does things properly and has selective grammars all over the place, and there were people from all sorts of backgrounds.

Grammar schools were a powerful force for mobility in the 60s-70s and helped an awful lot of children move up the social ladder through receiving a quality education. I fully support the restoration of grammar schools throughout the counties that abolished them.

Reply 43

Deema

Yes, I wish I had a grammar school education. From what I've heard they seem like the perfect environment and the best of both public and private schools without the high prices or class disrupter's (as a generalisation) :smile:

My school used to be a grammar and it has gone downhill considerably since :frown:

Reply 44

.:Doctor:.

Original post by Rainbow-Dream

Dragging down people that are willing to try harder?
Not all pupils that don't attain high grades do so because they are lazy. Some may work hard but struggle. Why should these people be disadvantaged? If anything, the smart ones at state schools should be able to do well even if the teaching quality isn't great, whereas it's the ones that are struggling that will need a lot of help to succeed. I understand that grammar schools will have benefits (those that are smart will do even better at grammars - I'm not going to deny that) but it will only help to create an even bigger divide between those that do well and those that don't.
The focus needs to be on changing people's attitudes towards education. At the moment the government's plan of giving more money to underperforming schools won't help in my opinion. Education starts at home. Privately education pupils probably don't do well just because their parents pay. They probably will have pushier parents, better attitudes, and a drive to succeed. This mentality is needed at state schools.
I went to a state school (an above average one) and did well at gcse.

Congratulations, but the fact remains those poorer people who go to Grammar Schools on average do significantly better than their comprehensive educated counterparts. Though I wont deny, you do have a very valid point and it will certainly be included in my project, so I thank you.

Reply 45

PendulumBoB

The problem is that there are far more stupid and average people than there are clever ones so reintroducing them would be political suicide.

Reply 46

fibrebiz

Original post by Superstar6318

I can't stand people who can't spell Grammar correctly

Original post by ilickbatteries

Looks like they spent all their time focusing on spelling, that they neglected to teach you what a proper noun is.

It was at the start of the sentence, therefore I used a capital letter.

It's unfortunately true that while grammar schools qualify you to correct spelling and grammar on the internet, you become less popular for it. C'est la vie.

Reply 47

.:Doctor:.

Original post by PendulumBoB

The problem is that there are far more stupid and average people than there are clever ones so reintroducing them would be political suicide.

Precisely the reason the conservatives officially dropped the idea, despite there still being much division on the subject within the party.

Reply 48

HedonisticMe

Absolutely. Labour ruined our education system when they transformed most grammars into undeacheiving comprehensives, truly an unforgivable move.

Reply 49

Superstar6318

Original post by fibrebiz

Omdaysssssssssssssssss u is a bofffin

Reply 50

.:Doctor:.

Original post by Superstar6318

Omdaysssssssssssssssss u is a bofffin

^
Labour's legacy.

Reply 51

fran.ha

I've never known anything different as I come from West Kent and EVERYONE either takes the 11+ or isn't intelligent enough so doesn't...

I definitely think its a good idea. I was not intelligent enough to go to one but there are plenty of people I know who went and they got a beter standard of education and are now at top universities. Makes sense really?

And in no way does it mean that 'richer' students are more likely to get in because they get tutored and such, as someone suggested. My cousins both go to grammars and they would be considered 'poorer' and more 'working class' than my household and I didn't get in. Wish I had though, would've pushed me so much more. I was always bright but not quite bright enough for grammar.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 52

simstar

Original post by .:Doctor:.

^
Labour's legacy.

That has got nothing to do with this conversation, I hope we never get your parties legacy.

Reply 53

.:Doctor:.

Original post by simstar

That has got nothing to do with this conversation, I hope we never get your parties legacy.

It was actually what I like to call a 'joke', additionally I don't belong to a party.

Reply 54

34253

Original post by Limitless

Not all people that go state school behave like the people from 'Jamie's Dream School'. I go to a Grammar school and during high school, there were some very disruptive people in my classes.

Obviously not. It only takes 2 or 3 of these cretins to ruin the whole classes education.

Reply 55

ilickbatteries

Original post by fibrebiz

You used "Uni" as a proper noun.

It is not a proper noun.

I don't really care how someone spells on the internet, but if someone wants to call someone else for their grasp of the English language, they should make sure they do so in a perfect manner.

Reply 56

the bear

i support the introduction of Grammar Universities

the baer

:badger:

Reply 57

simstar

Original post by .:Doctor:.

It was actually what I like to call a 'joke', additionally I don't belong to a party.

Ah ok, Didn't come across as that when written down, you know how it is on the internet and humor. I'm guessing you're too young to vote then!

Reply 58

KingPrawn0356

Original post by jismith1989

False. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/1999/may/29/grammarschools.secondaryschools)

No, not false. That article just says that poor people are underrepresented in the grammar schools of today (which is probably true, I admit), and doesn't contradict my original point that social mobility rates were higher before comprehensives were introduced, which there is an abundance of statistical evidence for (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4200681.ece and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article385160.ece).

I suspect the reason that the poor are underrepresented is that because the scarcity of grammar school places has increased the competition to the point where they are only for the absolute brightest of the brightest (hence the need for tutors) whereas if every area had one then the competition would be lessened and almost every bright child would be able to get a place, without the necessity for a tutor.

Also that guardian article is pretty flawed by focusing entirely on pupils who qualify for free school meals to prove its point, as the vast majority of the population fall between the two extremes of needing free school meals and being comfortably able to afford private education. It could be that many of the children at those schools mentioned are upper working/lower middle class, ie still unable to afford private schools, therefore in need of a grammar school as a ticket to a decent education.

Reply 59

.:Doctor:.

Original post by simstar

Ah ok, Didn't come across as that when written down, you know how it is on the internet and humor. I'm guessing you're too young to vote then!

I probably should have used a smilely! :biggrin:

Yes I am too young to vote, I can still influence people though mwhaha! However I was going to join the conservatives but I still have fundamental areas of disagreement concerning their policies. Grammar schools for example, and the NHS, but I shall not go into this, since this particular thread is not about that. :wink: