Poll: Do you support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools?

What I got from the bits in bold was that you were implying that the poor families didn't give a damn about the children, which in most cases, is completely untrue. As well as that, you said in your earlier post about how wealthy parents have got there through years of hard work, but have effectively just said there, that their parents could have bought them a good education?

I think this would depend on the primary school, I had no preparation for the exam so I just assumed the content would be similar to the SATs or such, I had a shock when I actually took the exam and failed.

I didn't mean that poor families didn't care about their children, I meant that some poor families didn't, which is unlucky for the children and can't be helped unless you improve social services, which this discussion isn't about. On the second point, I meant that some children are luckier than others, in the sense that their parents are rich and can buy their way into whatever they want to, whereas a poorer family won't be able to do so.

Sorry about the confusion, I'm not making any judgment on poor families, just stating that their situation can't be helped in my opinion

Yeah, but that applies to wealthy parents as well. And at the end of the day, a tutor can only do so much. Even if the parents don't care about the child as much as they should, surely good teaching and good school facilities should overcome this to an extent?

Sets do not go any type of student (top-middle-low) any justice.



But they'll be of similar ability as it is selective. Within sets, there are MAJOR differences.



Please, don't make ad hominem comments against me. If you're trying to counter argument my points, it has failed. If you really want to know - PM me.



You haven't spoken with many 11/12 year old kids, have you?

Trust me, I see them on a daily basis when I'm at school... You're heavily distorting the reality.



What if you needed an A* in Biology? AAAU?

Technically there are "resits" - at 13 and 16.



So don't you think it's unfair that an excellent mathematician may not get the chance to study Cambridge Maths because of "one damn exam", or what about a top historian not being invited for interview because of "one damn exam"?

Tough ****.



No they are not. Explain.



What if you're in top set and doing REALLY well against the others? Uh oh, they are no more sets.

Or what if you're in bottom set and STILL cannot keep up the pace?

Or what about if you're in Set 3 and not allowed to go up as it would distort your timetable and there are no more places?



It isn't. The reality says it isn't. I'm a secondary school student and I should know.

You keep churning out that crap but haven't given me any honourable reasons why.

Primary schooling does overcome it to an extent, but family life and background is a major contributor, especially at young ages like primary school

Entry at 13/16.



So why should *everyone* have the lower standard of education? If some can get a higher standard of education, why shouldn't they?

Is it fair that rich students get a higher standard of education via private schools, yet poor and bright students don't? I thought you want state education to be as meritocratic as possible and class should never be a factor? Why deny a poor but bright child person to receive a grammar school education?

You're being hypocritical



Yet you're against grammar schools?



Grammar schools are an *opportunity* for poor/bright students. Inevitably there will be middle class children going there, but why deny poor students too?



Yet they do. You're being hypocritical and if you think "sets" are going to solve the problem, think again.

Emmmm, how was the 11+ an unseen exam? We did practice tests every week. We knew exactly what sort of question to expect, and what format it would be in. Like we knew that there would be a comprehension etc. It was just a case of learning the likely content.

It was meant to be unseen.

The fact that it wasn't unseen basically just gives the children with wealthier parents more chances of being tutored to pass it.

I appreciate what you're saying, but IMO, I really don't see grammars as the way forward.

Maybe I'm too much of a socialist, who knows

Why? Mixed ability classes do not work. I think it's necessary to separate children at the age of 11, so they can reach their full potential. Separating them at 13 is simply too late.

Then they can have a second chance at 13, or a third chance of 16. What's wrong with that?

Bull****. What about the chance to go to a grammar school? To study for a course at a top university?

You're implying comprehensive students have no ambition.

But it is true that if someone is more academic than another person, they ARE superior to them - academically speaking. What's so politically incorrect about that? Some people are more "intellectual" than others.

Every school should be a good school full stop. So i vote no to grammar schools.

Yeah, I'm just saying that it's not black and white. Just because a child is from a poor background, and their parents don't have as much input into their education as they should, does not necessarily mean the child can't do well.

Once they've been placed in a comprehensive school, they'll presumably form friendships with their peers, become settled and relatively happy. No one likes being completely uprooted and sent to a new school, so regardless of the potential benefits of attending a grammar school, very few students would actually push themselves to this level. If you've been told from the age of 11 that you're academically inferior to students at the grammar schools, why would you think anything different?

How? Surely it gives all children the chance to revise themselves as well? I get what you're saying, I'm just not sure how it solely benefits children with wealthy parents.