Poll: Do you support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools?

Such a simplistic view. You really think "sets" and "streaming" work in reality?

Its not a proven solution. In fact its the cause of the current set of problems. You can't have grammar schools without having their antithesis, the "secondary modern", the direct precursor of the bogstandard comprehensive system that is such an issue. It was the original introduction of the 11+ that inadvertently caused the problems we have today. Grammar schools aren't the solution, they're the very cause of the problem in the first place.

As a pre-emptive measure, saying "but lets just send every kid to a grammar school" is breathtakingly stupid, so don't do it.

There are plenty of valid alternative solutions. But until you have the intellectual capability to understand that the failed grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is the worst possible direction to move in, then I'm not going to waste my time talking over your head.

But that is partly the point.
1 - Fair enough. The GCSE pass rate at my comp was a lot lot higher than that. Again, its partly attitudes though.

2 - There is no reason why you can't be strict with people who don't want to be there. If they don't listen, kick them out of lessons and stick them in a referul unit or something.

There are plenty of valid alternative solutions. But until you have the intellectual capability to understand that the failed grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is the worst possible direction to move in, then I'm not going to waste my time talking over your head.

Maybe we should stop looking at fixing the secondary schools and universities as the panacea to solve our educational and societal problems. Since the advantages of grammar schools is the culture of the pupil body according to several posters here we could try some better Cultural Indoctrination education and discipline at the Primary Level. If the solution to the problem proposed by grammar schools is to filter children at the age of 11 then perhaps the better idea is to ensure the graduates of primary schools are of a higher quality so that the majority of all students have the 'Grammar School' mindset.

In posting this I just noticed very, very little is made of primary schools both on this board and in the news.

I dont think every child should be sent to a grammar school, only the ones which demonstrate a personal conviction to getting the best education they can and an affinity for academics.

Your solutions involve everyone being dragged to the level of the lowest.

If I could set up the system we would have a split at age 14 (not 12):

Technical/Science-based grammar schools;
Arts-based grammar schools; and
Vocational skills colleges.

The latter of which prepare you for an apprenticeship in a chosen career, and take responsibility for helping you find one, while the former two would go on to universities or specialist acadamies (for particularly talented musicians for example).

We need to get past the farcical pretence that everyone has an equal capacity for achievement given the right encouragement and opportunities. This is utter bull****- not everyone can be a brain surgeon or Barrister nor should they aspire to be.

Just because some people don't past the entrance test to go to Grammar school doesn't necessarily mean that they 'can't be bothered' about their education. It may simply mean that they are less academic / don't cope well with exams. I think it is an important point to remember that just because not everyone is academic, it doesn't mean we should judge those people as all being 'slackers' or badly behaved. This is what worries me about Grammar schools - that everyone who doesn't get in is written off as stupid and lazy.

What would you do if it turned out that "looking at how good comprehensives work" uncovers that the reason they do so well is because they have lower proportions of students from deprived backgrounds and more middle-class parents with sharp elbows? Ie, if its proven that everything you are criticising about grammar schools is exactly what makes some comprehensives actually work.

Surely you can see that your post is incredibly arrogant?

I support grammar schools, but I'm not going to accuse those who oppose them as "lacking intellectual capability". These things are about opinions.

It is your opinion the grammar school system is the worst system. It doesn't make people who disagree with you intellectually lacking.

Well thats what grammar schools are, at the end of the day. One big set.

The problem of course, is that it works on two false assumptions:

1) that students can be neatly divided into "intelligent" and "stupid", and the ones who are good at one subject will be good at them all, and the ones who are not are destined to be failures so its hardly worth bothering with them at all. Of course, in real life different people are good at different things.

2) that all aptitudes will have become evident before the individual is just eleven years old. This is patently rubbish, as the ability and motivation of pupils fluctuates enormously throughout their teenage years, and any remotely competent school system would be flexible enough to deal with this.

"not academic" is a polite way of saying stupid, or at least less intelligent.

Surely you can see that your post is incredibly arrogant?

I support grammar schools, but I'm not going to accuse those who oppose them as "lacking intellectual capability". These things are about opinions.

It is your opinion the grammar school system is the worst system. It doesn't make people who disagree with you intellectually lacking.

Accusations of arrogance are the characteristic cry of the intellectually inferior, so by all means keep 'em coming.

Nice strawman. When you're ready to rejoin the grown-up debate just let us know.

It is not a matter of opinion. Its about being able to prove which system best meets the objectives you want.

If the objective is social mobility, then grammar schools do not deliver that. If its separating people at the age of 11 and giving them different educational experiences then it does. These things can and have been measured objectively, you need to familiarise yourself with the research.

I think thats whats been lacking in this thread. People support or don't support grammar schools based on opinion and not on evidence. Opinions are worthless without evidence.

Obviously socio-economic background is a VERY important factor. But please prove that state school in deprived catchment areas can't do well.... I am sure there are many comprehensives that serve mixed socio-economic (or even deprived) catchments that are outstanding. We need to look at these, and learn from them. You are basically saying that comprehensives that serve lower socio-economic groups can't do well. They are clearly facing more challenging circumstances, but they can and DO, do well.

But there is evidence on both sides of the argument.

I've seen evidence. These threads have been done before.

As far as I was aware, LSE did research where they said closing grammar schools could have resulted in a social mobility decline. You have produced research that concluded the opposite.

Why do you think opinion is so divided on this issue? It's very unclear what system has more benefits and drawbacks. (well, the poll is pretty one-sided, but I think TSR is a bit more in favour of grammar schools than the general population.)

No, its really not. Only a true idiot would think there was only one way of being intelligent.

Take your bigoted and ill-informed views elsewhere thanks.

Yes.

Neatly? No. Roughly with a strong degree of accuracy? Yes. The important thing is the ensure there is enough mobility between the sets / schools.

Its a terrible copout to say "different people are good at different things" - intelligent people are good at academic pursuits and therefore should be encouraged to go on to university to pursue them. It is not only ludicrous but also cancerously damaging to insist on pushing this career direction on less intelligent pupils in the interests of some bizarre corruption of the concept of equality. We need a powerful apprenticeships system for people who have expertise or skills at vocational pursuits, but at some point you will have to admit that there are a lot of people who are basically not good at anything particularly. You dont give up on them, you help them achieve the most they can, but you also dont hold everyone else back to their level just in the interests of equal treatment.



Except that this doesnt deal with those of us (myself and Welsh Bluebird included) that advocate a different system not based on the 11+, together with heavy emphasis on mobility between sets and schools. Show excellence 2 years after first selection? Get a special catch-up class over the summer provided for you and join the more academic school.