Should grammar schools/private schools be abolished?

I'm doing this topic for my Spanish oral and was hoping you could offer a few opinions and arguments, or links to relevant websites and articles.

I go to a grammar school myself and I'm for the existence of selective schools, but I'd be interested in what you have to say.

Should selective schools be abolished?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Le Nombre

Personally I don't see what selective schools achieve that a setted comprehensive doesn't other than setting the situation in stone age 11, which doesn't seem much of a benefit, but really just google it, there are masses of articles on this subject in pretty much any broadsheet.

Reply 2

username911777

No, why should they?

I got to a state college...

Reply 3

chocolatesauce

For; Grammar school have a strong emphasis on academic achievement regardless of the child's back ground- Against; they are cherry picking, the best go in and the very best come out

Reply 4

wannabeaca

I think more effort needs to made to improve comprehensive schools. Entrance to Grammar schools can make a big difference to one's future, and this isn't fair simply off the basis of some reasoning tests.

Grammar schools are often filled with rich kids who could afford to pay private fees but have the advantage of a very good free education.

Reply 5

contradicta

No, there is already a shortage of school places where would all the kids go?

Reply 6

wannabeaca

Original post by chocolatesauce

For; Grammar school have a strong emphasis on academic achievement regardless of the child's back ground- Against; they are cherry picking, the best go in and the very best come out

*The rich go in and usually the rich come out of it very well. There are hardly any poor kids in Grammar schools and they are the ones it was designed for in order to improve social mobility. Something needs to change.

Reply 7

SoggyTractor

Original post by mattmejevie

No, why should they?

I got to a state college...

The basic argument against grammar schools (sorry, I should have mentioned it) is that rich parents apparently train their kids up before the entrance tests and get them in, while the poor can't afford to prepare.

Studies show that, sadly, grammar school kids are on average richer than kids in comprehensive schools. 30% of normal children get free school dinners, only 2% (roughly) of grammar school kids get this.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

SoggyTractor

Original post by chocolatesauce

For; Grammar school have a strong emphasis on academic achievement regardless of the child's back ground- Against; they are cherry picking, the best go in and the very best come out

Well, obviously they want the best.

The argument here is about social mobility.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 9

chocolatesauce

Original post by wannabeaca

I go to a grammar school and I must say that there is a mixture of backgrounds, my school doesn't ask for a ridiculous amount of money but for extra educational resources such a excursions the pricing can be slightly too large for the average child.

Reply 10

Le Nombre

Original post by SoggyTractor

I think it's also the very early nature of the decision to suggest people aren't academic, when plenty of kids don't really find their feet academically until later on.

Also, I always think I benefitted from having a mixed ability school in non academic lessons (PE, Performing Arts, DT, Art etc.), as grammars inevitably lead to schools which are essentially comps ability wise with regard to those subjects, but being quite a lot smaller usually they can't set people in the way comps do. I certainly appreciated being able to do PE with kids who were the best at PE and Art without holding others back due to my inability.

Reply 11

wannabeaca

Original post by chocolatesauce

Hmm, I guess you're right but do you not find that there is a middle-class biased, if not a 'rich' bias - which probably goes too far?

There are plenty of poor bright kids who might not be the best (or who cannot afford tuition for the 11+, is a better way of putting it) but who would do very well in a grammar school if given the chance.

Reply 12

chocolatesauce

Original post by SoggyTractor

Well, obviously they want the best.

The argument here is about social mobility.

Posted from TSR Mobile

even the chief inspector of Ofsted said it doesn't - "Grammar schools are "stuffed full" of middle-class children and do not improve social mobility"

Reply 13

Limoncello

I am for it because it is not fair for the students.

Say hypothetically that there is a class and half of the students are smart and the other half are slow. This is a very simple model where you are either Smart or Slow. Slow is a student that needs extra time to understand and make up the dots. This slow student is the one that often fails because he is too afraid to ask.

When the teacher explains a lesson the smart students will get it and want to move on, however due to the slow students this wont be possible and the teacher will have to re-explain it again and again. This will lead the smart students to get bored and doze off and lose interest altogether. At the same time some other slow students will not understand it and will be too shy to ask for further explanation.

Another reason is that smart students are more likely for example to understand a Maths problem using logic, however a slow student will get confused and can't think logically easily and will need to think of Maths rules and so on and apply them to understand the problem. If a slow kid is taught like a smart one he will get confused, and likewise if a smart one is taught like a slow kid he will have to many questions and be confused.

Reply 14

LonelyPlanet

Original post by SoggyTractor

I go to a grammar school like you.
So I reckon we should both say no :wink:

Reply 15

meenu89

If it is good enough for Diane Abbotts child it's good for everyone.

Reply 16

chocolatesauce

Original post by wannabeaca

I find that there is a lot of working class children who attend these schools but if the child was bright would they not do well regardless of the amount of money spent on tuition? I know this because my class mate wasn't tutored but managed a place.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 17

AspiringMedic8

Original post by SoggyTractor

It's really not practical to be providing educational provision in a school where some pupils do not even understand negative numbers, and others are capable of doing advanced calculus. In a comprehensive, the classes will be streamed anyway, so grammar schools are basically just streaming on a larger scale.

The real question we should be asking, is should state schools be abolished? Shouldn't all pupils, regardless of wealth or social background, be allowed to have a private education?

Reply 18

SoggyTractor

Original post by Limoncello

Good point, but you're generalising a little by suggesting all slow kids are too nervous to ask for help. In my experience, a lot of the less intelligent tend to be annoyingly confident. Many fall behind because they're naturally unintelligent or lazy, not because they're scared to ask.

Also....surely that's why students are grouped by their ability in schools in general? Grammar schools do that in an extreme way, by taking some into a different school rather than a different group.

Reply 19

mccrae01

I know at the grammar school I go to it is very middle class but that may just be because of the catchment area ( no big cities in the area). With private schools it does gives those who can afford it an unfair advantage but abolishing them is a bit drastic