This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

How can you be against grammar schools?

Lady Comstock

14

They provide a lifeline to bright students who otherwise would not be able to afford the best education.

Prove it

Because a lot of people, notably on the left, believe everyone should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator, rather than people climb the latter through natural ability and hard work.

There are no losers in their world - as soon as you bring in academic selection there are losers, and that just isn't right.

Reply 3

Bloxorus

16

Original post by Lady Comstock

They provide a lifeline to bright students who otherwise would not be able to afford the best education.

Not necessarily true. A lot of grammar school students come from a family that would also be able to afford a private school, but they send their kids to the grammar to save money.

The system used to select kids that go to grammar schools is also flawed. Kids from the poorest backgrounds cannot afford the tuition for the 11plus, which essentially excludes them since its practically impossible to compete against kids that have been coached for 2 years or so to take the test.

For the system to work properly, we'd have to see 11plus coaching made mandatory for all schools across the country.

Reply 4

username1628823

19

The idea of grammar schools isn't flawed. Admissions tests to get in, however, are. As somebody that failed my 11+ and watched many of my peers (all of which aren't as intelligent as I am/was, and all of which have gone of to perform to a lower standard than I) pass the exam and get into grammar schools. This is because their parents had them attend tuition for the exams for upwards of two years prior to year 6. This must've cost thousands of pounds.

I understand that I might come across as bitter, but the fact of the matter is that if people can pay to get their children into grammar schools, grammar schools aren't the great social 'leveler' that many people deem them to be.

Reply 5

Lady Comstock

OP

14

Original post by Jasaron

The idea of grammar schools isn't flawed. Admissions tests to get in, however, are. As somebody that failed my 11+ and watched many of my peers (all of which aren't as intelligent as I am/was, and all of which have gone of to perform to a lower standard than I) pass the exam and get into grammar schools. This is because their parents had them attend tuition for the exams for upwards of two years prior to year 6. This must've cost thousands of pounds.

I understand that I might come across as bitter, but the fact of the matter is that if people can pay to get their children into grammar schools, grammar schools aren't the great social 'leveler' that many people deem them to be.

But doesn't this logic apply to the best universities? Those who can afford extra tuition are more likely to attain the best A-level grades.

Reply 6

username1628823

19

Original post by Lady Comstock

But doesn't this logic apply to the best universities? Those who can afford extra tuition are more likely to attain the best A-level grades.

Yes, and this is an issue too. However, all students are taught the curriculum at school, regardless of whether they attend Eton or a state comp. The skills needed to excel in the eleven plus exam aren't taught in normal schools.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against the idea of grammar schools, just the means by which students currently gain entry.

Reply 7

Maker

20

Original post by A Mysterious Lord

Because a lot of people, notably on the left, believe everyone should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator, rather than people climb the latter through natural ability and hard work.

There are no losers in their world - as soon as you bring in academic selection there are losers, and that just isn't right.

Get your facts right before making a fool of yourself. The Tory govt in the 1970s closed more grammar than Labour.

Middle class parents preferred to send their kids to a comp rather than the humiliation their kids might not pass the 11 plus and make them look thick.

Reply 8

Tooly

10

If a student is bright enough they don't need to go to Grammar Schools or have an expensive education

Reply 9

redferry

19

Original post by Lady Comstock

They provide a lifeline to bright students who otherwise would not be able to afford the best education.

Not really. they allow parents to avoid sending their kids to private school by tutoring them through the test!

Reply 10

ArtGoblin

16

Grammar schools benefit the middle classes to the disadvantage of working class students. It has been shown that segregating "bright" children (read affluent children) boosts their educational attainment slightly, but when disadvantaged children are taught together their grades suffer significantly. Mixed groups slightly disadvantage higher achievers but lower achievers do significantly better in mixed groups. It is fairer to teach everyone together rather than already advantaged children getting better resources and a better learning environment.

Reply 11

ClickItBack

18

Original post by ArtGoblin

Grammar schools benefit the middle classes to the disadvantage of working class students. It has been shown that segregating "bright" children (read affluent children) boosts their educational attainment slightly, but when disadvantaged children are taught together their grades suffer significantly. Mixed groups slightly disadvantage higher achievers but lower achievers do significantly better in mixed groups. It is fairer to teach everyone together rather than already advantaged children getting better resources and a better learning environment.

Have you got a link to the study? Genuinely curious to see what their methods and metrics were.

Assuming that it is true, we should ask whether it is really better for society as a whole for those who struggle with academics to do better but still attain below average performance, or push the academically able to do better even if the improvement is somewhat small. The latter are far, far more likely to enter professions making direct use of their academic ability, and also more likely to compete in a global talent pool; for the former, is there a significant difference in available professions and performance at corresponding professions if they attain below average GCSEs rather than poor GCSEs?

Certainly putting more resources into the already academically able risks entrenching social immobility; but that is an artefact of the selection procedure, not an argument against stretching them further.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 12

TheTruthTeller

18

Original post by ArtGoblin

Grammar schools benefit the middle classes to the disadvantage of working class students. It has been shown that segregating "bright" children (read affluent children) boosts their educational attainment slightly, but when disadvantaged children are taught together their grades suffer significantly. Mixed groups slightly disadvantage higher achievers but lower achievers do significantly better in mixed groups. It is fairer to teach everyone together rather than already advantaged children getting better resources and a better learning environment.

In state schools you get put into sets in accordance to your academic abilitiy anyway. Grammar Schools just stress academia just as specialist colleges may for example spealise in sports or technology

Reply 13

cole-slaw

5

Original post by Lady Comstock

They provide a lifeline to bright students who otherwise would not be able to afford the best education.

because they don't.

As has been shown 1000 times over, the 11+ is more closely correlated with family wealth than with intelligence and future aptitude.

Once you understand that, any sympathy for grammar schools must surely disappear?

Reply 14

earthworm

17

I would have failed 11 plus but I went to a comprehensive, got into uni, got a PhD. This would not have happend for me with a Grammar school system.

Reply 15

liquity

12

Original post by Maker

Prove it

I didn't have any tuition to get into the grammar school that I am at now and wiped the floor with about 2/3 of my year at least with my GCSE results. I am from a working class background where none of my family have done A levels, gone to uni etc. Without going to this grammar school I don't think I would've been able to learn at the rate I had done while going there, compared to the state school I went to before it (my school only takes year 9 up) which had an awful reputation, my grades improved drastically. But my year is mostly private school kids whose parents paid for them to be literally trained to pass the test to get in so only a few kids like me could get in :/

Original post by Bloxorus

Not necessarily true. A lot of grammar school students come from a family that would also be able to afford a private school, but they send their kids to the grammar to save money.

The system used to select kids that go to grammar schools is also flawed. Kids from the poorest backgrounds cannot afford the tuition for the 11plus, which essentially excludes them since its practically impossible to compete against kids that have been coached for 2 years or so to take the test.

For the system to work properly, we'd have to see 11plus coaching made mandatory for all schools across the country.

I completely agree, my school is full of private school kids, but you see it getting evened out when they aren't spoon fed like they used to be and the kids that got in off their own backs finally get their chance to do something they're good at without the private school kids beating them because they have the money :P

Reply 16

.S.K.T.

14

I always find this an interesting one. I am from Northern Ireland, where Comprehensives do not exist. We have Voluntary Grammar schools and you have Secondary schools. The secondary schools are much like comprehensives, however are not limited to catchment areas. The Grammar schools stress academia whereas, the Secondary system while still offering academia provides more practical subjects and is a lot stress (You can however transfer between the two.)

I believe this system is much better. We do not have people from "more affluent areas" attending "better comprehensives" simply because of where they live, nor do we have people fighting to live near the better schools. We have a system that has social mobility, where it is a meritocracy. You simply need to look at the intake of the grammars to see that it is not discriminatory to "less affluent children." Myself being one of them.

Despite all of Northern Ireland's social issues... Northern Ireland has the highest GCSE pass rates and A-level pass rates in the whole of the United Kingdom (by a good bit!), and I purely believe that this is down to the education system that we have.

... Because face it, Northern Ireland doesn't have much else going for it :biggrin:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 17

Arkasia

19

Basically the left wing and some very bitter individuals have thrown Grammar schools in with private schools, and stereotyped them as places where 'rich people send their kids to save money', when that is in fact only a small proportion. Instead of abolishing grammar schools, forcing everyone to wallow in the sub-standard Comprehensive State school system, we should try to encourage improved teaching standards across the board, and a good place to start would be to encourage more people to become teachers by making it a worthwhile profession (which it really is not at the moment).

Reply 18

Arkasia

19

Original post by .S.K.T.

I always find this an interesting one. I am from Northern Ireland, where Comprehensives do not exist. We have Voluntary Grammar schools and you have Secondary schools. The secondary schools are much like comprehensives, however are not limited to catchment areas. The Grammar schools stress academia whereas, the Secondary system while still offering academia provides more practical subjects and is a lot stress (You can however transfer between the two.)

I believe this system is much better. We do not have people from "more affluent areas" attending "better comprehensives" simply because of where they live, nor do we have people fighting to live near the better schools. We have a system that has social mobility, where it is a meritocracy. You simply need to look at the intake of the grammars to see that it is not discriminatory to "less affluent children." Myself being one of them.

Despite all of Northern Ireland's social issues... Northern Ireland has the highest GCSE pass rates and A-level pass rates in the whole of the United Kingdom (by a good bit!), and I purely believe that this is down to the education system that we have.

... Because face it, Northern Ireland doesn't have much else going for it :biggrin:

I resent that. The Country Fried Chicken shop in Newcastle has superchips that are second to none that I have ever eaten.