Grammar schools to return

Scroll to see replies

In my experience the poorest students ARE given the best resources at comprehensive schools, in fact schools plough disproportionately high amounts of money into the bottom sets, and into people who do not care, in order to make themselves look better. Why can't people accept that some teachers are relatively better at teaching different types of students than others? That way, if we are able to teach the brightest and slightly more vocational students separately, its win for all.

It's not about the amount of money which is spent, it's about the structure and quality of our education system and HOW the money is spent. Also, I meant comprehensive schools in general need to improve - many are failing all their students, bright or not, rich or not. There's also a huge difference between a state school in a posh area and a state school in a deprived area - the facilities just don't compare. Issues like this need to be addressed.

I agree that simply throwing more money at underprivileged students is not the answer, but neither are grammar schools (in my opinion).

Reply 161

kimkarsd

nothing wrong with them.

At least it's not a return at all to the old system.

If every town/city has a grammar school, and every kid has equal chance to get in it, why not?

so if a poor chav/ghetto kid gets good grades, and gets in, why not?

it's the PC culture, and this is very meritocratic. and it encourages competition and excellence.

the only thing imho is if it's ensured to be fair, not rigged or selective on economic grounds.

Reply 162

nulli tertius

Original post by abc:)

The government will say that schools have been improving since 2010. Blair would say that schools improved on his watch. Baker, from the mid 1980s is seen as the great reforming Education Secretary.

So if like Soviet tractor production, English schools are always improving, when did they hit rock bottom?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 163

elen90

Awful. 11+ exams instill a huge sense of failure amongst those who don't pass.

Both my father, hailing from a fairly working class background, and his sister passed theirs. My other aunt didn't and never got over it, in spite of later obtaining excellent A-Level results, studying at Cambridge and becoming a headteacher in her early twenties. It caused massive rifts not just in their family, but their community as a whole, between those who went off to grammar schools and those who stayed put.

Not to mention the fact that my father hated his grammar school with a passion, and had to commute for a couple of hours daily to get there which was hard enough to afford.

My point is that you'd have to be resoundingly naive to believe that assessing a child at 10 or 11 is a good measure of their intelligence in the long-term. In any case, the exams themselves tend to favour children who have already received decent tutelage in Maths and English.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 164

Maker

Original post by Rakas21

I'd have thought teachers would find it easier to teach in grammar schools so i'm not sure why they'd demand higher salaries unless your asserting that grammar schools attract more talented teachers and those from the private sector (in which case the implication is that grammar schools work).

Would there be additional admin outside of the application period?

That is very true, the coach at my local part time Sunday League football club is on a multi million pound contract while the coach of Man Utd is on minimum wage and I have seen him at the food bank.

Reply 165

Maker

Original post by 10001

Students who are academically gifted should have the opportunity to fulfill their potential and this can not always be offered by comprehensive schools which do not have the resources, nor the set-up to help students achieve this. Not only will these students benefit, but so will not so gifted students, because these students will be able to go to a school where no one is so far above their level that the teacher has to distract time, resources and attention away to provide extension exercises for the more intelligent students.

So the solution is to get some more teachers in to help the high achievers, no need to herd them all into one school through an expensive and stressful process of 11+ exams.

Reply 166

Trapz99

I got to a grammar school and I can say that it has really helped me in so many ways! The atmosphere and environment at a grammar school is very different to a comprehensive from what I've seen and it really pushes you to achieve your best and become a great member of society. The academic support is amazing as it is tailored to people who are quite bright and there are loads of other extra curricular opportunities which shape you as a person. I definitely think it would be a great idea to build more and tailor education to pupils' abilities.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 167

seaholme

Grammar schools are great and everything but we should be focussing on making all schools great. Not plucking out a load of 'deserving' kids who are more intelligent and plunging resources into them. Those who are left will have diminished life chances and a worse education, all decided for them in an arbitrary exam at the age of 11. With all those who are academically more able taken away, those who are left will not benefit from the competitive drive to keep up with their peers.

Honestly I see the arguments for grammar schools but I think the gains from them are very little compared to the losses for those who will be left in a kind of educational underclass of low aspiration. School standards should be driven up across the board. Look at inner London for an example of non-grammar schools which have made great strides towards improving standards and consequently have just as good if not better outcomes than some grammar schools. Selection improves the schools that get selected pupils - it does not serve anyone else. Considering the current government is allegedly trying to create more equality and opportunity in society, this seems completely counter productive. The very people least served by the current system are going to be in an even worse position.

It's like Theresa May et al are looking back at history, seeing where it went wrong and then just making the same mistakes again anyway...

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 168

monkyvirus

Original post by dairychocolate

As someone who went to a grammar school, the main benefit was attending school alongside students who were of a similar academic ability and inclination as myself. Not only did that help me, but it helped teachers, who then didn't have to cater to as wide a range of abilities/attitudes as in a non-selective school.

But why should only the smartest be catered to in this way? Why not have more funding for, say, specialist disability schools or vocational schools where you have to apply to and show an aptitude and interest for your course of study? Why not have multiple grammer school entry points in case the 11+ was just a bad day for you? Why not test all children for learning difficulties when they start school and at other key points so they can actually get intervention early?

Smart kids not being stretched are hardly the biggest losers of the education system.

Reply 169

JourneyToSuccess

I'm glad there are grammar schools to be honest, and I'm glad I'm not in one. This is statistically people tend to do better if they're surrounded by people who may not be as academically capable as them. It gives you hope. If you look at the statistics for an Oxbridge university and a Russel Group university (other than Oxford and Cambridge), the percentage of people getting firsts is mainly the same. It could also be comparable with other "poorer" universities. Even though Oxford and Cambridge are outstanding facilities with many amazing resources for the pupils, statistically the same amount of people gain firsts in their university in comparison to others. There is a name for this "effect". Can't remember it though. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make, if you're an academically capable student, don't go to a grammar school. All the extremely smart people will demotivate you and this will cause you to essentially get worst grades. This is definitely evident for university.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 170

DraculaMihawk

I support Grammar schools absolutely! Bring them on Mrs May!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 171

JayReg

Original post by JourneyToSuccess

The requirements to get a certain classification depends on the institution you're at, so you can't compare them.

Reply 172

a1phabeta

DISCLAIMER: I attend a grammar school myself, however, this post represents my views and are not those held by my schools or my friends or whatever. It is purely me speaking my mind.

Firstly, I believe that selection at 11 is wrong because the potential career paths of a student are sadly diminished based on the results of one test taken over four parts on one day. Before even having a thought about which door to go through, some of the doors are shut off, and that is just plainly wrong.

Secondly, the demographics are very distorted in grammar schools. In MY grammar school, if you are not a white, middle class student, you stick out like a sore thumb. In my year, there are 2 black girls and no black boys. THAT'S IT!! I used to live in the US, and half of my year was black (my year was 200 students strong). To me that kind of demographic distortion is ridiculous, and is another reason why grammars are a bad idea.

Third, it limits opportunity for the students stuck in comprehensives. Now I know that they have come a long way since secondary moderns, but the stats don't lie. Comprehensive students do worse in grammar areas than their equivalents in non-grammar areas, and that is because staff AND student expertise is sucked up by the more illustrious grammars. If smarter students (like me) were in a comprehensive, then we would still be able to succeed, but our attributes could trickle down to the less academically able students. In essence, with all things, academic ability would move towards equilibrium, or even up as a whole.

Also, rather than all this discussion about grammar this and reforms that, let's do what the Scandinavians do, INVEST!! The easiest, and by far most effective way to improve education and social mobility is to invest a shitstorm of money in the education system. What we've got right now (without grammars everywhere) is a good base, and can be improved greatly with a *****on of money.

Again, I reaffirm that this is me speaking my mind and giving some anecdotal evidence for my opinions

Reply 173

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Plagioclase

If they can get it through Parliament.

Theresa May doesn't feel she needs to put things before Parliament any more.

She's basically throwing a bone to the kipper tendency in her feral backbenches - this one is a UKIP favourite, so clearly the Tory Party is still rattled by Nigel, despite his recent departure into retirement in his luxury penthouse in Brussels.

The "United Kingdom Time Travel Clock" is currently set on 1956.

Reply 174

theredwoman

As someone who goes to a grammar school in Buckinghamshire (and one of the few poor kids at said school), I think the nationwide reintroduction of grammar schools would be horrific. Children, from around the age of 6 or 7, start training for the 11+ and receive tutoring, if their parents can afford it. Plenty of ridiculously bright kids at my primary school failed the 11+, simply because their parents couldn't afford to have them tutored.

In addition to that - grammar schools worsen social mobility, despite what Theresa May claims. There are literally no qualified experts in either education or sociology who would say that grammar schools are good for social mobility. The people who pass it are generally from families between fairly well-off to extremely rich, and grammar schools tend to have a lower amount of disabled, working class, or BME kids compared to comprehensives.

Not to mention that grammar schools often have better facilities than local comprehensives, sheerly because that's where the rich kids are going so that's where their parents are donating cash to. My school recently raised at least £200,000 to build a new sixth form centre, whereas our local comprehensive had to get business sponsorships just to afford to maintain their grounds. Which sucks pretty majorly, since that's where almost everyone goes.

And if you don't pass the 11+? Almost every person who was at primary school with me and didn't pass (I was one of 6 out of 60 kids who got into a grammar school - didn't pass, mind you - and that was considered an amazing year) had their faith in their academic abilities shattered. It's honestly horrifying to see people, people you know are either just as smart as your classmates or smarter, fail at secondary school because we're raised to view the 11+ as the end-all to our abilities - and since they didn't pass, well they mustn't be as smart /sarcasm.

But yeah. The 11+ is a horrifyingly one way recipe to having a tiny handful of people succeeding by trampling over everyone else. It's better off left in the past - or in the case of Buckinghamshire, completely abolished.

Reply 175

niteninja1

A number of things.

I am glad to see people gladly fighting for their place and position on the topic.

Some questions to consider

Why should A grade students be chucked in classes with C grade students I say this as a student who was a grade in maths and science and a low c in elish/arts be forced to lower the education standards to meet that of the lower grade students?

Why should lower grade students not have teachers that are focusing on helping the pass their GCSE's and focusing on them.

Why not base grammar school selection on sats results and then results at the end of each year from then on?

If their are more grammar schools will that not increase the number of places allowing them to lower their entry requirements slightly I.e allowing B-grade students as opposed to just A grade students

Reply 176

theredwoman

Original post by niteninja1

Why should lower grade students not have teachers that are focusing on helping the pass their GCSE's and focusing on them.

The problem is, that schools, when they're allowed to have sets, don't focus on lower-grade students. They focus on higher grade students, so they can boast about having more As and A*s, and leave everyone else in the dust. I'm saying that as someone who was in bottom set maths at my grammar school in Year 9, and so many people in my class barely scrapped a C in GCSE maths.

Original post by niteninja1

Why should A grade students be chucked in classes with C grade students I say this as a student who was a grade in maths and science and a low c in elish/arts be forced to lower the education standards to meet that of the lower grade students?

In an ideal world, funding to schools per student would increase so that there would be a smaller teacher-to-student ratio, so teachers could spend more time on individual students.

In the world we currently live in, however, that's almost definitely not going to happen, and sure as hell not under our current government. In a normal comprehensive, I have no idea what you could do, mainly because I've never been to one. But in a grammar school - if you're not working at an A* or A grade, you're basically considered a failure. Which demotivates a lot of people, I can tell you from personal experience, and honestly even within sets the teachers focus more on the people who already understand the material, rather than those who are struggling with it.

Original post by niteninja1

Why not base grammar school selection on sats results and then results at the end of each year from then on?

First off, that'd be way too complicated. Having kids switch schools - because lower achieving kids are kicked out, just so they don't blemish the grammar school's reputation - potentially every single year? Way too disruptive, and also way too stressful, for what I hope are obvious reasons. Also, it's also really hard to find any test that "can't be studied for" (which is what Buckinghamshire's tried for the past two years, now) that won't advantage middle class kids, simply because middle class students are more likely to be encouraged to be academic.

Original post by niteninja1

If their are more grammar schools will that not increase the number of places allowing them to lower their entry requirements slightly I.e allowing B-grade students as opposed to just A grade students.

Um, that's not really how it works? The 11+ is (when I did it) marked out of 141, with the pass mark being 121, and the appeal mark varying from schools, but mine was 117. There's no equivalent grades for those marks. And when you get to Sixth Form - well, at least for my school, the re-entry requirements were to have an average of 8 Bs across your top 8 grades.

That being said, I imagine a lot of pre-existing grammar schools would be opposed to easing access for two reason. First, it lowers of the prestige of the school, if there's more people who can potentially attend. Second, grammar schools really pride themselves on their GCSE 5 A*s to Cs, and they would view lowering their existing requirements as another way of insulting their reputation. As I've learnt from having numerous debates on this with other people at my school.

Reply 177

zedqr

Original post by theredwoman

I don't doubt that this is your experience but it certainly wasn't mine. The amount of support given to those who just didn't want it was astonishing, at least relevant to that given to the most aspirant ones, who were left to their own devices in terms of coasting in class and having to teach themselves many parts of a particular course because their own teachers had to be drafted in to help the lower sets. This is partly Ofsted's fault, with the pressure on schools to meet the benchmark 5A*-C targets but it just does not help when spending if so disproportionately channeled to lower sets and the money is sapped away from the rest of a particular cohort. In fact I would be really interested to see what would happen if comprehensive schools actually divided up their spending per pupil such that every pupil received the same average level of support.

Reply 178

zedqr

Original post by niteninja1

This is absolutely true imho, and I think the key point people are missing is that Theresa May and co are not proposing the "now or never" system at 11, they recognize that people's academic ability develops at different rates, and that's what makes it worth opening up grammar schools to more people. Why should a child's ability to avoid the "Chantelles and Chardonnys" (sorry this is a pun) of the disruptive classroom be based on ability to pay, rather than personal ambition. That's why I think its wrong for schools to pander to the most disruptive kids who, ultimately, end up letting them down, at the expense of those who show the most promise. We have sports, music and arts academies everywhere - they're elitist but not socially elitist but rather based on ability and potential. Those who are not in such academies are not branded "failures" nor are meant to feel like them; in any case raising standards motivates the slightly less able to reach that standard Education is no different!

Reply 179

nulli tertius

Original post by theredwoman

The general view is contrary to this. Schools concentrate on the C/D boundary because it is where they get the best return for their investment. As you say many pupils scraped a C. That is what the school was aiming for. They would have regarded it as failure if half the class had got a B and the other half a D.