Do we need selective education?

I have never and will never understand people’s issue with grammar schools. Maybe I am biased as I went to one (live in Kent) but as you say it enables children to access better education even though they don’t come from as wealthy a background.

The only argument I guess is that grammar schools will attract the best teachers within an area so as a result the comprehensive schools will fare off worse?

I didn’t go to a grammar but I agree with you.

People have this idea that they are second class if they don’t get into the grammar school but it’s no different to going to a better uni.

You passed the qualifications to get in they just cry as this happens at 11 rather than 18 like that’s unfair.

Well you can still get in up to 14 and as if 18 isn’t really young as well

Since Grammar Schools were closed down across most of the country, we have gone backwards with far fewer working class people rising to lead in business, politics, even sport.

Selective education put intelligent children on the same level as those who could afford private education. It also allows those who aren't academic to learn a trade earlier instead of being pushed into university and later set up their own businesses.

It's shown to help the economy and help social mobility. What do you think?

Just because "non-selective schools are suffering" doesn't mean grammar schools should be closed down. The government should just work towards improving the standard of comprehensive schools. Being in a working class family, being accepted to a grammar school was great as I had the chance to be in an environment where people had a similar mindset towards education. I decided to move to a non-selective school for sixth form, despite achieving high grades to stay in a grammar school. I then realised that if I were put into a non-selective school in year 7, I do not think I would have performed as well for my GCSE's as many students (not all) were not aiming high + the lessons were slowed down for students who did not understand the content as fast as others. This was really demotivating and I ended up missing lessons to self-teach as the lessons just seemed pointless. My parents didn't pressure me at all during my grammar school years, and most students parents didn't either. I found that the students themselves pressured themselves to do well to achieve their goals. I'd say only 7 people max. in my class were 'rich", most of the rich people go to private grammar schools. I think parents should just show their children not to let the 11+ affect them. My parents didn't expect me to pass and told me to try my best and accept the outcome. The argument that the 11+ has a negative impact on children so it should be scrapped is ridiculous. Everyone will face "failure" or disappointment in life, people will get into top universities, others wont, does that mean we should scrap oxbridge and russell group universities etc.?

If there wasn’t grammar schools the classes would still be set up at top set, second set etc and the top set students would be at the similar ability anyway.

I’m saying that because all the smart kids go to grammar schools the kids that developed later (eg. I didn’t even know what the grammar test was when I sat it and most of the children that passed from my primary school were the children that had tuition or help from parent or learnt it in primary school - I’m not saying all children as some maybe were naturally gifted or taught themselves) this means that those as non selective schools the top sets are basically people of all abilities from those as smart as grammar school children and those who hadn’t really learnt anything from primary school. This wouldn’t be a problem if there were no grammars.

Also, at this sixth form at grammar lots of students from private grammar schools come to this public one now. They said it was mainly because they said they would’ve got better grades at a public one as hers was rubbish. She got lower GCSE’s than me and I taught myself and went to one of the worse schools in my area.

I think if there's a new generation of grammar schools there has to be an opportunity each year for the best students at comprehensives to move up to grammar schools. At the moment because there are so few, the house prices go up nearby and richer, pushy parents will move there and try to tutor or put pressure on their children. If they were in every town it wouldnt be a big problem.

Sure, you can have different sets within comprehensive schools but the teachers and direction will be broadly the same. Learning technical skills and trades isn't a failure, it's more sensible than continuing with academics when you arent well suited to it. And schools do have reputations, whether we like it or not.

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

I didn’t go to a grammar but I agree with you.

People have this idea that they are second class if they don’t get into the grammar school but it’s no different to going to a better uni.

You passed the qualifications to get in they just cry as this happens at 11 rather than 18 like that’s unfair.

No. There is next to no evidence that grammar schools do or ever did increase social mobility. The main benefactor of them has always been wealthy, middle class families anyway.

Having bright kids in a school lifts the overall performance. It means that parents of all children, however bright have an interest in the school.

The current system entirely benefits wealthy families, since only they can afford house prices in areas with good schools. Grammar schools are much fairer and give bright children the opportunity to compete academically at the highest level, meaning we have the best people as engineers, in financal services and business, rather than selecting only from a pool of the privileged.

Grammar schools allow those selected to reach much greater potentials rather than being dragged behind by others' pace. I seriously doubt parents would pay any less interest in the school because their children aren't being outperformed as much.

Please don't comment in my threads with arrogant know-it-all comments if you haven't bothered to research stating facts like "there's no evidence".

Provide me some actual staitstical evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility.

No. Please stop following me around whenever I post anything on this site, pretending to debate while deleting the posts when you lose. Just back off of me.

So you make a claim and then when asked to provide evidence for that claim you're response is 'no, leave me alone'.

I thought you wanted a debate, instead you seem to want to state your position and lose your cool when challenged on it.

In 2016, only 3% of kids at grammar schools were eligible for free school lunches, compared to 14% of kids nationally.

Hardly seems like many poorer kids go to grammar schools, even in areas where they still exist because they can't get in.

Grammar schools are and always have been for the benefit of middle class kids, not working class kids. If you have grammar schools you create a two tier education system in which less Bright students are left to rot in failing schools that no one cares about.

Hence why comprehensives in London far outperform grammar schools in Kent.

I don't mind debate, I don't want it with bullies like you. Just don't post on my threads and dont quote me. Simple.

Rather strange given you quoted me and in every discussion we've had, you have quoted me first.

I'll quote who I want, thanks.

Do you have any statistical evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility?