Grammar schools- yay or nay

Do you think in the UK that it is good to have grammar school and why?

Plz say ya or nay in the poll too thanks.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 1

HoldThisL

I support grammar school and think we need more of them.

Grammar schools are open to everyone willing to practice for the entrance exams and if you like traditional academic subjects they can help you.

Reply 2

OP

Original post by HoldThisL

I support grammar school and think we need more of them.

Grammar schools are open to everyone willing to practice for the entrance exams and if you like traditional academic subjects they can help you.

I agree I just find it upsetting how politicians are making budget cuts to grammar schools instead of supporting them. I hate it when they say that children should be equal so we should not have them when a lot of MPs went to a grammar school. I think it is important to challenge the students who want it.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 3

Sinnoh

22

I do support them, but here's a problem with the current system of grammar schools:
They are intended to allow children from low-income backgrounds to get a good education, but what's to stop better-off parents paying for extra tuition to give their kids an advantage on the entrance papers? I think part of the application to these schools should involve stating whether or not you receive extra tuition.

Reply 4

axolotlaristotle

8

Original post by HoldThisL

I support grammar school and think we need more of them.

Grammar schools are open to everyone willing to practice for the entrance exams and if you like traditional academic subjects they can help you.

They may be 'open to everyone' but statistically speaking they fail in providing equal oppurtunities for all applicants as by and large most acceptances are from higher income applicants. It's not a question if being 'willing' necessarily when you are a student from an underfunded state comprehensive wherein your school do not have the funds to put you and your peers through higher level education, for many students at these schools would have been totally willing to have gone the extra mile for their education. However, when that mile isn't paved - especially at the age of 11, I don't see the point in segregating students on the basis of their supposed academic ability seeming as it isn't ever going to be truly reflective of their potential.

Reply 5

OP

.

Original post by Sinnoh

I do support them, but here's a problem with the current system of grammar schools:
They are intended to allow children from low-income backgrounds to get a good education, but what's to stop better-off parents paying for extra tuition to give their kids an advantage on the entrance papers? I think part of the application to these schools should involve stating whether or not you receive extra tuition.

Yes I agree I think that is one of the reasons people have an issue with them

Reply 6

Doones

Original post by epic08

Do you think in the UK that it is good to have grammar school and why?

You could add a poll to the thread - or I could add it for you? :smile:

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Doonesbury

You could add a poll to the thread - or I could add it for you? :smile:

Sure go ahead and add a poll. :smile:

idk how to

Reply 8

Shadowdraconis

19

Original post by epic08

Do you think in the UK that it is good to have grammar school and why?

I support them but I think ALL children should be prepared for them (practice questions, techniques etc taught as part of the curriculum) in year 5 so that no child is disadvantaged when it comes to them. That way it wouldn't matter as much if some kids had private tuition, as everyone would have the same base anyway. As someone who has experienced both grammar and non grammar schools, the main difference isn't necessary in the teaching standards but rather the students you are surrounded by. When I went to a non grammar school, the teachers were great, but they couldn't reach because 90% of the class would be messing around and not letting the 10% who genuinely wanted to learn, learn and the teacher also couldn't reach properly as they'd have to keep stopping to tell everyone to be quiet or stop fighting. When I went to grammar school I found I could actually concentrate and do well, because the teachers could actually teach rather than shout/stop teaching and the students would try to understand.

Reply 9

Shadowdraconis

19

Original post by Sinnoh

I do support them, but here's a problem with the current system of grammar schools:
They are intended to allow children from low-income backgrounds to get a good education, but what's to stop better-off parents paying for extra tuition to give their kids an advantage on the entrance papers? I think part of the application to these schools should involve stating whether or not you receive extra tuition.

People can and do lie so I doubt that would work... good idea tho

Reply 10

HoldThisL

Original post by JQOS

They may be 'open to everyone' but statistically speaking they fail in providing equal oppurtunities for all applicants as by and large most acceptances are from higher income applicants.

They actually don't fail in providing equal opportunities; anyone can take the 11/13 plus and the school admissions team don't pick people with parents on a higher income. What you mean is that they fail to provide an equal outcome (in terms of how many poor people are actually admitted).

It's not a question if being 'willing' necessarily when you are a student from an underfunded state comprehensive wherein your school do not have the funds to put you and your peers through higher level education, for many students at these schools would have been totally willing to have gone the extra mile for their education. However, when that mile isn't paved

This isn't relevant to the grammar schools debate and in any case the student loan is available to anyone wanting to do higher education; even private schools don't fund their students...

If you were referring to paying for a tutor for the 11/13 plus then consider that the people who get this benefit (and I agree, it is a privilege) still have to revise for the exam and, I can't stress this enough, being poor does not prevent you from revising for the 11/13 plus.

Reply 11

Doones

Original post by epic08

Sure go ahead and add a poll. :smile:

idk how to

Done. And thread moved to Educational debate :smile:

Reply 12

username2752874

22

Original post by epic08

Do you think in the UK that it is good to have grammar school and why?

I just support better teaching. In Asian countries, teaching is a very respected job and top graduates go there instead of say, investment banking. Here though, you can be one with a 2:2 and CC in GCSE English and Maths. However, if you increase the requirements, you decrease the intake and the intake is already small, it's a pickle of a situation.

I think we should move to a digitalised education system where good resources are easily available - Khan Academy has managed this in America - really, in the UK, it's only Maths that offers this in the form of Hegarty Maths and examsolutions. Students can go at their own pace, which is something that always isn't possible in grammar or comprehensive schools.

Reply 13

axolotlaristotle

8

Original post by HoldThisL

They actually don't fail in providing equal opportunities; anyone can take the 11/13 plus and the school admissions team don't pick people with parents on a higher income. What you mean is that they fail to provide an equal outcome (in terms of how many poor people are actually admitted).

This isn't relevant to the grammar schools debate and in any case the student loan is available to anyone wanting to do higher education; even private schools don't fund their students...

If you were referring to paying for a tutor for the 11/13 plus then consider that the people who get this benefit (and I agree, it is a privilege) still have to revise for the exam and, I can't stress this enough, being poor does not prevent you from revising for the 11/13 plus.

But in many ways it does though doesn't it. Look at schools that offer the oppurtunity to do level 6 SATs. The majority of these are the most funded schools in affluent areas where children have had access to their whole lives to a higher standard of teaching. 'Revision' is about going over things you know. So many of these children haven't been taught the content. Let alone the fact that it implements an educational infrastructure where your academic ability at age 11 determines the oppurtunities you have in the future. Look at the comparisons between state comprehensive and state grammar acceptance rates to universities, or the GCSE results achieved by the two. Yes you can argue that these are down to the individual, but in reality the influence is in the insitution in which they have been placed and its all around unfair for that decision to be decided upon by a test that many will inevitably be ill-equipped for - whether monetarily or otherwise - at the age of 11.

Reply 14

HoldThisL