Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Why can't we achieve all that through streamed schools? I did.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A good Grammar School should also use streaming I think so that the top set are even more talented than a top set in a State School would be.There is a wide range of ability in top sets at State Schools often from top A*-B and their can often be bad behaviour from students who aren't that bothered with performing well.

    When I was talking about my experiences I was talking about the top set in Mathematics, with my teacher even suggesting she could take some of us and teach us to sit the exam early thats how big the difference can be in top sets particularly in State Schools.

    I had a good experience in Further Maths at school though which was taken by the very best at Mathematics but State Schools can't do this for all subjects as they couldn't afford to hire so many teachers for just 8 students but at a Grammar School these classes would be larger whilst also including incredibly able students unlike State Schools.

    You also have the issues of streaming not being as effective when it comes to Y10-Y11 when students have chosen their options and so classes are smaller and sometimes they are mixed ability or the top set would consist of mainly second set people(they tended to be the worst behaved people in the school I think cleverish students who couldn't be bothered with learning, the behaviour in my Geography class which consisted of mainly these people was utterly atrocious with the teacher barely able to talk without getting interrupted and a students parents did complain).

    In my Science classes the teaching was often very poor as they were mixed ability as I didn't choose triple so I had to work very hard to achieve good grades, I still think I was right not to choose triple as that would have been too much work.At my School triple science was an option like any other and some not that clever students did triple at other schools though I think they make clever students to do it and other students have to not do it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If you work hard enough you can succeed whichever school you are at. Grammar schools are not the magic solution people pretend they are. Well funded structured streamed schools are the answer. They push the brightest students on while supporting the less academic. They also allow for late bloomers and to cater to your needs for each subject.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's why grammar schools filter out the weaker candidates so that the remainder are all on a fairly level platform. Grammar schools cater for individual needs also (Grammar Schools aren't just bigoted, middle-class exam factories you know! )

    Although I do agree with your first statement.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by umar39)
    That's why grammar schools filter out the weaker candidates so that the remainder are all on a fairly level platform. Grammar schools cater for individual needs also (Grammar Schools aren't just bigoted, middle-class exam factories you know! )

    Although I do agree with your first statement.
    Filter out? Why not support them in lower sets?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I went to a comprehensive girls school in london that specialised in languages and I loved it, we had sets that were based on ability and were pushed to move up the sets (I moved sets in English and Science from set 2 to 1, while given higher set work in Maths and French because the sets were full and I couldn't move up from set 2 to 1), we were always driven to be the best we could and we all no matter what set wanted to do well.
    I do believe that teachers play a big part in the education set up, when they tell a child they can achieve more and do better, they do believe it and will try to achieve it (I certainly did especially in maths) but also the attitude of the child is most important, if a child wants to achieve and be the best they can be, then they will push themselves to be the best that's what many of my cohort and I did, we did have a good amount of people achieve multiple A and A*'s.

    I don't see the problem with grammar schools, if you can get into to one then fine do it for you, but if you can't then still go to a comprehensive school and try a be the best student you can be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    How can allowing intelligent poor students to attend good schools with high quality teachers be a bad thing?

    At the moment a lot of them would have to attend poor deprived schools with poor teaching, which will clearly reduce their potential whilst the rich kids get to get good teaching at private schools.Poor students can often perform worse due to the bad behaviour often seen at poor schools, which can lead to them joining the bad behaving pupils and not working hard for their education.

    Clever poor students are often held back in state schools, like my teacher once mentioned how she could form a small group who could sit the exam earlier and she had to move the exam till later as the class was not grasping the concepts(I remember factorising quadratics that my teacher had to teach again as I was the only one who could do it as I could do it in my head).

    I often feel that the school system at the moment is practically useless for average/low achieving students, who forget virtually everything they learned at school.Introducing more Grammar Schools can allow those who fail the 11+ test(or equivalent) to go into schools more suitable for them were they will learn more functional skills(budgeting, basic Maths and English rather than Algebra and Trigonometry) more relevant to them.While the clever students skip all this and go onto more advanced topics like Calculus in Secondary School.

    Such a system would probably help stop the dumbing down of education we have seen since new Grammar Schools were banned from being created, with new GCSEs only being sat by those in Grammar Schools with those in other schools achieving functional/vocational certificates(similar to the 1960s I believe).

    I do think it is important that we allow some transition between Grammar Schools and whatever the other schools shall be called, as students shouldn't feel trapped in a particular school and should feel if they work hard they can earn the right to be moved up to Grammar School and badly behaved students in Grammar Schools can be easily expelled into the other schools so that the top quality education in these Grammar Schools isn't ruined.
    But why should under achieving students not get the best teachers?

    I still think the better solution here is to just simply work on improving teaching provision in state schools. Improve identifying and supporting both gifted&talented students and those that will need extra help. Create better settled classes for high achievers... Smaller classes... I don't see why the schools have to be segregated? Most of what y'all wanting seems like it could quite easily be changed in the current state school system. And you still get the real life skills of knowing people from all different backgrounds ^^

    At my school there was zero provision for the more able students, I don't think that was fair, but I don't think grammar schools are the solution, either.

    This entire thread seems to be full of people who consider themselves bright, more able, gifted and talented, etc., yet the over bearing message seems that few of us got the support we wanted. And sure, if we'd all gone to grammars we'd have had better teaching and better support and been around people who were supposedly more driven to achieve - but this is a hugely one sided and close minded argument... I really hope the MPs block this move. Make them work to improve schools for everyone, not just the naturally gifted (or, yknow, those with pushy rich parents). Seems like a cop out to me...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Filter out? Why not support them in lower sets?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Funding cuts to all schools
    Don't have the space to house so many pupils
    more students will reduce the individual quality of education, (a significant factor that contributes to the successful nature of grammar schools)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    But why should under achieving students not get the best teachers?

    I still think the better solution here is to just simply work on improving teaching provision in state schools. Improve identifying and supporting both gifted&talented students and those that will need extra help. Create better settled classes for high achievers... Smaller classes... I don't see why the schools have to be segregated? Most of what y'all wanting seems like it could quite easily be changed in the current state school system. And you still get the real life skills of knowing people from all different backgrounds ^^

    At my school there was zero provision for the more able students, I don't think that was fair, but I don't think grammar schools are the solution, either.

    This entire thread seems to be full of people who consider themselves bright, more able, gifted and talented, etc., yet the over bearing message seems that few of us got the support we wanted. And sure, if we'd all gone to grammars we'd have had better teaching and better support and been around people who were supposedly more driven to achieve - but this is a hugely one sided and close minded argument... I really hope the MPs block this move. Make them work to improve schools for everyone, not just the naturally gifted (or, yknow, those with pushy rich parents). Seems like a cop out to me...
    The reason for this is providing clever students with a better education could mean the difference between them becoming the curer of cancer or not, the next Einstein or not.Where as educating less able students will achieve not that much as they will be going into basic jobs probably.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by umar39)
    Funding cuts to all schools
    Don't have the space to house so many pupils
    more students will reduce the individual quality of education, (a significant factor that contributes to the successful nature of grammar schools)
    Not if you have streamed sets. Which I have proven. If you work hard enough you'll do well. You don't need a grammar school. Stop looking for excuses.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not if you have streamed sets. Which I have proven. If you work hard enough you'll do well. You don't need a grammar school. Stop looking for excuses.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Maybe it's a want factor rather than a need factor (you don't need to go to a grammar school to achieve). I would rather be at a grammar school than a comprehensive because we have such a rich history, great international presence and personally a better working environment.

    Please stop with the 'If you work hard enough you'll do well'. I think that's pretty mandatory for any individual (state or grammar) that wants to achieve academic excellence.

    Excuses are not excuses if they have credible negative implications! A larger school would have negative effect on education quality. Funding cuts limit the resources available to schools to provide good education standards. I don't understand why you say that I'm looking for excuses when what I say is reasonable and true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with school is much bigger than just grammar school or not. Good schools vs bad schools. Good teachers vs bad teachers.

    It's the entire curriculum. The curriculum is largely based on jumping through hoops and the more "book" smart you are, the more "intelligent" you are the better you do.

    That leaves behind many a child that doesn't do well at this and is made to feel inferior and learn to hate school.

    Rather than try to come up with a good way to teach kids of all abilities the curriculum, come up with a way to tailor a curriculum to an individual kids skills.

    Does a kid who wants to work with his hands, say as a plumber really need to learn all the entire GCSE maths curriculum? I am not saying scrap maths, but make it much more practical (e.g. what does it mean when a shop item is 10% discounted, or more complex, how does interest on your mortgage work) and leave it to a minimum. Same with science, some rudimentary science knowledge should be passed onto the kid, but don't make a kid feel stupid because STEM is not its strength. I am actually of the opinion that the majority of humans are stupid, but even if that is true, it doesn't mean they have no skills, that they can't contribute to society or succeed in life. It just means that they will resent being in a place where those with As and A*s are praised and they are chastised.

    Next thing you need to do is semi-randomize school allocation. If you have a school in a *****y neighborhood and all the local kids from poorer backgrounds go there, of course the environment is gonna suck. Right now if a school is known to be good you tend to over time have rising house prices as wealthier parents want to live there and its a cycle. Not only will mixing kids around help fight ghetto schools existing, I think it would be good for kids of different backgrounds to mix, to learn to respect those of a different background.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    The reason for this is providing clever students with a better education could mean the difference between them becoming the curer of cancer or not, the next Einstein or not.Where as educating less able students will achieve not that much as they will be going into basic jobs probably.
    That's a nice outlook on life. No matter what, if you're not gifted it's not even worth trying.

    For a lot of people good teachers are the difference between passes at GCSE or not, which has impacts on sixth form and later uni. That's the reason for providing "lesser abled" students with good teachers. If they don't get the opportunity to go to uni, perhaps they won't discover the cure for cancer, either. Not every invention or discovery came from the brightest of the bright.

    If I had the choice between giving a "good" teacher to student on the D/C boundary and the B/A boundary I'd give it to the D/C boundary. Because a C is a pass and thats all you need to get to the next stage in life - whether that is a btec or college course or sixth form, etc. If you don't get an A, you can still go to uni or whatever. It might not be the one you want, but you can still go. But if you don't get the bare minimum, you can't go. And that limits you.

    If the students don't have the drive or ambition then I don't care, frankly. But you can't ignore driven, but struggling students. Not everybody gets factorisation the first time around. But they're not invalid. They still deserve help.

    Presuming you went to a state school, if you had been set better in a group of maybe the 5-20 top kids in your subject, with extra homework / harder work or whatever - would you still have wanted to go to a grammar? And if so - why?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    The reason for this is providing clever students with a better education could mean the difference between them becoming the curer of cancer or not, the next Einstein or not.Where as educating less able students will achieve not that much as they will be going into basic jobs probably.
    Sounds harsh but true.

    It makes no difference to the average Joe if he suddenly got 10Bs instead of 10Cs. It might get him into a slightly better uni and boost his ego but so ****ing what? There's too many kids at uni anyway, the ridiculous requirement of uni to get jobs is hurting the country. Even kids at Oxbridge are wasting time for three years. A chemist going into finance really needed 3 years worth of studying science, lol.

    Everyone just wants better grades to get into a better uni to get a good degree (well and get wasted for 3 years of their life without responsibility) because that somehow means you will get a decent job. That is such a flawed system. All it means is that uni is a signal, oh look I am a graduate, I am a somewhat smart person that will do a good job working for you. What a costly signal to society...

    (Original post by 1010marina)
    That's a nice outlook on life. No matter what, if you're not gifted it's not even worth trying.For a lot of people good teachers are the difference between passes at GCSE or not, which has impacts on sixth form and later uni. That's the reason for providing "lesser abled" students with good teachers. If they don't get the opportunity to go to uni, perhaps they won't discover the cure for cancer, either. Not every invention or discovery came from the brightest of the bright.If I had the choice between giving a "good" teacher to student on the D/C boundary and the B/A boundary I'd give it to the D/C boundary. Because a C is a pass and thats all you need to get to the next stage in life - whether that is a btec or college course or sixth form, etc. If you don't get an A, you can still go to uni or whatever. It might not be the one you want, but you can still go. But if you don't get the bare minimum, you can't go. And that limits you.If the students don't have the drive or ambition then I don't care, frankly. But you can't ignore driven, but struggling students. Not everybody gets factorisation the first time around. But they're not invalid. They still deserve help.Presuming you went to a state school, if you had been set better in a group of maybe the 5-20 top kids in your subject, with extra homework / harder work or whatever - would you still have wanted to go to a grammar? And if so - why?
    Read this post of mine (which I wrote before reading yours that I just quoted) and then my post above. Your post is exactly what is wrong with the whole system to begin with. "and later uni". That is what the entire system is about. Somehow get into the best uni get the best degree get the best job. It's complete *******s.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't we start by making the prestigious unis more open to hard working kids from comprehensives rather than further entrenching the divisions between "intelligent" kids (the quotations marks are highly emphatic) and everyone else.

    Trust me, I'm from a state grammar school student from Trafford - one of the few councils in the country that successfully resisted comprehensivisation. Just because everyone in my year managed to score high enough in one test at the age of 10/11 doesn't mean we don't have our fair share of utter morons.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMouseyS)
    Why don't we start by making the prestigious unis more open to hard working kids from comprehensives rather than further entrenching the divisions between "intelligent" kids (the quotations marks are highly emphatic) and everyone else.

    Trust me, I'm from a state grammar school student from Trafford - one of the few councils in the country that successfully resisted comprehensivisation. Just because everyone in my year managed to score high enough in one test at the age of 10/11 doesn't mean we don't have our fair share of utter morons.
    I remember reading from people who decided who got an offer for Cambridge and they said something along the lines of that they can't fix a bad education and that why.Whats the point in making it more accessible for working class kids to get into prestigious Universities, if they won't perform well enough due to the poor education they have received in the past?

    I think Grammar Schools are also a good way in encouraging getting rid of Private Schools without losing the good teaching that goes in good Private Schools.I doubt the Conservatives would get rid of Private Schools, which they should as they represent an unfair advantage for students who have rich parents.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Sounds harsh but true.

    It makes no difference to the average Joe if he suddenly got 10Bs instead of 10Cs. It might get him into a slightly better uni and boost his ego but so ****ing what? There's too many kids at uni anyway, the ridiculous requirement of uni to get jobs is hurting the country. Even kids at Oxbridge are wasting time for three years. A chemist going into finance really needed 3 years worth of studying science, lol.

    Everyone just wants better grades to get into a better uni to get a good degree (well and get wasted for 3 years of their life without responsibility) because that somehow means you will get a decent job. That is such a flawed system. All it means is that uni is a signal, oh look I am a graduate, I am a somewhat smart person that will do a good job working for you. What a costly signal to society...



    Read this post of mine (which I wrote before reading yours that I just quoted) and then my post above. Your post is exactly what is wrong with the whole system to begin with. "and later uni". That is what the entire system is about. Somehow get into the best uni get the best degree get the best job. It's complete *******s.
    Unfortunately, (and honestly, I'm as against this as you are, but it's the situation) uni is no longer an advantage to have but a disadvantage not to have. It should be purely academic imho, any more vocational courses should be btecs or higher prestige equivalents.

    Anyhoo, returning to the point at hand - it'll make a huge difference to Joe if he gets 10Cs instead of 10Ds. But as I said above, above that the gains aren't as good... Sure, they mean a lot to us (I'm awaiting an AAA offer and I'd kill for an A over a B. But if I get BBB I'm still going to uni. Perhaps not if it was EEE).

    Everyone on here seems convinced that B and C graders are useless... It's a poor opinion imo. Some of the cleverest people out there are just unemployable because they lack people skills. Some B grader might get the job because they can perform at interview. Squeezing those last few grades out is not as important as ensuring students have the bare minimum. It's just ego..
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Does it have anythibg to do with spelling.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    I remember reading from people who decided who got an offer for Cambridge and they said something along the lines of that they can't fix a bad education and that why.Whats the point in making it more accessible for working class kids to get into prestigious Universities, if they won't perform well enough due to the poor education they have received in the past?

    I think Grammar Schools are also a good way in encouraging getting rid of Private Schools without losing the good teaching that goes in good Private Schools.I doubt the Conservatives would get rid of Private Schools, which they should as they represent an unfair advantage for students who have rich parents.

    See that's where you're going wrong - you can never get rid of that unfair advantage and If you think my school is full of bright working class kids you're sadly mistaken. It's the rich kids whose parent can afford the intensive private tuition that ultimately make it into grammar school (a very disproportionately high number of them).

    I'm of a BME background from inner city Manchester and would never have known the north had so many any rahs if I hadn't gone to a grammar school.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMouseyS)
    See that's where you're going wrong - you can never get rid of that unfair advantage and If you think my school is full of bright working class kids you're sadly mistaken. It's the rich kids whose parent can afford the intensive private tuition that ultimately make it into grammar school (a very disproportionately high number of them).

    I'm of a BME background from inner city Manchester and would never have known the north had so many any rahs if I hadn't gone to a grammar school.
    The reason the rich tend to dominate Grammar Schools and prestigious Universities is mainly due to genetics as Darwin's theory of evolution would predict as they are receiving good genes from their parents where this is much less likely if the kid is poor which means they have to hope they are carrying good genes or for genetic variation/mutations.

    The idea that rich kids should perform on average as well as poor kids is a stupid one that completely ignores Biology.A lot of politicians think this as if they didn't study Biology.If we were to get rid of private schools and private tuition rich students would still do a lot better than poor students but it should reduce the attainment difference.

    My parents were not that clever and I have come from an underclass background but I have 3 very clever Uncles/Aunts out of 3 on my father's side of the family, so my father must have been carrying the good genes I think.

    Studies have shown " about 62% of the individual differences in academic achievement—at least when it came to GCSE scores—could be attributed to genetic factors"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh i wish i had gone to grammar school im pretty sure i wouldve have had earlier exposure to things like math olympiads and such..however with state comprehensive schools i been to no teachers had talked about things like that they were interested in getting the D grades to C grades which was shocking given that there were people struggling to get A-C in some top sets...really dont want other kids especially maths kids to have to struggle being stuck with environment where theyre not around other bright kids
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    The reason the rich tend to dominate Grammar Schools and prestigious Universities is mainly due to genetics as Darwin's theory of evolution would predict as they are receiving good genes from their parents where this is much less likely if the kid is poor which means they have to hope they are carrying good genes or for genetic variation/mutations.

    The idea that rich kids should perform on average as well as poor kids is a stupid one that completely ignores Biology.A lot of politicians think this as if they didn't study Biology.If we were to get rid of private schools and private tuition rich students would still do a lot better than poor students but it should reduce the attainment difference.

    My parents were not that clever and I have come from an underclass background but I have 3 very clever Uncles/Aunts out of 3 on my father's side of the family, so my father must have been carrying the good genes I think.

    Studies have shown " about 62% of the individual differences in academic achievement—at least when it came to GCSE scores—could be attributed to genetic factors"
    The reason is not genetics but nurturing. E.g. reading a lot to your infant, or not, has a much bigger role in the intellectual development of your child than "genetics".
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.