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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHABANA)
    1. If the point of grammar schools is for students to achieve A/A*, comprehensive schools also have sets. Top sets may have some mixture of abilities, but are generally A/A* with very few B-grade students. Even when I taught in a very deprived school, where there were only 2 GCSE classes in the year group, the higher set had enough A/A* students.
    I went to a school where the results for GCSE English, maths and just about every other subject that wasn't mixed ability set, ranged from A* to C across the top set. The less intelligent students definitely slowed the class down and held people back.

    (Original post by SHABANA)
    This government absolutely does not want to raise standard in every school. Introducing grammars is a way of creaming off the 'smarter' students, so unrealistic targets can be set for comprehensive schools and schools can be absolutely hammered when it comes to annual result reviews. Then it can be dictated to those schools what they need to do - perhaps rewind a few decades and go back to teaching those students a trade rather than pursuing an academic route.
    If students are never going to achieve well academically why not steer them toward a trade rather than getting them a C in history?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by thatguyaaronr)
    This is so wrong. This makes me so angry. I go to a school in good area but has majority intake from deprived areas (about 85%). What your saying insinuates that most people that come from deprived areas want to badly. This is the stupidest claim I have ever heard. No one wants to do badly. Everyone wants to do well! That's human nature! Everyone wants the best for themselves. Some kids just don't have to correct resources and provisions that enable them to do well; and those kids who do do well, it's mostly because they are the minority of kids who are "naturally intelligent" and just have a knack for picking things up very quickly. To suggest that kids from deprived and impoverished backgrounds don't want to do well is insulting, ignorant and absurd.
    This is just simply stupid. If you look at the statistics of schools in deprived areas most don't go into further education. Thats the truth and that's your problem if it's insulting. It's neither ignorant because it's a fact, what is ignorant is saying that all kids want to achieve without having any evidence of this at all.

    Whatever fantasy world you are living in wake up now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    To read the Telegraph article OP linked you'd think the golden age of the grammar school was abruptly ended in 1998 by Tony Blair

    However

    Name:  _90709912_grammarschools_chart.png
Views: 121
Size:  10.0 KB

    ---
    Pretty doubtful May just intends to return us to the pre-1998 situation.

    I'd guess it'd relieve a lot of problems for most academies if they were able to select; Ofsted target problems, discipline problems, teacher retention problems. Are existing non selective schools going to be able to convert to selection? Maybe there'll be more schools trying to convert to selection than required, if so who is going to decide which ones are allowed to convert and on what criteria? What's going to happen to the non-selected cohorts already in the school.

    Is it expected that the change will just apply to brand new build schools? how are the new builds going to be paid for and what's going to happen to vacant old school buildings?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I went to a school where the results for GCSE English, maths and just about every other subject that wasn't mixed ability set, ranged from A* to C across the top set. The less intelligent students definitely slowed the class down and held people back.
    Surely this is an issue with the school's system, not streaming in general. Why not put A*-A students in one group, B-C students in the next, D and below (obviously aspiring for C..) in the next, and if people are clearly not performing at the standard of their group then move them up or down accordingly.
    You are not alone though as my English set was definitely A*-C and my Maths, Welsh and Science sets A*-B at best (there were probably still a few Cs in these). I guess it's a matter of class sizes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I dont see why people disagree with grammar schools? Its a great idea for students who are intelligent but don't have the money to go to a private school. If anything there should be more grammar schools.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I went to a grammar school until Year 9, and ended up leaving and moving to a comprehensive as I got a physical illness and the school were unable to accommodate it. The teaching at the comprehensive was actually superior to the teaching at the grammar. Furthermore, the students were kinder - it was common for the girls at the grammar school to say things that showed they truly thought they were far better than those at other schools. In reality, they weren't. The grammar school system - at least in my area - bred children that have a false sense of superiority, and the teaching isn't what you'd hope (students had corrected teachers on multiple occasions, and I, and many others in my new school, achieved better results than a lot of the students at the grammar).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hashtosh302)
    I dont see why people disagree with grammar schools? Its a great idea for students who are intelligent but don't have the money to go to a private school. If anything there should be more grammar schools.
    They're good in theory, but when combined with the fact that schools have catchment areas all that happens is the middle class people move to areas with good schools and house prices get pushed up, effectively pricing out a lot of poorer people anyway.

    Obviously this is a gross simplification of the situation, but it's a recognised phenomenon. Also there is a false binary between selective grammars and non-selective comprehensives. I think the best idea would probably be to have non-selective schools, but ones which have classes streamed by ability. It seems a few people on here share that thought. *
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Yes they do have sets, but some schools have mixed ability sets, that's where the disadvantages come in. My mom's top set at her deprived school was A*-C, so it varies across the country. A lot of factors come into play, especially having a small year group and small number of classes, it allows more time to teach and more stuff to go through therefore increasing the possibility of high grades. So this is all debatable.



    I can see where you are coming from. You are saying you want standards to rise in comprehensive school education but seriously... have they? They have not been rising and nothing is changing.

    I wish all comprehensive schools had high standards of education, but they don't. This is why I like grammar schools, it gives a last chance for people who can't afford private school education to get high standards of education because it is simply not possible for all schools across the country to be of high standard. I really wish that could be the case or else my parents wouldn't have made me go, but that is simply unrealistic...



    I hope you don't mind me asking, but why should they not exist? My local comprehensives are all "requiring improvement" and are new academies. Why should I go to them instead of grammar schools?



    Of the students you are talking about, are they the majority or minority? Because if it's the minority then that's my point, a very small number want to do well in deprived areas.



    Even if they don't get in. As I said they can try again in 13+ exams and even if that doesn't work they can still work hard in the local comp they go to, nothing limits you except yourself.



    No, that's just selectively looking at it. I am saying they should unban it and improve standards of comprehensives at the same time. Then once the standards are high enough we can get rid of grammar schools, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Do you?

    I agree, they need to look at us more than just statistics on paper. We are more than that and that's why I said previously I want the government to look at this as a serious issue and bring in radical reform.



    I was reading a study recently. Schools are not responsible for social mobility it is actually economic and social policies. So having a country with high wages and high employment increases social mobility. Things like the Living Wage helps this, and it is set to increase again. In the future we should see a increase in average wage as long as we have good economic policies. As a result, social mobility should increase.



    Grammar schools isn't really a kick to the poor. I have addressed this already, there is this assumption that grammar schools are full of posh, middle-class kids. I have first-hand experience and as a person in a working-class family that isn't entirely true. A lot of factors come in to play, especially where these grammar schools are placed. As said previously, I go to one in one of the most deprived areas in the country, the majority of the kids that go there are working-class.

    Well can I just remind you who created these tuition fees in the first place. The exact politicians people say they trust because they say they care about us working-class people, they don't. Mr Tony Blair created it with his Labour government, so-called socialists. A lot of people forget this.

    I would like to go to university one day, I am not going to let fees and grants come in the way of my future. I am pretty sure the hard working students you talk about would feel the same too.



    At this moment in time, I do not see any other way students who can achieve and work hard to get a high standard of education without applying to a grammar school.

    Grammar school application has increased drastically. For my school when I applied, it was a total of 1,000. Now it is 5,000 that applied last year. This is a clear sign that parents don't want their kids going to low-standard schools. Many children don't get to go to their first choice school and are often not satisfied with the school they go to.

    We can agree on this that there is a crisis, and still, not one government has solved this crisis. We have a shortage of teachers, academy executives being paid more than the PM, standards going down and a potential increase in class sizes. You can see when the government gets desperate when they start advertising these stuff on TVs and online, even abroad. 7
    This is simply a recipe for disaster.
    I agree that in some schools top sets can have a wide range, but there could be smaller classes if schools could have the staff. All comprehensives are not of a high standard but instead of this being swept under the carpet, we should be looking at what support is in place for those schools.

    In my opinion, increasing the number of grammars is a way to increase the number of high grades on a short term basis so they can be used as 'evidence' of the impact a particular party has had on education. It is costly, and I think the money should instead be used to raise standards overall and not for the minority. This needs to be managed well as the rise in free schools and academies has not been a success in 100% of cases.

    If nothing limits the student but themselves, then you have proven the point I am trying to make. The particular school I was at, I would say that over 50% of the class wanted to achieve well. I am aware that this is not the case in all classes.

    As for the cohort in grammar schools, have a look at this http://www.suttontrust.com/researcha...upils-england/
    "The research also shows that in local authorities that operate the grammar system, children who are not eligible for free school meals have a much greater chance of attending a grammar school than similarly high achieving children"
    "Less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals"
    "Grammar school head teachers believe that children from more affluent, middle class families are coached to pass the entrance exam"

    This is from 2013 so figures aren't completely accurate but you get the idea.

    I understand where you are coming from about students having a chance, but in my eyes this is like using an antiseptic on a small cut which someone has when the rest of their body has sepsis. Yes, you have stopped that tiny proportion of their body from being infected but what about the rest of it??

    I think we will have to agree to disagree but thank you for actually discussing your points and explaining them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I went to a school where the results for GCSE English, maths and just about every other subject that wasn't mixed ability set, ranged from A* to C across the top set. The less intelligent students definitely slowed the class down and held people back.



    If students are never going to achieve well academically why not steer them toward a trade rather than getting them a C in history?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If comprehensive schools had more teachers, class sizes could be smaller and top sets could be separated out.
    How can you tell at the age of 11 if someone is never going to achieve well academically? What if they pick up the pace in year 10 as many students do? What if they have an SEN which isn't diagnosed, but once it is the relevant support is put in place and then they achieve well? I am by no means suggesting that every person goes to university, but every child is entitled to a good education up to the age of 18.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Finally, common sense prevails
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How would this prevent the devolution of the existing comprehensives to become a reemergence of secondary moderns?

    Also would you suggest that a grammar school system would be preferable in the majority of areas, that is should it be the norm or a rarity?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    I think that book is rubbish here is an article about how athletes really need talent.The fact that the best women can't run as fast as men shows that sporting success must be due to genes as not having the Y chromosome makes such a huge difference proving the book to be utter rubbish as it mentions sporting stars.

    I have already quoted studies showing that genetics is the dominant factor, indeed it has to be or Darwin was wrong as humans have developed intelligence superior to animals and must have done by evolution if Darwin was right and thus intelligence must be highly genetic.

    My own experience would prove you wrong as I excelled at school even when I didn't try hard I use to only work hard for exams and during my AS year I had major depression difficulties which meant I had to have regular GP visits and I really was losing the motivation to do my work and I didn't revise for my mocks but I got near to 100% in my Maths and Physics ones.Also, my college lecturers use to get really angry at how lazy some of my Maths friends were as they would barely do any work in the class and some students didn't like it as they always ended up getting great grades where as they worked and still couldn't understand it.Another part of my proof will be Stephen Hawking, if you do some research you will find he was a very lazy student and he didn't complete a lot of his exams as he couldn't remember stuff but just about got a first through stuff he could naturally do.

    I think my school experiences are probably even better indicators as I didn't work until the exams for most of school and yet I achieved near to the best grades in mock exams and tests and generally performed the best in class quickly grasping concepts quicker than anyone else could from a very young age.Like I said earlier I think noone in the class could factorise quadratics but I could factorise them in my head just naturally.One of Maths teachers use to consider me naturally gifted in Maths and teachers generally saw me as an incredible genius and students sometimes complained when teachers said I had finished and why they hadn't because they couldn't be expected to compete with me and my teachers often speculated about how famous I would become(they did get carried away though).

    However, I do know some clever students at school and teachers would even say this at times who could do a lot better but didn't perform too well as they didn't behave and weren't motivated to do well.

    I'd certainly agree that you generally need training with natural talent(maybe not the case if you are an incredible genius like Hawking?), which is exactly why I support Grammar Schools to give the cleverest students from poor backgrounds their best chance and to prevent them misbehaving and losing motivation to do well.Working Class Students are much less likely to have the natural talent required so even training won't help them.Its clear without natural talent you have very little and you have some chance if you only have natural talent but to maximise your chances you need training and natural talent.

    I am very lucky to be naturally gifted from an underclass background probably due to my parents carrying good genes, genes that have been successful in my Uncles/Aunt who were very successful my Uncle got the best results at school(like me) and got a PhD and did end up becoming a millionaire.
    You are 100% wrong. The daughter of my maths teacher failed her O level maths so how can intelligence be genetic, it makes a complete mockery of your so called Darwin theory which only applied to monkeys anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You are 100% wrong. The daughter of my maths teacher failed her O level maths so how can intelligence be genetic, it makes a complete mockery of your so called Darwin theory which only applied to monkeys anyway.
    To be fair he admitted that some clever students **** up. I think hard work tends to be a more decisive factor a lot of the time, but there are certainly inherent differences between people and genetics is important. One friend of mine, his dad was smart (poor but went to a grammar school, I believe), but his household environment was...subpar by his own admission. Certainly he was not optimally taught by his parents. He barely ever read a book. And yet he breezed to an a* in English Lit; in fact most of his GCSEs were A*s and As, despite incredible laziness. I don't see where he could have gained such intelligence if not genetically. I think most people who claim that doing well is all about hard work do not realise how much more intelligent than average they really are. They have worked hard and done well and correlate them, then look at other people and assume that they can just do the same, out of some misplaced modesty. Certainly once you get a group of people who are similarly intelligent, the hardest worker may well rise to near the top, e.g. in a university course with high entry requirements (well, probably the geniuses will still reign supreme here, but the point is the "dumbest" member of the cohort is still very smart and could probably obtain some of the best marks if they worked harder than everybody else). But when it comes to a school with wide variation it doesn't surprise me that genetics seem to account for most variation in grades.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You are 100% wrong. The daughter of my maths teacher failed her O level maths so how can intelligence be genetic, it makes a complete mockery of your so called Darwin theory which only applied to monkeys anyway.
    Seriously?Evolution only applies to monkeys:eek:

    I have said that genetics is the dominant factor and not the only factor and I was talking about the genetics of a person rather than the genetics of their parents as it is certainly not certain a person will receive good genes from their parents.

    I think my statistical comparison gives the best understanding the children of cleverer parents will have a higher average intelligence and the children of less clever parents will have a lower average intelligence, thinking of it is a statistical distribution there is certainly a very reasonable chance that clever parents will not do well at maths the probability might be not that low if we consider the genetics of the other parent as well that provides 50% of the genes.

    My parents were not that clever but my Uncles and Aunts were very clever so I must have inherited their genes for intelligence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://themodernperspectives.blogspot.co.uk/

    My blog post tells the real truth about grammar schools.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHABANA)
    If comprehensive schools had more teachers, class sizes could be smaller and top sets could be separated out.
    How can you tell at the age of 11 if someone is never going to achieve well academically? What if they pick up the pace in year 10 as many students do? What if they have an SEN which isn't diagnosed, but once it is the relevant support is put in place and then they achieve well? I am by no means suggesting that every person goes to university, but every child is entitled to a good education up to the age of 18.
    But a 'good' education doesn't have to consist of traditionally academic subjects.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    Theresa May is set to remove the ban on grammar schools.

    http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews...xT1?li=BBoPRmx

    Are you happy or angry
    As someone from a very very low income family who has attended a free grammar school, I am ecstatic about new grammar schools perhaps being created. I come from a single parent family, and neither parent went to university or even obtained A-Levels. I did not have a tutor to pass the entrance exam. My mum purchased a few standard entrance exam books and I practiced hard to do well. Plenty of people who were tutored did not pass the entrance exam.
    Grammar schools not just for middle class children - they're for intelligent children. I disagree with grammar schools that aren't free, as that does filter out the poorer, yet academically strong, students from attending.
    I've mixed with people from middle class and working class families. But the point of a free grammar school is not which class you're from. It is genuinely just centered around academic progress. I've never been looked down on for my household income. It would be ridiculous for anyone to be at a free grammar school. The point is that you receive an education which is comparable to a private education, but without the cost.
    Anyone who has attended a free grammar school understands the benefits. Most people are from ordinary families, and I think the only difference between us and other non-grammars is the pace at which we get taught. There are high demands academically, and while it can be stressful, it helps people from low income families get into those top universities and dilute the privately-educated stronghold in Oxbridge and Durham etc.
    There is nothing wrong with having a school that does not have a wide-ranging level of academic ability. The issue is when there is no range in social 'status' between pupils and their families. But as someone who has experienced a grammar school herself, I feel completely justified in saying that people are allowed a great, free education. Yes, there are amazing teachers in non-selective schools, but if you want that push, and have teachers give attention to everyone, not just those who are struggling, then grammars are great.
    If the issue is about catchment areas being limited to middle class neighborhoods (which isn't true for the school I attend), then surely building more grammar schools would solve that issue...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hdog131313)
    As someone from a very very low income family who has attended a free grammar school, I am ecstatic about new grammar schools perhaps being created. I come from a single parent family, and neither parent went to university or even obtained A-Levels. I did not have a tutor to pass the entrance exam. My mum purchased a few standard entrance exam books and I practiced hard to do well. Plenty of people who were tutored did not pass the entrance exam.
    Grammar schools not just for middle class children - they're for intelligent children. I disagree with grammar schools that aren't free, as that does filter out the poorer, yet academically strong, students from attending.
    I've mixed with people from middle class and working class families. But the point of a free grammar school is not which class you're from. It is genuinely just centered around academic progress. I've never been looked down on for my household income. It would be ridiculous for anyone to be at a free grammar school. The point is that you receive an education which is comparable to a private education, but without the cost.
    Anyone who has attended a free grammar school understands the benefits. Most people are from ordinary families, and I think the only difference between us and other non-grammars is the pace at which we get taught. There are high demands academically, and while it can be stressful, it helps people from low income families get into those top universities and dilute the privately-educated stronghold in Oxbridge and Durham etc.
    There is nothing wrong with having a school that does not have a wide-ranging level of academic ability. The issue is when there is no range in social 'status' between pupils and their families. But as someone who has experienced a grammar school herself, I feel completely justified in saying that people are allowed a great, free education. Yes, there are amazing teachers in non-selective schools, but if you want that push, and have teachers give attention to everyone, not just those who are struggling, then grammars are great.
    If the issue is about catchment areas being limited to middle class neighborhoods (which isn't true for the school I attend), then surely building more grammar schools would solve that issue...
    You are exactly what I have been saying.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nwmyname)
    You are exactly what I have been saying.
    Well I feel like all the people crapping on grammar schools have no idea what it is actually like to attend one. Think people have misunderstood their purpose and the reality of how mixed they actually are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hdog131313)
    Well I feel like all the people crapping on grammar schools have no idea what it is actually like to attend one. Think people have misunderstood their purpose and the reality of how mixed they actually are.
    Currently this depends on which area you're in, it's not a uniform picture across the country at all... so people's experiences vary... and of course most areas have no state grammars at all.

    fwiw TES reports that it's likely to be about 20 schools total, all built in working class areas and favouring pupils on free school meals.
    https://www.tes.com/news/school-news...-go-nationwide

    So it seems that someone is switched on to the dreaded risk of 'middle class capture' - though we'll have to see what any actual proposed changes are when there's something on paper for the select committee to look at.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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

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