Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why are (new) Grammar Schools banned, when Private, Faith Schools aren't? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    Apparently, academic selection is wrong, but selection based on parental income, beliefs, residence, are fine.

    I don't understand how a meritocratic education system is worse than plutocratic and theocratic systems

    Someone please explain why it is the left that is so against academic selection? To them, does social mobility actually mean going down to the lowest common denominator, rather than the cream floating to the top?
    I havnt understood your question but ill tell you something for nothing, every child deserves the same right to a good education regardless of how much money their parents have
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly grammar schools don't help deserving kids from poorer backgrounds, the majority of kids at grammar schools are middle/upper-class. Being tested at such a young age favours the kids who've been "hot-housed" in private primary-school education, or whose parents can afford private tutoring. That's why grammar schools have so many more rich kids, and their percentage of kids on free school meals is absolutely tiny.
    Secondly, the presence of a grammar school makes the quality of education in the surrounding area go down. Look at Kent, their system is fully selective, and they have the highest number of pupils failing to get A*-C grades anywhere in England. So all the poor kids going there do even worse.

    So basically the rich kids fill up the grammar schools, and then the poor kids have to go to ****ty comps. So Labour are in favour of social mobility and meritocracy, but they don't think grammar schools will help to achieve them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ceryss)
    Firstly grammar schools don't help deserving kids from poorer backgrounds, the majority of kids at grammar schools are middle/upper-class. Being tested at such a young age favours the kids who've been "hot-housed" in private primary-school education, or whose parents can afford private tutoring. That's why grammar schools have so many more rich kids, and their percentage of kids on free school meals is absolutely tiny.
    Secondly, the presence of a grammar school makes the quality of education in the surrounding area go down. Look at Kent, their system is fully selective, and they have the highest number of pupils failing to get A*-C grades anywhere in England. So all the poor kids going there do even worse.

    So basically the rich kids fill up the grammar schools, and then the poor kids have to go to ****ty comps. So Labour are in favour of social mobility and meritocracy, but they don't think grammar schools will help to achieve them.
    And Private schools aren't full of rich kids? :facepalm:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    And Private schools aren't full of rich kids? :facepalm:
    The taxpayer don't pay for kids in private schools.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johann von Gauss)
    And Private schools aren't full of rich kids? :facepalm:
    Of course they are. What point are you making?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Thatcher closed more grammars than any other politician.
    Not true, actually - the disastrous policy was in full swing when she came to power & once that genie is out of the bottle,you cannot put it back in. It's a dreary mantra that she closed more...etc. She did nothing of the kind.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dontargue)
    Not true, actually - the disastrous policy was in full swing when she came to power & once that genie is out of the bottle,you cannot put it back in. It's a dreary mantra that she closed more...etc. She did nothing of the kind.
    Thatcher was education secretary when the largest number of grammars closed and did nothing to stop or reverse it. Its nonsense to say govts can't change something in its control such as education policy. Thatcher did not oppose the closures because it was cheaper to have one type of school rather than two and she could see closing grammars saved a lot of money. Plus the fact middle class parents who's kids failed to get into grammar were only too happy to see them closed because of the embarrassment.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)

    The expansion of grammar schools was banned before, but I don't know why. Perhaps to keep private schools in business.
    This has been for purely pragmatic reasons. Grammar schools are deeply controversial. The Thatcher/ Major government with City Technology Colleges, the Blair government with academies and the Coalition with free schools all wished to invent new types of school. They all realised that if you allowed those types of new school to be used to create a grammar school, they would operate as a magnet to grammar school opponents and the governments' pet projects would never get off the ground.

    However academics (and I think free schools) can select up to 10% of pupils by way of aptitude but not ability (and if you can tell the difference between these you are better than me).

    They now exist for age 14+, not in the thousands though, and they have a truly awful name too - "University Technical Colleges". Still, it's a start.
    These are much more akin to the third strand of the tripartite division. This is an attempt to create the old (and very rare) technical schools. They have almost certainly been crippled by their age range.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IBIB)
    I havnt understood your question but ill tell you something for nothing, every child deserves the same right to a good education regardless of how much money their parents have
    Granted, but if the taxpayer is going to take on the cost, surely the most efficient use of that money should be applied (as in cost to benefit). Grammar schools aren't necessarily the solution.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littlenorthernlass)
    People who oppose grammar schools are just jealous that they didn't get into one.
    lol people who go to grammar schools are just stuck up their own poo holes
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think that grammar schools are more detrimental to other state schools success than private schools are because the same people that would apply to one private school would apply to the new one. Perhaps one or two top students from each state school might apply to go there but that is basically nothing. However, grammar schools have the effect of drawing all the most intelligent students from other state schools, and at the same time, the best teachers. This then leaves very few of the top students in the other state schools and therefore brings down their results, putting more pressure on the schools to raise their results.
    This could be the same for faith schools, certainly in my area where they are consistently the top performing schools. However, this makes it more unfair for those who are not of their faith who are not able to have access to better teaching or lessons.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The cream floating on top is a bit sour.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littlenorthernlass)
    People who oppose grammar schools are just jealous that they didn't get into one.
    I went to one and overall my experience was terrible. It's just full of people who will let you down.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's wrong grammar schools suck. A lot pretend to be a lower version of Eton. I don't think Eton is like that though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    If you can show proof gammars are beneficial, lets see it.
    Well, I go to a public school. Here, the top set is pushed. Set 2s aren't pushed as much, but there's one major reason for it. Most of the lesson is spent with the teachers dealing with distractions that students make. They don't want to learn, and feel as if they are in the sweet spot. There's people who talk all lesson and use the last 5 minutes to copy another's work. Yes, of course, the school needs to improve their management of the class. However it all goes down to how much work you put in for your GCSEs. The reason why people in grammar schools are pushed is because they can be pushed. A lot of people refuse to take that path, and choose the easy way out. Yes, there is the whole matter of when a student flourishes. If it's at 11, then good for them. They can enter grammar school and be pushed further. But if it's at an older age, then they should be dedicated enough to push themselves, to give in extra effort for their GCSEs in order to secure that place as an external student in Sixth Form.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.