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

Should we bring back grammars? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we bring back grammar schools across the UK?
    Yes
    65.00%
    No
    25.00%
    Ambivalent
    7.50%
    Other
    2.50%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Grammars have been proven to discriminate against the poor and thus decrease social mobility.
    I disagree. The grammar school I went to in Chelmsford was the most diverse school I'd ever been to and people from so many walks of life. Yes some parents can pay for tutoring for 11+ but that does not guarantee their child would pass still
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    How do you know you would not have had the same educational experience at a comprehensive?
    Through what I've heard from friends and family. My sister has had five different maths teachers in the past two years, no consistency whatsoever, and so she's falling behind with maths. A friend of mine applied to Oxford and was rejected without interview, his school had no idea how to handle an Oxbridge application and he thinks that is the reason he didn't make it to interview (he had the grades) because the references and personal statements have to be so carefully written. Plus, I probably wouldn't have pushed myself at a comprehensive school. My GCSEs were amazing by comprehensive standard but less so by grammar (6 A*s, 5 As, 1 B) which made me work harder at AS level. I really don't think I'd have achieved anywhere near what I have had it not been for my grammar school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    I dont think its fair to separate half the population from each other at the age of 11 based on some test.And back in the day there were a lot more opportunities for apprenticeships and the like because our economy was a lot more manufacturing based.Nowadays not so much.We shouldnt be saying that education is just for those academically able.Why not just send half the population straight to work if thats the case? We should provide good teaching across all schools and not have one elite stream of school and one second rate stream.Anyone can learn if they really want to and we shouldnt tell one group of pupils its not for them.
    Apprenticeships are coming back though. As someone mentioned earlier, all schools should be of the same high quality standard, but until that happens why shouldn't those from all backgrounds who are shown to be bright be given these amazing opportunities? People who are less academic are given other opportunities - For example, at my sister's school they can do qualifications in electric work, hair and beauty or in plumbing, which are all skills which lead directly into a job and provide life long skills. I probably couldn't use the calculus I learnt at A Level directly in a job. It's just different opportunities for different people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've watched students in their mid-teens burst into tears and call themselves failures for their exam results. They're too young for that kind of pressure, and calling someone a failure (which, face it, is what the 11 plus exam does regardless of if they use those exact words or not) at such a young age will only be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Whoop, didn't pass the exam, ey? Well, better take your dumb self to the dumb school with the other dumb kids.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sorani)
    I've watched students in their mid-teens burst into tears and call themselves failures for their exam results. They're too young for that kind of pressure, and calling someone a failure (which, face it, is what the 11 plus exam does regardless of if they use those exact words or not) at such a young age will only be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Whoop, didn't pass the exam, ey? Well, better take your dumb self to the dumb school with the other dumb kids.
    It's wrong to tell children they have done well for fear of making others feel bad? Once again, it's not a "dumb school with the other dumb kids" it's about different subjects, opportunities and teaching styles.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sorani)
    I've watched students in their mid-teens burst into tears and call themselves failures for their exam results. They're too young for that kind of pressure, and calling someone a failure (which, face it, is what the 11 plus exam does regardless of if they use those exact words or not) at such a young age will only be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Whoop, didn't pass the exam, ey? Well, better take your dumb self to the dumb school with the other dumb kids.
    Honestly I think people are too sensitive. Nothing wrong with feeling you've failed something once in a while, people need to get a grip that this causes so much trauma in children.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by AlannahK)
    I went to a grammar school, and I will be starting at Cambridge University in the next couple of weeks. I come from a working class background, and I am the first person in my family to attend university. I had no tutoring for the 11+ and passed. I would have been unable to gain a place at Cambridge without the support of a grammar school because they were more able to help me with the Oxbridge application process than a comprehensive would have been able to. In addition to this, the teachers and other students were so enthusiastic about their subjects and helpful, going above and beyond to help me and others. To say that grammar schools reduce social mobility is absurd; Myself and other friends (all of whom are also from working class backgrounds) are heading to fantastic universities this year, and I'm sure they're as grateful for their education and the opportunity as I am. If you want to point the finger at discrimination based on finance, I suggest you look at private schools, which also tutor their students to pass the 11+ and push others who can't afford tutoring out.
    I didn't go to a grammar school (nor have any form of private tutoring) and I'm also going to Cambridge in the next couple of weeks, from a working class background and parents who didn't go to uni. My sixth form college was also very supportive, if not more than the selective CofE school in my area, in terms of Oxbridge applications.

    My teachers at my comprehensive school and tutors at sixth form were very enthusiastic and pushed me to achieve my best from day one.

    My friends, from the same sixth form, are going onto other amazing universities and have wonderful careers ahead of them.

    If a student has enough ability, and the right level of support, they will do well anywhere.

    Bear in mind, my anecdotal evidence has little value, just like yours
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by tcameron)
    Honestly I think people are too sensitive.
    Same thing goes for parents who are scared their academically able child won't 'fit in' at a comp
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serine Soul)
    Same thing goes for parents who are scared their academically able child won't 'fit in' at a comp
    I agree, but this post is completely off topic of what I was replying about
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tcameron)
    I disagree. The grammar school I went to in Chelmsford was the most diverse school I'd ever been to and people from so many walks of life. Yes some parents can pay for tutoring for 11+ but that does not guarantee their child would pass still
    I am in no doubt you led a diverse education. What you don't seem to appreciate is that money is also diverse so it is no surprise that people of all ethnicity (with money) managed to pay for their kids to get into grammar schools.

    The whole grammar debate is a farce. There a wealth of evidence that shows it neither increases overall results but neither does it give more chance or opportunity to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    The problem with any school system is that if a part of it is deemed to be better than the rest, folks with the means (usually money) will do just about anything to improve the chances of getting their kids into that school. At present we have a means of grading schools by OFFSTED as well as the league tables. As a result, successful schools see local house prices surge as the wealthy move in. And for my sins, I did exactly that. We moved into a catchment area. Why? Because we could afford to. Why wouldn't we?

    In Trafford where there are still grammar schools. We see the local private independent schools, free of the national curriculum, doing nothing but training their pupils for the 11+ whilst the local state schools have to do their best to destroy any interest in learning by getting their kids through SATs. In order for state pupils to compete, parents have no choice but to pay for private tuition (most do). So the few genuine lower socio-economic pupils who pass the 11+ do so more by chance than by design. And just to really rub things in, the average house price in the areas around these schools is heading upwards of £1 million, and this is the North West, not London.

    So any guise that grammar schools (21st Century Edition) are some sort of leveler for the working classes is quite frankly deluded. All grammar schools will do, is take the high achievers from comprehensives and concentrate them in one school. They will go onto great things just as you have. The rest will languish. Overall, the middle classes will be happy (and continue to vote Tory), the Tories don't care about the working classes, and the poor kids in the middle, on average will be no better off. There will be no surge in results and teachers will simply have to wait for the next big thing (of which there are none - they are all recycled policies) to hit.

    If the government was serious about education reform, it would be asking questions like, why have we been learning maths, english, geography and science for the last 100 years, when society requires problem solvers, critical thinkers, doers and creatives?
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by tcameron)
    I agree, but this post is completely off topic of what I was replying about
    Not off topic in terms of sensitivity really
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that creating more grammar schools would encourage people to train as teachers as they are more willing to teach in a high-performing school. This wouldn't funnel all the new teachers to grammars either as new teachers would likely start out at a comprehensive at the beginning of their career. The prospects of teaching at a grammar would also deter people from leaving the profession.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tcameron)
    I disagree. The grammar school I went to in Chelmsford was the most diverse school I'd ever been to and people from so many walks of life. Yes some parents can pay for tutoring for 11+ but that does not guarantee their child would pass still
    If you are so academically able, you should know anecdotes are not proof of anything. Try again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlannahK)
    Through what I've heard from friends and family. My sister has had five different maths teachers in the past two years, no consistency whatsoever, and so she's falling behind with maths. A friend of mine applied to Oxford and was rejected without interview, his school had no idea how to handle an Oxbridge application and he thinks that is the reason he didn't make it to interview (he had the grades) because the references and personal statements have to be so carefully written. Plus, I probably wouldn't have pushed myself at a comprehensive school. My GCSEs were amazing by comprehensive standard but less so by grammar (6 A*s, 5 As, 1 B) which made me work harder at AS level. I really don't think I'd have achieved anywhere near what I have had it not been for my grammar school.
    Again, anecdotes is not sufficient proof of anything. I am sure there are plenty of students from comprehensives who got better grades and would be proof they are better than grammars if the only proof you have to go on is anecdotes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    I am in no doubt you led a diverse education. What you don't seem to appreciate is that money is also diverse so it is no surprise that people of all ethnicity (with money) managed to pay for their kids to get into grammar schools.

    The whole grammar debate is a farce. There a wealth of evidence that shows it neither increases overall results but neither does it give more chance or opportunity to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    The problem with any school system is that if a part of it is deemed to be better than the rest, folks with the means (usually money) will do just about anything to improve the chances of getting their kids into that school. At present we have a means of grading schools by OFFSTED as well as the league tables. As a result, successful schools see local house prices surge as the wealthy move in. And for my sins, I did exactly that. We moved into a catchment area. Why? Because we could afford to. Why wouldn't we?

    In Trafford where there are still grammar schools. We see the local private independent schools, free of the national curriculum, doing nothing but training their pupils for the 11+ whilst the local state schools have to do their best to destroy any interest in learning by getting their kids through SATs. In order for state pupils to compete, parents have no choice but to pay for private tuition (most do). So the few genuine lower socio-economic pupils who pass the 11+ do so more by chance than by design. And just to really rub things in, the average house price in the areas around these schools is heading upwards of £1 million, and this is the North West, not London.

    So any guise that grammar schools (21st Century Edition) are some sort of leveler for the working classes is quite frankly deluded. All grammar schools will do, is take the high achievers from comprehensives and concentrate them in one school. They will go onto great things just as you have. The rest will languish. Overall, the middle classes will be happy (and continue to vote Tory), the Tories don't care about the working classes, and the poor kids in the middle, on average will be no better off. There will be no surge in results and teachers will simply have to wait for the next big thing (of which there are none - they are all recycled policies) to hit.

    If the government was serious about education reform, it would be asking questions like, why have we been learning maths, english, geography and science for the last 100 years, when society requires problem solvers, critical thinkers, doers and creatives?
    I think it will be the middle classes who will oppose grammar schools.

    Many of them have paid over the odds to live in the catchment area of a good comprehensive and if a grammar school was set up, there would be no reason to have to live in a certain area in order to get in. Even if their own local comprehensive did become the grammar, the people living in the current catchment area would lose the right to go there.

    As a consequence, the price of houses in the former catchment area would fall and they would lose a lot of money.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think it will be the middle classes who will oppose grammar schools.

    Many of them have paid over the odds to live in the catchment area of a good comprehensive and if a grammar school was set up, there would be no reason to have to live in a certain area in order to get in. Even if their own local comprehensive did become the grammar, the people living in the current catchment area would lose the right to go there.

    As a consequence, the price of houses in the former catchment area would fall and they would lose a lot of money.
    Perhaps. But we are talking about testing kids at the age of 11 here. Wherever you live, and whatever perceived choices you have, you want to be in the winners pile. You still end up going through the decisiveness of it all.

    Here is another interesting fact. Most of those who are in the top 5% of achievers at the age of 11 are not in the top 5% aged 16. Yet we seem to be wanting to decide on their whole future aged 11.

    And why do people never move up or down in streamed classes?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Perhaps. But we are talking about testing kids at the age of 11 here. Wherever you live, and whatever perceived choices you have, you want to be in the winners pile. You still end up going through the decisiveness of it all.

    Here is another interesting fact. Most of those who are in the top 5% of achievers at the age of 11 are not in the top 5% aged 16. Yet we seem to be wanting to decide on their whole future aged 11.

    And why do people never move up or down in streamed classes?
    What's so wrong with testing 11 year olds? Even if they don't pass they'll get over it eventually.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tcameron)
    What's so wrong with testing 11 year olds? Even if they don't pass they'll get over it eventually.
    There is nothing wrong with testing. It is the fact that you say, "You are a success, well done, your future is guaranteed, but you are a failure, will go to a crap school and work in a call centre for the rest of your life." That is the problem. Everyone has potential. But when you put kids through the 11+, you basically say to the majority that fail, we believe you have less potential and this one test can not be undone and will shape your whole future.

    Why can't we strive to fulfil and stretch the potential of everyone. Why do we have politicians who know nothing about education setting education an policy that goes against research based evidence?

    It is akin to having a justice system of throwing people into the pond and if they drown they are innocent, or a health system where all conditions are treated with arsenic and mercury. Yet somehow, in the education system, it is acceptable to bring the homeopathy of education policies to the fore.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinkberry_y)
    Ideally we should just make every school in this country of the same high quality standard if we're really striving for fairness for all. But realistically that will never happen so we may as well increase opportunities for those less well off/can't afford private schools to make something of themselves by introducing grammar schools in their areas
    Standards ( of teaching and 'value added' measures) and acadmic rigour are not the same thing ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    There is nothing wrong with testing. It is the fact that you say, "You are a success, well done, your future is guaranteed, but you are a failure, will go to a crap school and work in a call centre for the rest of your life." That is the problem. Everyone has potential. But when you put kids through the 11+, you basically say to the majority that fail, we believe you have less potential and this one test can not be undone and will shape your whole future.

    Why can't we strive to fulfil and stretch the potential of everyone. Why do we have politicians who know nothing about education setting education an policy that goes against research based evidence?

    It is akin to having a justice system of throwing people into the pond and if they drown they are innocent, or a health system where all conditions are treated with arsenic and mercury. Yet somehow, in the education system, it is acceptable to bring the homeopathy of education policies to the fore.
    These are arguments based on the failure of the post war labour government to adequately invest in Sec Mods and their near total failure to provide the third type of school in the tripartite system - the Technicial School.

    people are also confusing academic rigour and a pathway that prepares for traditional higher education with having high standards ... high quality teaching can be delivered to any ability group and a high quality education in terms of value added and preparation for further study and work is not just measured in UCAS points
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.