Turn on thread page Beta

B732 - Grammar School Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by tyroncs)
    In general Grammar Schools are good schools, so they get a lot less funding per head then most Comprehensives. This leads to older buildings without money to update them.

    Just to clarify, any regulations which apply to comprehensive schools in regards to the disabled also apply to Grammar Schools, so any issues with provision for the disabled should be made into a separate bill as it doesn't apply only to Grammars
    Fair enough they have less funding. You learn something new every day.

    However the issues are surrounding grammar schools. I'll have to wait and see how things go with the DLA replacement as to the issues surrounding getting a statement.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by GoldenEmblem277)
    There's one small thing I disagree with, but apart from that... Aye?

    (The one thing is the date that the bill will be introduced. Give it till at least 2020- after all, we need to plan this throughly, which would take several years. Plus, the schools would need to provide provision for disabled students.)
    Is that RL 2020 or in 1 TSR term?

    Because we could end up with a situation where bills are repealed en masse before some of them are even enacted.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This is the worst idea ever. I agree the current system needs reform but reverting back to this system would disadvantage so many children. Saying that, I do believe that making education a political issue is a problem and am happy to work with any MP to discuss this issue further and create a better education system.
    On that is fair for all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aadam10)
    This is the worst idea ever. I agree the current system needs reform but reverting back to this system would disadvantage so many children. Saying that, I do believe that making education a political issue is a problem and am happy to work with any MP to discuss this issue further and create a better education system.
    On that is fair for all.
    In what ways does it disadvantage children?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    In what ways does it disadvantage children?
    The current Grammar schools that do exist are full of middle class kids. Also, an exam at 11 is too early to establish how smart a child is. As I know I did the test at 11 I would probably not pass it.
    For example, when I was in primary school I was in the bottom classes but when I got in to secondary I matured and appreciated why education is important and now am at uni.
    There I think the comprehensive system is better.

    I understand that Grammar schools are popular with some people but no one ever say lets bring back Secondary Moderns!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aadam10)
    The current Grammar schools that do exist are full of middle class kids. Also, an exam at 11 is too early to establish how smart a child is. As I know I did the test at 11 I would probably not pass it.
    For example, when I was in primary school I was in the bottom classes but when I got in to secondary I matured and appreciated why education is important and now am at uni.
    There I think the comprehensive system is better.

    I understand that Grammar schools are popular with some people but no one ever say lets bring back Secondary Moderns!!!
    I was confused by your reasoning as the bill went some way to address to common arguments against grammar schools. In our bill the entry exams are going to be more cognitive ability tests which do not involve remembering and writing. The bill specifically calls for a commission to look into the best kind of test. You may pass the newer tests to enter a grammar school. If you find yourself maturing during secondary education there is nothing preventing you from applying to join a grammar school.

    The debate should not be because they are full of middle class children, but why they are full of middle class children. I think the reason they are that way is because there are not many grammar schools around, and when you do find one it is in a middle class area. The grammar schools in Britain tend to be in the South. If you have more grammar schools in all area, including mostly working class areas, you have more of an even balance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't have got in at 11, I think if it stays at 11, primary school should be much more intensive as oppose to a useless piece of piss
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    As far as I am aware it is the responsibility of the individual school to organise assistance. There is a funding pot at local authorities to pay for the extra assistance needed, with schools applying to the local authority for the funding. We don't see this changing in grammar schools.
    I went to a grammar school. I have dyspraxia (not dyslexia, dyspraxia). It was absolutely horrible. I hated my time there and left as soon as I could. I had to fight for the support I needed, and many of the teachers were under the impression that I was lazy. I needed support with my organization, so I got told "be more organized". Grammar schools are absolutely sh*te. We got pressured and the deputy head was an absolute nightmare.
    Grammar schools are an absolute waste of space. I am doing my A levels at a comprehensive, and doing far better there than I ever did at grammar school.
    They put far too much pressure on the students, to the extent that a significant number have mental illnesses. The opposite of a grammar school, Summerhill, has far better than average GCSE results and the pupils there are taught for the sake of learning, rather than for the sake of the place on a league table. Consequently, they are much happier.
    Grammar schools do not provide a better standard of education, most of the education they provide is absolutely useless. I got pressured into aspiring to go to oxbridge (I want to work in healthcare). I got forced to do subjects I deliberately tried to fail, simply because I was forced to do them.
    Grammar schools are a major step backwards for society. The majority don't go to them, and anyone with dyspraxia, like me, is effectively punished for having a genetic condition. We should be introducing more schools like Summerhill, which has been around for nearly a century, and is still ahead of it's time, not grammar schools, which have far more disadvantages than they do advantages.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Gott der Zweite)
    I wouldn't have got in at 11, I think if it stays at 11, primary school should be much more intensive as oppose to a useless piece of piss
    I have a feeling that primary schools are more intensive in grammar-school areas exactly because of the 11+, although my (anecdotal) sample size is incredibly small.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Katty3)
    I went to a grammar school. I have dyspraxia (not dyslexia, dyspraxia). It was absolutely horrible. I hated my time there and left as soon as I could. I had to fight for the support I needed, and many of the teachers were under the impression that I was lazy. I needed support with my organization, so I got told "be more organized". Grammar schools are absolutely sh*te. We got pressured and the deputy head was an absolute nightmare.
    Grammar schools are an absolute waste of space. I am doing my A levels at a comprehensive, and doing far better there than I ever did at grammar school.
    They put far too much pressure on the students, to the extent that a significant number have mental illnesses. The opposite of a grammar school, Summerhill, has far better than average GCSE results and the pupils there are taught for the sake of learning, rather than for the sake of the place on a league table. Consequently, they are much happier.
    Grammar schools do not provide a better standard of education, most of the education they provide is absolutely useless. I got pressured into aspiring to go to oxbridge (I want to work in healthcare). I got forced to do subjects I deliberately tried to fail, simply because I was forced to do them.
    Grammar schools are a major step backwards for society. The majority don't go to them, and anyone with dyspraxia, like me, is effectively punished for having a genetic condition. We should be introducing more schools like Summerhill, which has been around for nearly a century, and is still ahead of it's time, not grammar schools, which have far more disadvantages than they do advantages.
    Thank you. This was what I was trying to show from an outside perspective.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I am broadly in favour of a voucher system but prefer grammar schools. I did read over the TSR education bill and was surprised it passed. There are major flaws to it which cause the bill to achieve the complete opposite of what it was intended to do.

    In Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the UK about 10% of the population attend a private school. in the UK the average fee is £11,000 whereas in Germany, Sweden, and Denmark the government voucher scheme reduces the average fee to £1000. The flaw comes in capping the price. To make my point easier, let us assume classroom hours per year is fixed, and when we speak of buying education we mean buying a higher quality of education and not more hours of education.

    Suppose currently the cost of state education was Pe of tax for 1 unit, which needs to be paid whether or not the family uses it, where the single unit is a year's worth of education at the current standard in comprehensive schools. The family has the option to send their child to a private school to purchase one or more units of education at a private school, also at the price Pe per unit. For example, buying 1.2 units of education at a private school would equal a education 20% better quality than the one offered at comprehensive schools. Families are legally required to provide one unit of education to their children.

    We can now derive a graph for education and other goods for a family who has a pretax income of Y. If there were no taxes or constraints the budget line would be ABD. But because each family pays Pe in school taxes, the vertical intercept is Y-Pe. Taking one free unit into account, the budget constraint is always horizontal to one unit and then slopes down as additional units are bought at an additional sum Pe.



    Now when we introduce a budget system, families still pay Pe but get a voucher worth Pe which is used towards education of any type. New new budget constraint is therefore A'BD. The voucher system doesn't eliminate discontinuity at B. However, are parents free to choose education above 1 unit? This is where the flaw is. it all depends on whether private schools are allowed to charge fees. In Sweden, where every school is private, they are not. In the Netherlands they can but the fees are capped which constrains the family to a point near B. The system in Sweden and the Netherlands does restrict choice on the quality of education. It's motivated on equality grounds but it is still a constraint.

    The idea of the voucher system is it increases competition between private and state schools, hopefully making schools more efficient in their production of educational services. This does work as Sweden and the Netherlands both rank higher then the UK in education. But the voucher system bill on TSR doesn't do this. TSR has unlimited fees on top of the voucher. Parents can continue to buy well in excess of one unit education without 'paying double'. The parents would choose to consume at point G. As a result, inequality would also increase.

    In Denmark and Germany the voucher system is only equivalent to 0.75Pe of the cost of a private school. Essentially it's worth Pe to the state schools but 0.75Pe to private schools. The difference is made by fees at the private schools. The fees, however, are still capped to maintain equality between the schools. That parents are willing to send their children to private schools under all kinds of voucher system highlight how state schools and private schools are not prefect substitutes. This is where my preference of grammar schools stems from.

    The voucher system will still remain but grammar schools will also start to grow in number.
    That's a very pretty picture, but it doesn't actually tell anyone anything. There are a lot of acronyms, and no explanation. As always with UKIP, it will be the poorest who lose out. Neoliberalism does not work.
    You put far too much emphasis on the value of money, and not enough on the value of people. I may never have had a job in business, and frankly I can think of nothing more boring, so according to you does this make all my arguments invalid? Or does the fact I want to work in O.T, obscure, but a far more valuable profession than banking, make me, in your eyes a complete waste of space? I pity you and your inability to see past the end of your nose.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:

    (Original post by Andy98)
    Thank you. This was what I was trying to show from an outside perspective.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No problem . Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that grammar schools were a bad idea.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    Grammar schools do not provide a better standard of education, most of the education they provide is absolutely useless. I got pressured into aspiring to go to oxbridge (I want to work in healthcare). I got forced to do subjects I deliberately tried to fail, simply because I was forced to do them.
    Grammar schools are a major step backwards for society. The majority don't go to them, and anyone with dyspraxia, like me, is effectively punished for having a genetic condition. We should be introducing more schools like Summerhill, which has been around for nearly a century, and is still ahead of it's time, not grammar schools, which have far more disadvantages than they do advantages.
    I'll cut past the anecdote as for every one person criticising them there is another praising them. This thread already has an ex-grammar school pupil in praising the school.

    You say grammar schools do not provide a better standard of education. However, reports reveal 95.9% of pupils at selective grammar schools achieve 5 GCSE's grades A* - C including English and Maths. The figure is only 55.5% in comprehensive schools.

    These results can be broken down by prior attainment bands of pupils, those assessed below level 4 at the end of primary school, those at level 4 and those above level 4. If we only look at those above level 4, 98% of these pupils who attended grammar schools achieved 5+ GCSE's including English and maths, whereas 92% did so in comprehensive schools. Even when comparing the intelligent children, grammar schools are pushing them harder getting better results form them.

    Looking at league tables, the very best comprehensive school in Britain would only be the 115th best school in Britain if grammar schools were included in the tables. Considering there are only 164 grammar schools in the country I think this is a splendid achievement. The worst performing grammar school in the country would still be within the top 250 schools when listing out grammar schools and the best state schools. There may some comprehensive schools outperforming grammar schools but they are in the minority.

    Pressuring children into Oxbridge is not a bad thing. Children need to be pushed to reach their maximum potential. Oxbridge to many seems to be this shut off world which doesn't open its doors to anyone who doesn't drive around in an Aston Martin or have a £1m in the bank. This is untrue and it is only by pushing children that they start to realise going to one of the top universities in the world is achievable. Some children may rebel against it much like yourself but the next line would be to find out why they don't have their aspirations set on attending one of the world's best institution. For certain degrees Oxbridge would not be considered but for plenty of degrees it kick-starts a career. If you were intent on not wanting to take specific subjects or be pushed into attending Oxbridge the better choice would have been for you to move schools earlier.

    I happily support schools like Summerhill but not everyone can afford the £12k per year fees. If you are suggesting the state pays the fees for the parents, that is effectively a free school academy.

    (Original post by Katty3)
    That's a very pretty picture, but it doesn't actually tell anyone anything. There are a lot of acronyms, and no explanation. As always with UKIP, it will be the poorest who lose out. Neoliberalism does not work.
    You put far too much emphasis on the value of money, and not enough on the value of people. I may never have had a job in business, and frankly I can think of nothing more boring, so according to you does this make all my arguments invalid? Or does the fact I want to work in O.T, obscure, but a far more valuable profession than banking, make me, in your eyes a complete waste of space? I pity you and your inability to see past the end of your nose.
    It is an economic graph showing the effect of a schooling voucher on income. The graph reveals a voucher system for education does not necessarily reduce inequality. The paragraphs before and after the graph are dedicated to explaining the graph in the most simplistic way I could think of.

    No career choice invalidates an opinion but unfortunately money has dominance in the world. Even for the people who initially think it does not, the film The Pursuit of Happyness reveals it does.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I'll cut past the anecdote as for every one person criticising them there is another praising them. This thread already has an ex-grammar school pupil in praising the school.

    You say grammar schools do not provide a better standard of education. However, reports reveal 95.9% of pupils at selective grammar schools achieve 5 GCSE's grades A* - C including English and Maths. The figure is only 55.5% in comprehensive schools.

    These results can be broken down by prior attainment bands of pupils, those assessed below level 4 at the end of primary school, those at level 4 and those above level 4. If we only look at those above level 4, 98% of these pupils who attended grammar schools achieved 5+ GCSE's including English and maths, whereas 92% did so in comprehensive schools. Even when comparing the intelligent children, grammar schools are pushing them harder getting better results form them.

    Looking at league tables, the very best comprehensive school in Britain would only be the 115th best school in Britain if grammar schools were included in the tables. Considering there are only 164 grammar schools in the country I think this is a splendid achievement. The worst performing grammar school in the country would still be within the top 250 schools when listing out grammar schools and the best state schools. There may some comprehensive schools outperforming grammar schools but they are in the minority.

    Pressuring children into Oxbridge is not a bad thing. Children need to be pushed to reach their maximum potential. Oxbridge to many seems to be this shut off world which doesn't open its doors to anyone who doesn't drive around in an Aston Martin or have a £1m in the bank. This is untrue and it is only by pushing children that they start to realise going to one of the top universities in the world is achievable. Some children may rebel against it much like yourself but the next line would be to find out why they don't have their aspirations set on attending one of the world's best institution. For certain degrees Oxbridge would not be considered but for plenty of degrees it kick-starts a career. If you were intent on not wanting to take specific subjects or be pushed into attending Oxbridge the better choice would have been for you to move schools earlier.

    I happily support schools like Summerhill but not everyone can afford the £12k per year fees. If you are suggesting the state pays the fees for the parents, that is effectively a free school academy.



    It is an economic graph showing the effect of a schooling voucher on income. The graph reveals a voucher system for education does not necessarily reduce inequality. The paragraphs before and after the graph are dedicated to explaining the graph in the most simplistic way I could think of.


    No career choice invalidates an opinion but unfortunately the world revolves around money. Even for the people who initially think it does not and happiness in life comes from something different, the film The Pursuit of Happyness reveals it is.
    I suppose that my definition of the best is totally different to yours. My definition means where the pupils are the happiest. I do not suggest having the state pay fees for private schools. I would abolish private schools altogether. I propose more schools with the same ethos as Summerhill, so that children can learn or the sake of learning and are listened to, so they don't have to resort to petty rebellion and trouble-making before they get any proper, meaningful support.
    The world does not have to be focused on money. To quote one of the most iconic, brilliant and beautiful musicians of all time "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope one day you'll join us and the world can live as one."
    By the way, bullying was rife at Grammar school, yet it was ignored as a problem. At my comprehensive, it is treated very seriously, and as such is far lower.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Aph)
    An exam board for all grammar school tests? If you're gonna do that why not replace SATS at the end of KS2 and replace them with this test and use these results to tell you to go to grammar or non-grammar school:erm:
    Methinks this may be a little too straight forward


    My question to the authors on this is how does this bill fit in to the current system and the various types of schools we have now
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Methinks this may be a little too straight forward

    My question to the authors on this is how does this bill fit in to the current system and the various types of schools we have now
    Apart from having a voucher system I am not knowledgeable about the education system on TSR but the bill is part of UKIP's big education reform which is coming this week. Tyroncs wrote the bill as if the education system was similar to how it is in Britain. Speaking of the voucher system, it continues but current comprehensive schools in TSR will have the opportunity to change.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I looked through this bill and was disappointed to find that all the spelling and grammar appears to be correct.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    this will just increase inequality even more without doing anything to address the real issues in society or education, well done UKIP for a spectacularly dumb middle class piece of legislation.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    As a grammar school ex-pupil I can say I am grateful for the experience, but I really disagree that grammar schools are better for the country as a whole because they will lead to reduced funding to the state system. Grammar schools focus on the 10% and make them excel, but at the expense of everyone in state sector.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Jean-Luc Picard)
    this will just increase inequality even more without doing anything to address the real issues in society or education, well done UKIP for a spectacularly dumb middle class piece of legislation.
    As always, your detailed analysis of our bills is fascinating,thanks for the feedback!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.