Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    I believe this because grammar schools have more funding and so have better teachers and resources. This, therefore, enables students to achieve higher, and so should have higher uni offer grades. Whereas a state comp student has (generally) had poor teaching and zero learning resources, and so potential isn't fulfilled.

    Anyone here agree/disagree?
    I agree - if somehow you could proove that the Grammar School kid has had a better education (which really isn't always the case). Also, there are other issues which effect the way how people perform in exams such as, they may have been bullied whilst being a grammar school or had lost a relative - if your going to take quality of teaching into account you should take other things too. Which you can not really proove.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think Grammar schools should be abolished and replaced with comps with full streaming.

    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I agree - if somehow you could proove that the Grammar School kid has had a better education (which really isn't always the case). Also, there are other issues which effect the way how people perform in exams such as, they may have been bullied whilst being a grammar school or had lost a relative - if your going to take quality of teaching into account you should take other things too. Which you can not really proove.
    I agree with you here. But lets look at a crude generalisation. Grammar schools have more funding, and so a lower student/teacher ratio. It is a well known fact that the more teachers there are in a school, the less frequent bullying and other distruptions (like guns and drugs in school etc.) occur. Therefore, grammar school puils have less distruptions (generally), and so this argument, opposing the original one, is invalidated.

    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    I think Grammar schools should be abolished and replaced with comps with full streaming.
    I agree. I do believe, however, that distruptive pupils should be 'streamed' out of comps and into schools with high discipline. I know this is gonna sound very toryboy (which I am totally not), but distruptive pupils do NOTHING for school life and can ruin the lives of many students through bullying etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    but u cant just 'stream' these people out of schools like u r saying!!

    (Original post by donnaxx)
    but u cant just 'stream' these people out of schools like u r saying!!
    why not? i cannot see the point in keeping such people in schools to jeopardise the education of other pupils who *want* to learn. chuck em out, let them learn from their mistakes and build/improve further education colleges for when they are mature enough to realise that a good education/qualifications are useful to get ahead in life.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    I believe this because grammar schools have more funding and so have better teachers and resources. This, therefore, enables students to achieve higher, and so should have higher uni offer grades. Whereas a state comp student has (generally) had poor teaching and zero learning resources, and so potential isn't fulfilled.

    Anyone here agree/disagree?
    Under a Labour government grammar schools have less funding.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    why not? i cannot see the point in keeping such people in schools to jeopardise the education of other pupils who *want* to learn. chuck em out, let them learn from their mistakes and build/improve further education colleges for when they are mature enough to realise that a good education/qualifications are useful to get ahead in life.
    You cannot have a syatem like that. Ofthen it is not the child's fault, it is problems at home.

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Under a Labour government grammar schools have less funding.
    So they should, It would make it fairer!

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    You cannot have a syatem like that. Ofthen it is not the child's fault, it is problems at home.
    But it still means there are kids getting bullied at school. As long as these problems 'at home' arent sorted out, they are still going to intefere with kids who want to learn.

    Maybe distruptive pupils should be streamed (much like special needs kids are now) into speicalist schools that offer more support and guidance with learning, as well as home and personal problems. For the vast majority, comprehensives are ok. But for those distruptive minority, they need extra support that isnt available in normal schools.

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Under a Labour government grammar schools have less funding.
    Where have you plucked that 'fact' from? Grammar schools have more money because 6th forms have higher formula funding and as grammars all have 6th forms they have more money in their budgets. Now that's a fact.

    Hey
    I'm in year 13 and have been at a grammar since year seven. I achieved good GCSE's i.e A's and A*'s. I have always enjoyed my time at the school and like the atmosphere but I think I would have got the same results at a comp. I think grammars should exist but they do have some of the same probs as comps. For example my school still streams us by ability but it helps that the variation in each stream is less than at a comp.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnregisteredP)
    Where have you plucked that 'fact' from? Grammar schools have more money because 6th forms have higher formula funding and as grammars all have 6th forms they have more money in their budgets. Now that's a fact.
    My school's sixth form has 583 pupils. Just over 200 of those went to the grammar main school. So the money the grammar recieves for the sixth form benefits those who have had comprehensive educations as well.

    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Hey
    I'm in year 13 and have been at a grammar since year seven. I achieved good GCSE's i.e A's and A*'s. I have always enjoyed my time at the school and like the atmosphere but I think I would have got the same results at a comp. I think grammars should exist but they do have some of the same probs as comps. For example my school still streams us by ability but it helps that the variation in each stream is less than at a comp.
    Trust me, you would have not achieved the same grades!

    Ok I take your point. But I think that I am quite intelligent and having grammars is surely preferable to only allowing the rich to go to a school where they will be pushed academically. I'm from a working class family and private school was out of the question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Trust me, you would have not achieved the same grades!
    Why not? Are you at a comp?

    (Original post by Unregistered)
    Ok I take your point. But I think that I am quite intelligent and having grammars is surely preferable to only allowing the rich to go to a school where they will be pushed academically. I'm from a working class family and private school was out of the question.
    But if private schools were abolished too... ? :cool:
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.