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

Grammar schools to return Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Grammar schools set to return: is that good or bad?
    Good
    704
    53.66%
    Bad
    608
    46.34%

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    The council will. And the policy again clearly states that they will be considering where they place these grammar schools. It won't be random. You are missing the point again.



    I am gonna stop talking to you.

    You have not explained why you don't want grammars to be unbanned. It will help the poor who are smart enough and it will free up class space in comprehensive schools. Creating schools already cost millions. In fact, with the current academy system executives are paid a lot of money, so many schools are not properly funded. We got more important issues than a few grammar schools costing money...
    Of course you will I make you look thick.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Saying grammar schools won't cost much is delusional.

    It doesn't matter whether it would convert or a new school would be built. Teachers would expect higher salaries, the resources and facilities would be at a higher standard than comprehensives and the admin of such a school is much larger than a comp.

    I would like to point out that I'm not actually against any expansion, it just would cost a lot.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You are assuming grammars have no catchment area when of course they would have to. All schools unless they are private would need to limit where their students come from.
    Well that's wrong the local girls grammar my sister goes to has students travel by bus from 2hoirs away.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Of course you will I make you look thick.

    Says the one who doesn't know what a tier education system is. Carry your ignorance elsewhere.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Saying grammar schools won't cost much is delusional.
    Any school created cost money. No one is saying it will cost £0.

    It doesn't matter whether it would convert or a new school would be built. Teachers would expect higher salaries, the resources and facilities would be at a higher standard than comprehensives and the admin of such a school is much larger than a comp.
    This is wrong. You are the deluded one.

    Firstly teachers actually get paid more at special measure schools than grammar schools. And not only that, they get more funding.

    There is obviously standards across the country. Grammar schools facilities aren't exactly first class. There's a grammar school I know that hasn't had their facilities updated for decades.

    Stop indoctrinating people with these lies. What you are saying is not true. It costs more to fund a school in special measures than a grammar school. A grammar schools costs the same as an average school/academy.

    I would like to point out that I'm not actually against any expansion, it just would cost a lot.
    "It would cost a lot" - you know what costs a lot? Special measure schools, why don't we just close them down? Because apparently it's only grammar schools that "cost a lot".
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niteninja1)
    Well that's wrong the local girls grammar my sister goes to has students travel by bus from 2hoirs away.

    What you are basing your argument on is Kent where there is a lot of demand for grammars from people outside Kent but in the proposed introduction of new grammars, they will only be for local people and it would be up to them to decide if they want one. I doubt most people would agree to have a grammar only for a load of people from outside getting in at their expense.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Says the one who doesn't know what a tier education system is. Carry your ignorance elsewhere.
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Says the one who doesn't know what a tier education system is. Carry your ignorance elsewhere.
    I was right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    What you are basing your argument on is Kent where there is a lot of demand for grammars from people outside Kent but in the proposed introduction of new grammars, they will only be for local people and it would be up to them to decide if they want one. I doubt most people would agree to have a grammar only for a load of people from outside getting in at their expense.
    Have you any evidence for this, because this would be a more momentous change than allowing grammar schools and would overturn 30 years of policy that parents can choose any school, for their child?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Saying grammar schools won't cost much is delusional.

    It doesn't matter whether it would convert or a new school would be built. Teachers would expect higher salaries, the resources and facilities would be at a higher standard than comprehensives and the admin of such a school is much larger than a comp.

    I would like to point out that I'm not actually against any expansion, it just would cost a lot.
    I'd have thought teachers would find it easier to teach in grammar schools so i'm not sure why they'd demand higher salaries unless your asserting that grammar schools attract more talented teachers and those from the private sector (in which case the implication is that grammar schools work).

    Would there be additional admin outside of the application period?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, talking down to people who are older than you doesn't bode well. But back to the actual content...

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Any school created cost money. No one is saying it will cost £0.
    You're implying they will cost no more which isn't true.

    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    This is wrong. You are the deluded one.

    Firstly teachers actually get paid more at special measure schools than grammar schools. And not only that, they get more funding. There is obviously standards across the country. Grammar schools facilities aren't exactly first class. There's a grammar school I know that hasn't had their facilities updated for decades. Stop indoctrinating people with these lies. What you are saying is not true. It costs more to fund a school in special measures than a grammar school. A grammar schools costs the same as an average school/academy.
    Why are your bringing special measure schools into the equation? They're in a completely different circumstance to both grammar and normal comprehensives. Teachers who are teaching at a higher standard will obviously want higher than average pay and attracting the best teachers to schools is quite difficult for numerous reasons. The number of students per teacher at a grammar school is also lower.

    Also note that I said resources as well. Most grammar schools are able to offer a lot both in and out of lessons.

    ////
    I think you need to pipe down a bit because you're coming across as quite toxic, even to people who have said yes to more grammars (including me). Pretty much everyone in government, including Theresa May, wanting the expansion of them realise there are numerous flaws that need to be addressed. Hence why those on the news are saying it's unlikely the expansion will begin anytime soon. Also let's remember how divisive the issue is within the Tory party. Full expansion won't be approved until May's majority is comfortable enough to pass such as bill. This time the Tories can't rely on a weak opposition, because the opposition is pretty much united in opposing grammar schools (except maybe the DUP and one or two Labour MPs).
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Firstly, talking down to people who are older than you doesn't bode well. But back to the actual content...
    And your point is? This is a discussion, your age has no significance in this.

    You're implying they will cost no more which isn't true.
    No... I am saying they will cost but probably not a lot because it won't be large scale grammar schools left and right, one every half a mile kind of thing. Anyone who thinks that is clearly exaggerating. This policy will help meet demand for it in cities where it is needed the most so we won't see it on every corner of the country.

    Why are your bringing special measure schools into the equation?They're in a completely different circumstance to both grammar and normal comprehensives.
    What do you mean why am I bringing it in? Because they cost the most and you are clearly telling a blatant lie that grammar schools cost the most.
    Also note that I said resources as well. Most grammar schools are able to offer a lot both in and out of lessons.
    Most comprehensives are able to offer support in and out of lessons to... you have easter lessons, you have intervention, this doesn't just happen in grammar schools.

    Teachers who are teaching at a higher standard will obviously want higher than average pay and attracting the best teachers to schools is quite difficult for numerous reasons. The number of students per teacher at a grammar school is also lower.
    Everything about this part of your post is wrong.

    Yeah they might want more than average pay but they aren't getting it. You clearly don't know how it works.

    Teachers who teach at schools in special measures get paid more because it is more challenging than a rated "good" or "outstanding" grammar school. Special measures schools also have "super-heads" who are paid more than normal standard headteachers, even at a grammar school. Grammar school teachers are paid the around same as a normal average comprehensive school teacher.

    Your last point is wrong, students per teacher is the same as a normal comprehensive, depending on the subject it can vary. Normally core subjects like Maths, Sciences and English is the same but then other subjects such as History the class sizes are smaller, but that's the same in comprehensive schools.

    ////
    I think you need to pipe down a bit because you're coming across as quite toxic, even to people who have said yes to more grammars (including me). Pretty much everyone in government, including Theresa May, wanting the expansion of them realise there are numerous flaws that need to be addressed. Hence why those on the news are saying it's unlikely the expansion will begin anytime soon. Also let's remember how divisive the issue is within the Tory party. Full expansion won't be approved until May's majority is comfortable enough to pass such as bill. This time the Tories can't rely on a weak opposition, because the opposition is pretty much united in opposing grammar schools (except maybe the DUP and one or two Labour MPs).
    I know you support grammar schools but what you are saying is a lie about teachers being paid more and grammar schools costing more than normal average comp schools. I've seen other people on this thread blatantly tell lies to other people about grammar schools and it angers me because I know they are telling lies.

    What you said at the start of the post about respecting people older (or something along that line) than me, I really don't care. Because when it comes to discussing issues like this my age and your age is insignificant in this.

    There are flaws I admit such as, councils might reject them but I don't really see anything else. Pretty much people I have spoken to that have opposed it have failed to explain why they don't want poor smart kids to go to a school surrounded by many kids like them. I don't see why you would stop that just because "if some benefit, no one shall benefit".

    That's why I am worried, I don't think it's very divisive as the EU referendum because I heard somewhere that the backbenchers support lifting the ban. But Labour are seeking to block it and the House of Lords might also block it so they do need a strong case for this. There are still problems to be answered such as the teacher shortage we have and academy executives being paid god knows how much...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Have you any evidence for this, because this would be a more momentous change than allowing grammar schools and would overturn 30 years of policy that parents can choose any school, for their child?
    Remembering my time at comp, comprehensives already are only allowed to accept out of catchment individuals if they have spare spaces. If they're full they're full. Grammar schools currently often don't have catchment restrictions, if you simply add the same restrictions there is no real issue.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    2 reasons why they are not a good thing:

    1. Because most people who attend them are middle class anyway (not necessarily rich or privileged, but not under-privileged either), and the kinds of people who, even at a comprehensive, could manage to achieve good grades and get into university. The numbers of working class people who the schools actually benefit are comparatively small. This is because middle class families give more support to children through general academic help with homework etc. and through paying for tuition.

    2. Because they ignore the issues with comprehensive schools which need to be addressed and improved. Instead of rolling out more grammar schools the government should be focusing on improving education for everyone. People who are not 'smart' still deserve an excellent education, in fact, they probably need it more, because they are probably the ones who do not receive support at home. Comprehensive education isn't as good as it should be and creating more grammar schools won't improve that, but could exacerbate it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Having gone to one, I think it's a good thing that the most talented get a better chance to fulfil themselves, even if not all succeed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    If they can get it through Parliament.
    I've always had left-leaning political views and was irritated by the existence of the unelected House. Now, I'm beginning to be thankful for some of their decisions. I hope this doesn't pass, the education system needs greater investment in pre-schooling and SureStart.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Please explain to me how you afford to travel from Fulham to Croydon if your parents are on Jobseekers' Allowance?

    How does a 10 year old whose parents do not care a bowel movement about education apply to go to your school?
    I think this a somewhat false argument. I agree that we should judge the introduction of the grammar school system on the basis of its capacity to drive meritocracy/class mobility. However, you are measuring the egalitarian potential of grammar schools against the most stringent criteria you can think up.

    Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask whether they provide greater meritocracy/class mobility than the current system i.e. comprehensive schooling based on catchment areas.

    The current system is not meritocratic or perfectly fair either. What's more, no system will be. There is no panacea.

    If even 10% of grammar school attendees are from low socio-economic backgrounds (something that you could legislate for) it will give a good number of working-class kids a really good chance at social advancement. I would imagine grammar schooling would bring up the average standard of state education also.

    Btw - I am quite surprised at the poll figures here - I would have thought a majority would have opposed grammar schools! Reading the press one gets the sense of significant national opposition. (Perhaps TSR is right-wing these days?)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Students who are academically gifted should have the opportunity to fulfill their potential and this can not always be offered by comprehensive schools which do not have the resources, nor the set-up to help students achieve this. Not only will these students benefit, but so will not so gifted students, because these students will be able to go to a school where no one is so far above their level that the teacher has to distract time, resources and attention away to provide extension exercises for the more intelligent students.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 10001)
    Students who are academically gifted should have the opportunity to fulfill their potential and this can not always be offered by comprehensive schools which do not have the resources, nor the set-up to help students achieve this. Not only will these students benefit, but so will not so gifted students, because these students will be able to go to a school where no one is so far above their level that the teacher has to distract time, resources and attention away to provide extension exercises for the more intelligent students.
    I didn't go to a grammar school - I went to a regular secondary school. Throughout the 5 years from year 7 to year 11, we were regularly tested in each subject and put into sets according to our ability, allowing people to be taught by teachers tailored to that level and so we could get the best out of our education. I got 3 A's and B's in the rest. The pass rate was excellent at GCSE across all levels. Obviously there were those that failed but that happens everywhere, including grammar schools. I think the secondary school system is working fine if they all operate the same way mine did, and I know the majority do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    2 reasons why they are not a good thing:

    1. Because most people who attend them are middle class anyway (not necessarily rich or privileged, but not under-privileged either), and the kinds of people who, even at a comprehensive, could manage to achieve good grades and get into university. The numbers of working class people who the schools actually benefit are comparatively small. This is because middle class families give more support to children through general academic help with homework etc. and through paying for tuition.

    2. Because they ignore the issues with comprehensive schools which need to be addressed and improved. Instead of rolling out more grammar schools the government should be focusing on improving education for everyone. People who are not 'smart' still deserve an excellent education, in fact, they probably need it more, because they are probably the ones who do not receive support at home. Comprehensive education isn't as good as it should be and creating more grammar schools won't improve that, but could exacerbate it.
    In my experience the poorest students ARE given the best resources at comprehensive schools, in fact schools plough disproportionately high amounts of money into the bottom sets, and into people who do not care, in order to make themselves look better. Why can't people accept that some teachers are relatively better at teaching different types of students than others? That way, if we are able to teach the brightest and slightly more vocational students separately, its win for all.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I'm very ambivalent about grammar schools. I attended a comprehensive school, the first one in the UK, and the quality of education there was horrendous and so from that I would logically believe that a grammar school would have been a far better option for me.

    On the other hand, I did not begin to become interested in my education until I was around 15 or so, and I would have likely failed the 11+ exam in all honesty...

    Attending a comprehensive school gave me the opportunity, albeit a limited one, to blossom and go onto study A-Levels at a different school, something which a secondary modern would have not.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    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
  • 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.