Turn on thread page Beta

Grammar schools [why don't labour like them?] watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    Is it fair when someones wins the lottery?
    Is it fair when someone else gets a job?
    Is it fair when someone else gets hit by a car?

    Life is full of unfairness. The 11+ highlights those children with academic potential who are willing to work hard and achieve much.
    The lottery is irrelevant as it is random selection.

    Jobs and cars are slightly different as they require ability/money to obtain them. People shouldn't be given ability/money on an equal basis, however they should all have the equal opportunity to obtain it. Hence selecting the ones who are going to be succesful at age 11 is ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with grammar schools and believe that they are of great benefit to children who otherwise might have rotted in the comprehensive system. With credit to Labour they have not actually got rid of any grammar schools during their time in power, although if I had any say I would expand the system. In fact, I believe the Conservatives were the ones who got rid of most of the grammar schools.
    The solution to the education problem in my opinion is an expansion of a grammar school system but with entrance based on tests, behaviour and teacher reports. I would also give children the chance to transfer to grammar school if they showed the necessary potential at their comprehensive. This gives children who work hard more than one chance to receive a good education. On top of this we can then focus specialist and vocational courses at comprehensives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    I agree with grammar schools and believe that they are of great benefit to children who otherwise might have rotted in the comprehensive system. With credit to Labour they have not actually got rid of any grammar schools during their time in power, although if I had any say I would expand the system. In fact, I believe the Conservatives were the ones who got rid of most of the grammar schools.
    The solution to the education problem in my opinion is an expansion of a grammar school system but with entrance based on tests, behaviour and teacher reports. I would also give children the chance to transfer to grammar school if they showed the necessary potential at their comprehensive. This gives children who work hard more than one chance to receive a good education. On top of this we can then focus specialist and vocational courses at comprehensives.
    I totally agree with that. In repsonse to bellacats "late developers" comment this would solve the issue. Obviously this happens with comp children that do well in gcse's they can go to a grammar to do a levels, so they should be able to change at a younger age.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    The lottery is irrelevant as it is random selection.

    Jobs and cars are slightly different as they require ability/money to obtain them. People shouldn't be given ability/money on an equal basis, however they should all have the equal opportunity to obtain it. Hence selecting the ones who are going to be succesful at age 11 is ridiculous.
    you dont just obtain ability and money.

    the first one is usually natural, and the second is usually earned (and sometimes won on the lottery!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    The lottery is irrelevant as it is random selection.

    Jobs and cars are slightly different as they require ability/money to obtain them. People shouldn't be given ability/money on an equal basis, however they should all have the equal opportunity to obtain it. Hence selecting the ones who are going to be succesful at age 11 is ridiculous.
    If differentiating between students at the age of the 11+ is rediculous, then surely examining students during years 3 and 6 (SAT's) is also pointless?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    If differentiating between students at the age of the 11+ is rediculous, then surely examining students during years 3 and 6 (SAT's) is also pointless?
    Yes, it is pointless. Good SATs results benefit the reputation of the schools more than anyone and put children under unnecessary pressure.

    I'm against reviving the secondary modern/grammar school system; however, I DO accept that the current 'one size fits all' approach does not work. I'd favour a move towards the German system, in which I believe pupils are able to specialise at 14 and go to appropriate schools which fit their needs. Incidentally, 14 appears to be the age at which many pupils in the British system become disaffected and start to show less interest in their work.

    Personally, I think 11 is too young for segregation. Although the argument that bright children benefit from being educated with pupils of a similar ability seems reasonable, the message that they are superior to their secondary modern peers could well make them arrogant and complacent. I went to a comprehensive in which we were streamed, and if you underperformed one year, you were moved down a set. This was enough to keep me motivated.

    The worst thing is having grammar schools in some areas and not all. This is the main reason grammars are now largely composed of middle class pupils. With the advent of league tables (another Tory innovation gone wrong) parents with money are now able to make direct comparisons between schools and move into grammar areas. This has the effect of pushing house prices up and makes a mockery of the idea that grammars are able to benefit bright, working class kids.

    In short, the whole thing's a mess and needs reforming. Not convinced that a return to the old system is the answer though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why all the hate against grammar schools?

    Private schools discriminate against wealth (and therefore, class, to a certian extent). Grammar schools discriminate against intelligence.

    I am definitely definitely against the former (as anyone should), but I can see nothing wrong with grammar schools at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by melbourne)
    Life is full of unfairness. The 11+ highlights those children with academic potential who are willing to work hard and achieve much.
    Which is why I failed my 11+ miserably (a way below average score, I was delighted to read on my rejection letter), went on to a bog standard Comprehensive with its usual problems and performed the best in my year, probably at least on par with those who went to the Grammar school. I think 11 is too young to decide potential since students can still be developing at dramatically different rates. I don't know what happened with me; I think it was perhaps a combination of having not developed sufficiently by this point, as well as I know for a fact most people were tutored for the exam. I had no idea what it was about until I sat it.

    Anyway, on with my views. I'm of the opinon that Grammars would serve no useful purpose if Comprehensives worked properly, which they currently don't. Internal streaming is acceptable (this didn't even happen in my school), but to me segregating abilities into different schools is going too far. The old system of Secondary Moderns and Grammars didn't work because the Grammar school kids would do well, while everyone else failed and sunk into academic apathy. In areas where Grammar schools still operate (there isn't one in my borough) I think they need to be phased out and the money put into Comprehensives to make them better places to study. You may feel elitist at your Grammar school and think that not everyone deserves a better education, but to me the least able ought to be getting the most money. We are an economy, and we need to try and get the most out of people in order to thrive as a country. More able people are more likely to be self-sufficient, and though they still require attention and resources, certainly not on the same level as lower abilities.
    Offline

    13
    This subject has been 'done to death' on TSR - there is nothing new to say - it's all been said before, and no consensus will ever be reached as we tend to be entrenched in our own opinion. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It is important to note that most grammar schools allow entry for students at every year level, subject to fulfillment of academic criteria, of course this isn't usual, but there were many pupils in my year who had transfered from other schools at various points. It is not the closed shop people would have us believe.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Labour hates the grammars because they have a huge chip on the shoulder regarding percieved 'class' and for them they represent the class system -which is total rubbish. Anyway long story short Labour do everything they can to get rid of the Grammars and so condemn thousands of poor kids from poor areas to a non-education at the failing comprehensives. Nobody quite does social equality/opening up of opportunities like the labour party :rolleyes: .
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yelwalkietalkie)
    Anyway, on with my views. I'm of the opinon that Grammars would serve no useful purpose if Comprehensives worked properly, which they currently don't.
    How can they, when they are fundamentally flawed?

    In areas where Grammar schools still operate (there isn't one in my borough) I think they need to be phased out and the money put into Comprehensives to make them better places to study. You may feel elitist at your Grammar school and think that not everyone deserves a better education, but to me the least able ought to be getting the most money. We are an economy, and we need to try and get the most out of people in order to thrive as a country. More able people are more likely to be self-sufficient, and though they still require attention and resources, certainly not on the same level as lower abilities.
    What you are actually suggesting is that the more intelligent you are, the less resources should be provided for your education. So we move onto a stage where educational mediocrity is the target. Those that are less able are given more educational resources to make them move up to mediocrity and those that are more able are denied educational resources to drag them down to mediocrity. Removing resources from our brightest children (upon whom the future of this country really rests) is just going to stunt our nation. I think that resources should be distributed equally amongst all levels of education to allow all people to realise their potential. The comprehensive system is flawed because it wishes everyone to reach a certain standard - effectively denying the presence of difference in intellectual ability amongst individuals - what we should be aiming for is a system which allows all individuals to realise their potential and shape their destiny.

    There is certainly no evidence to suggest that more intelligent children require less teaching resources in order to fulfill their potential and to deny any children the ability to reach their potential is a sad thing. The problem is that academic ability has become mixed up with the class system - grammar schools are seen as part of the old order (although many, like my old school, were actually set up to give poor children a good education and cross the class boundary) and are to be done away with by progressive socialists. The underlying flaw in this is that intellectual ability is no respector of class boundaries.

    No one child is more deserving of a good and relevant education than another in this country and educationalists would do well to remember this.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Labour hates the grammars because they have a huge chip on the shoulder regarding percieved 'class' and for them they represent the class system -which is total rubbish. Anyway long story short Labour do everything they can to get rid of the Grammars and so condemn thousands of poor kids from poor areas to a non-education at the failing comprehensives. Nobody quite does social equality/opening up of opportunities like the labour party :rolleyes: .
    Have you had a look at Labour policies on education?

    It is a pity they have not done more to rid this country of an iniquitous selective system of education that does little to provide the same to the poor - have a look at the percentage of children from poor families (linked to free-school meal provision)who go to grammar schools in comparison to those who go to non-selective schools. To say that state selective schools give a 'leg-up' to those bright children from deprived backgrounds is one of the biggest myths propogated by pro-selection supporters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think what universities recoginise (and this is how my mind works as well) if you got 2 pupils with the same grades, one went to a Grammar` while the other went to a normal comprehensive i might be inclined to take the person from the Comprehensive because it is much harder to achieve higher grades there. Teachers aren't usually as good and the pupils are less enthusiastic to study- This is just what i've picked up on from experiencing both a Grammar school and a Comprehensive.

    I think that in some ways Grammar schools are a good idea as it enables students from poorer backgrounds to achieve a better education etc. But i think in other ways it creates inequality within society at an early age which i don't like.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The bottom line is that no matter which school you go to, you only get what you put in.

    I went to a middle of the range Comprehensive and a middle of the range FE College. I got 3 A's a A Level.

    My beliefs are moulded by my own experiences. Kids from any background CAN do well no matter which school they attend.

    This view my appear simplistic - but sometimes things in life have a habit of being overcomplicated!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Have you had a look at Labour policies on education?

    It is a pity they have not done more to rid this country of an iniquitous selective system of education that does little to provide the same to the poor - have a look at the percentage of children from poor families (linked to free-school meal provision)who go to grammar schools in comparison to those who go to non-selective schools. To say that state selective schools give a 'leg-up' to those bright children from deprived backgrounds is one of the biggest myths propogated by pro-selection supporters.
    I can only speak for my school, which had an open and competitive examintion with preference give to boys who lived within a local catchment area. There was a wide range of kids from all backgrounds, however one must realise that the government has shifted the 'class' boundaries to suit it's own ends, to be considered poor or 'working class' is now really a very low income threshold. I am the son of a factory worker and an NHS employee (support staff), quitessentially working class - however the manufacturing industry pays good wages now so I am not classed as such by the government.

    Of course just classifying kids as poor based on whether they received free meals or not doesn't tell the whole story does it? Different LEAs have different requirements, in Lancashire threshold incomes for such things are very low and many people on quite low incomes are not eligible for such benefits.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Have you had a look at Labour policies on education?
    Depressingly yes.
    It is a pity they have not done more to rid this country of an iniquitous selective system of education that does little to provide the same to the poor - have a look at the percentage of children from poor families (linked to free-school meal provision)who go to grammar schools in comparison to those who go to non-selective schools.
    Well of course thats the case when weve had decades of shutting down/discouraging Grammars to the point where most people have no option but to go to the comp. I remember this point being debated on this week last year in a manner which basically summed up what a joke this issue is and how deluded the labour types are with regard to it. You had some woman or other who was on moaning and complaining about the grammars and going on about how forcing the bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to hellhole sink schools would solve all the worlds problems (or words to that effect) and she was utterly contradicted by the other three on the show - Andrew Neil, Diane Abbot and Micheal Portillo all of whom come from backgrounds which are far from advantaged and who were, through the grammar schools, able to access the elite universities. As Neil said he finds that nowadays, as an employer, he finds that you get a far greater proportion of private school kids in jobs quite simply because the best state schools (grammars) have been done away with. This labour belief that enforced mediocrity will somehow be of benefit/produce equality or better opportunities for the disadvantaged is one of the most tragic bits of nonsense to have influenced government policy and tens of thousands of kids over the last decades have suffered for it.
    To say that state selective schools give a 'leg-up' to those bright children from deprived backgrounds is one of the biggest myths propogated by pro-selection supporters.
    What nonsense. How on earth can it not be a 'leg-up' to go to a decent school rather than be condemned to whatever decrepit institution you happen to have the misfortune to leave near? Grammar schools provided good education regardless of personal background/social status whereas Labour ensures that it is as hard as possible to make your way up the social ladder/escape from whatever situation you were born into.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cellardore)
    I think that in some ways Grammar schools are a good idea as it enables students from poorer backgrounds to achieve a better education etc. But i think in other ways it creates inequality within society at an early age which i don't like.
    How does it create equality within society when what it does is provide opportunities for a good education to people regardless of their social background?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clogdor)
    3. "The people in the comprehensive system are less motivated". This is probably true and is a difficult situation, but it's surely better to make sure the brightest kids don't lose their motivation by sending them to grammar schools than sticking them in with the chavs as well and making sure no-one gets a decent education?
    Labour are doing (or, at least, purporting to do) what needed to be done decades ago. Good grief: do you even know how broad a brush you're tarring with?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Depressingly yes.

    Well of course thats the case when weve had decades of shutting down/discouraging Grammars to the point where most people have no option but to go to the comp. I remember this point being debated on this week last year in a manner which basically summed up what a joke this issue is and how deluded the labour types are with regard to it. You had some woman or other who was on moaning and complaining about the grammars and going on about how forcing the bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to hellhole sink schools would solve all the worlds problems (or words to that effect) and she was utterly contradicted by the other three on the show - Andrew Neil, Diane Abbot and Micheal Portillo all of whom come from backgrounds which are far from advantaged and who were, through the grammar schools, able to access the elite universities. As Neil said he finds that nowadays, as an employer, he finds that you get a far greater proportion of private school kids in jobs quite simply because the best state schools (grammars) have been done away with. This labour belief that enforced mediocrity will somehow be of benefit/produce equality or better opportunities for the disadvantaged is one of the most tragic bits of nonsense to have influenced government policy and tens of thousands of kids over the last decades have suffered for it.

    What nonsense. How on earth can it not be a 'leg-up' to go to a decent school rather than be condemned to whatever decrepit institution you happen to have the misfortune to leave near? Grammar schools provided good education regardless of personal background/social status whereas Labour ensures that it is as hard as possible to make your way up the social ladder/escape from whatever situation you were born into.
    :ditto: I had drafted a long reply too, but I lost it. Basing whether kids are poor or not on free meals is a bit flawed too. Some anecdotal examples are a kid in my year who's father was a mining engineer who worked in brazil, the family income was large, however it couldn't be counted as income in this country - free meals. A kid with two parents who both work as shop assistants at the local asda - no free meals. You tell me which family are poorer.
 
 
 
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: September 21, 2005
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.