Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    But if there are lots of them (which will happen if the grammars are abolished) then a good attitude should be maintained and possibly would be better than that attitudes of the top students of the comprehensives and maybe a bit worse than the students at the grammars.
    But why should pupils and parents settle for an attitude which is not as good as it could be?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    2. On the contrary, they are streamed, as bigcnee tells us so emphatically, they must gain much attention.
    I doubt you've ever set foot in a class full of intelligent/not bothered students. The teacher spends too much time trying to calm them all down and the boy that sits quietly at the front desperate to do well gets not attention. Not that I'm one of these, but I'm aware of what these classes are like.

    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    5. Would you be so kind as to explain this point more fully? I'm not sure I understand it.
    You exactly know what I mean. I've already posted loads on this subject.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    But why should pupils and parents settle for an attitude which is not as good as it could be?
    Well then these parents should get in the real world and realise children often like to take a few drags, forget to do their homework and they may then see the world isn't so great after all. If they don't like it then they should send them to an independant school, which they too should be closed down.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I doubt you've ever set foot in a class full of intelligent/not bothered students. The teacher spends too much time trying to calm them all down and the boy that sits quietly at the front desperate to do well gets not attention. Not that I'm one of these, but I'm aware of what these classes are like.
    Sorry, are you saying streaming doesn't work?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    I think the most important difference between the two is the work ethos, the kids i know at grammer schools (as well as being smart) know that htye have to work hard to keep their place and meet the expectations, whereas at Comprehensives, kids do not feel so pressured. If you get rid of grammers, some of the intelligent kids who would have been at them will drop out and folow the general trend at their comp.
    Presumption - not fact therefore inadmissable!
    The 'best' teachers - what does that mean? If you say those who have a genuine vocation and really want to inculcate their love of subject within their student base and also to give all students the experience of their knowledge then I would say these teachers want to teach all ability groups.
    'Students do not feel pressured at comprehensives' - again inadmissable due to not being true!
    What is the 'general trend' at a comp? Don't fall for all the pro-selection propaganda - this is anecdotal and not scientifically proven as the great majority of all ability schools are extremely effective.
    BH - the Guardian give varying opinions to the one you have been exposed to - be intelligent and seek out both sides instead of narrowing your knowledge base. There are posters on the forum I have described who are pro-selection (albeit very few) so see how they try to argue keeping the status quo.
    The Select Committee led by Mike Tomlinson will be reporting shortly on the effects of selection on the education of all students. That will make for interesting reading whichever way it goes. But it won't stop the argument!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Well then these parents should get in the real world and realise children often like to take a few drags, forget to do their homework and they may then see the world isn't so great after all. If they don't like it then they should send them to an independant school, which they too should be closed down.
    What a ludicrous statement, you would be happy to have a state system which is inferior to the independant system massively, and then telling parents if they don't like it leave the state system?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Sorry, are you saying streaming doesn't work?
    I don't know! You keep asking me questions leading to me writing what goes against me Streaming does work espesically in Comprehensives where those that work can climb up the sets, rather than those that work very hard but would not be able to go to a grammar because they cannot get in.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I don't know! You keep asking me questions leading to me writing what goes against me Streaming does work espesically in Comprehensives where those that work can climb up the sets, rather than those that work very hard but would not be able to go to a grammar because they cannot get in.
    Your post suggests streaming does not work. If it does not work now, how will it work if everyone goes to a comprehensive?

    I am not trying to trap you, just attempting to clarify your view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some of the stuff I have read is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, I'd like to say that not all grammar schools charge fees but I think that geographically non fee paying one are concentrated in some areas.

    Why should someone who is gifted and wants to work hard and really excel themselves not go to a grammar school. I know that I would never have achieved anything as close to what I've achieved if I didn't go to a grammar because I never really pushed myself until I joined a grammar school.

    I think anyone who is anti-grammar should consider that rich people aren't the only ones who go to grammar schools. There must be loads of people like me who have come from a working class background managed to get to grammar school and have done really well for themselves.

    Rather than being anti-grammar the government should be so pro-grammar schools that they create more non-fee paying grammar schools. So smart kids who can't afford fees can benefit from a grammar school education across the UK. Surely, giving smart kids who can't afford the fee the opportunity would be a much fairer system than denying everyone that opportunity. There should be a push to open up grammar schools people who can't afford them (that doesn't mean not being selective!!).

    Would the government deny disabled children the opportunity to get a education suited to their needs, NOT IN A MILLIONS YEARS. So why prevent children with greater ability get a suitable education.

    If the government followed this approach we would all see the social benefit of grammar schools ie more achievement career/social from children from a poorer background and less people falling in the rut of having no hope at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Presumption - not fact therefore inadmissable!
    The 'best' teachers - what does that mean? If you say those who have a genuine vocation and really want to inculcate their love of subject within their student base and also to give all students the experience of their knowledge then I would say these teachers want to teach all ability groups.
    'Students do not feel pressured at comprehensives' - again inadmissable due to not being true!
    What is the 'general trend' at a comp? Don't fall for all the pro-selection propaganda - this is anecdotal and not scientifically proven as the great majority of all ability schools are extremely effective.
    Why is it inadmissible then, students feel less pressured at comps, lookin at my friends, those that go to comps are far more likely to come boozin the night before an exam, bunk lessons and if the stories are anything to go by, act more disruptively. Some comps are good and have taken on several of the characteristics of grammers (mainly in areas where grammers no longer exist). How can you scientifically prove anything about education, statistics are worth nothing at all as most of them depend on the phraseology used and the manner in which they were gathered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I am not trying to trap you, just attempting to clarify your view.
    Right. Hopefully this will be clear

    By getting rid of grammars it will help those who are top/top-middle in the comprehensives rather than those who are basically, thick where in most cases there are little hope. I think the perfect idea would to be have like a grammar sets intergrated in comprehensive schools, yes that's now my viewpoint. If all comprehensives did this then it would give the chance of good education to a lot more people as often there are 11 comprehensives to 1 grammar schools.

    I admit, I do change my mind and contradict myself often. But I'll just blame that on what I'm taught to do, it often says that on the GCSE English + English Literature mark schemes.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Right. Hopefully this will be clear

    By getting rid of grammars it will help those who are top/top-middle in the comprehensives rather than those who are basically, thick where in most cases there are little hope. I think the perfect idea would to be have like a grammar sets intergrated in comprehensive schools, yes that's now my viewpoint. If all comprehensives did this then it would give the chance of good education to a lot more people as often there are 11 comprehensives to 1 grammar schools.

    I admit, I do change my mind and contradict myself often. But I'll just blame that on what I'm taught to do, it often says that on the GCSE English + English Literature mark schemes.
    Why would you want to have grammar sets intergrated into comps, what would be the point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    Why should someone who is gifted and wants to work hard and really excel themselves not go to a grammar school. I know that I would never have achieved anything as close to what I've achieved if I didn't go to a grammar because I never really pushed myself until I joined a grammar school.
    Sometimes it is not possible for a 'gifted' student to go to a grammar school so they have to attend their comprehensive schools. Reasons include: there are often not enough places despite passing the 11+, the school is too far away, the parents aren't able to afford travel costs and the parents are not informed about grammar schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Why would you want to have grammar sets intergrated into comps, what would be the point?
    Top sets as such, but these will all be in say two/three forms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    Some of the stuff I have read is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, I'd like to say that not all grammar schools charge fees but I think that geographically non fee paying one are concentrated in some areas.

    Why should someone who is gifted and wants to work hard and really excel themselves not go to a grammar school. I know that I would never have achieved anything as close to what I've achieved if I didn't go to a grammar because I never really pushed myself until I joined a grammar school.

    I think anyone who is anti-grammar should consider that rich people aren't the only ones who go to grammar schools. There must be loads of people like me who have come from a working class background managed to get to grammar school and have done really well for themselves.

    Rather than being anti-grammar the government should be so pro-grammar schools that they create more non-fee paying grammar schools. So smart kids who can't afford fees can benefit from a grammar school education across the UK. Surely, giving smart kids who can't afford the fee the opportunity would be a much fairer system than denying everyone that opportunity. There should be a push to open up grammar schools people who can't afford them (that doesn't mean not being selective!!).

    Would the government deny disabled children the opportunity to get a education suited to their needs, NOT IN A MILLIONS YEARS. So why prevent children with greater ability get a suitable education.

    If the government followed this approach we would all see the social benefit of grammar schools ie more achievement career/social from children from a poorer background and less people falling in the rut of having no hope at all.
    You are not from england are you. To clarify it public/private schools are fee paying. Grammer schools are the equivalent of them but they do not charge any fees and are funded by the govt/LEA.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    Some of the stuff I have read is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, I'd like to say that not all grammar schools charge fees but I think that geographically non fee paying one are concentrated in some areas.

    Why should someone who is gifted and wants to work hard and really excel themselves not go to a grammar school. I know that I would never have achieved anything as close to what I've achieved if I didn't go to a grammar because I never really pushed myself until I joined a grammar school.

    I think anyone who is anti-grammar should consider that rich people aren't the only ones who go to grammar schools. There must be loads of people like me who have come from a working class background managed to get to grammar school and have done really well for themselves.

    Rather than being anti-grammar the government should be so pro-grammar schools that they create more non-fee paying grammar schools. So smart kids who can't afford fees can benefit from a grammar school education across the UK. Surely, giving smart kids who can't afford the fee the opportunity would be a much fairer system than denying everyone that opportunity. There should be a push to open up grammar schools people who can't afford them (that doesn't mean not being selective!!).

    Would the government deny disabled children the opportunity to get a education suited to their needs, NOT IN A MILLIONS YEARS. So why prevent children with greater ability get a suitable education.

    If the government followed this approach we would all see the social benefit of grammar schools ie more achievement career/social from children from a poorer background and less people falling in the rut of having no hope at all.
    We live in a society that has the philosophy of 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people' . If that is the case then the greatest number of the brightest children can be educated just as well in an all-ability system where they are streamed according to academic ability. Many children in grammars are not exceptional all-rounders just as they are not necessarily in their comprehensive counterparts.
    It is a fallacy that more children from poor backgrounds could go to grammars as they don't! Free school meals (the basis for judging poverty) entitlement in grammars is very low in comparison to other schools. We have already had the discussion in previous threads of this nature that the product of grammar schools are largely children whose parents have sent them to private prep/independent schools or paid out large sums of money in private tutoring to get them through the 11+. There are very few naturally gifted children who get into grammars just on inherent uncoached ability. This in itself is socially unfair as it is the wealthier parents who can access the benefit of extra tutition.
    At this time our government is anxious to keep on board the wealthier middle-classes and therefore the demise of grammars is not imminent. I do think though that once most schools are specialist the remaining grammars will be phased out.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Sometimes it is not possible for a 'gifted' student to go to a grammar school so they have to attend their comprehensive schools. Reasons include: there are often not enough places despite passing the 11+, the school is too far away, the parents aren't able to afford travel costs and the parents are not informed about grammar schools.
    You don't 'pass' an 11+, you just have to come within a certain quota. If you don't you fail.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    You don't 'pass' an 11+, you just have to come within a certain quota. If you don't you fail.
    Fair enough, I wouldn't know I didn't take it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    There are very few naturally gifted children who get into grammars just on inherent uncoached ability.
    That is completely false and with no evidence. Of course people of good academic ability get into grammars - that is, as you claim, they get such fantastic results despite the fact the comprehensive system is 'better'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    That is completely false and with no evidence. Of course people of good academic ability get into grammars - that is, as you claim, they get such fantastic results despite the fact the comprehensive system is 'better'.
    Does that make sense?
 
 
 
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: December 22, 2003
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.