Turn on thread page Beta

"Pupils shine brightest at grammar schools" watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    Not just mine, 165 others which provide the best education you can have in this country without handing over any money.
    Grammar schools only represent 25% of students and are a major factor of the poor education system of this country.

    I am confident that they will be abolished within 20 years.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Because they attract the best teachers, because they are so. This leads to a terrible stagnation in the education of the other 75% of students.
    So your argument has changed to admitting the best teaching standards are in our 166 grammars?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Grammar schools only represent 25% of students and are a major factor of the poor education system of this country.

    I am confident that they will be abolished within 20 years.
    I would have thought much less than 25%, and unless a government wants to go against public opinion, they will not be abolished. Labour are clearly shy of going down that route.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And another point if they got rid of the Public schools as well as Grammar Schools then the class system may get a little weaker and there may be a smaller divide between the classes. Mix 'em all up!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    So your argument has changed to admitting the best teaching standards are in our 166 grammars?
    I am admitting that highly qualified teachers are attracted to Grammar schools as, due to their selection procedure, only the top 25% (generally) attend them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    I would have thought much less than 25%, and unless a government wants to go against public opinion, they will not be abolished. Labour are clearly shy of going down that route.
    People are generally misinformed, mislead when the issue of Grammar schools is brought up. Pro-GS people just say "look at the league table" which is statistically a gross misrepresentation of how things are.

    Grammar schools are, by definition, the top 25%.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    And another point if they got rid of the Public schools as well as Grammar Schools then the class system may get a little weaker and there may be a smaller divide between the classes. Mix 'em all up!
    my grammar by no means caters onyl for the middle class. Certainly not as public schools do, you don't need to pay to attend my school.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    People are generally misinformed, mislead when the issue of Grammar schools is brought up. Pro-GS people just say "look at the league table" which is statistically a gross misrepresentation of how things are.

    Grammar schools are, by definition, the top 25%.
    whether people are misinformed or not, that is there opinion. It would take a brave government to stand gainst grammars, we see now one of the most dominent governments ever and still they are scared of the issue.

    If there are over 3000 schools, 166 of which are grammars, this is not 25% Is my working wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have been to both a selective and non-selective and have to say that I am encouraged to achieve my potential in the selective, but not in the non-selective. This was because of disruptive pupils in the classes, rubbish teachers and generally bad facilities. This shows the argument is not whether it's fair or not but it comes down to the fundemental problem with education, it doesn't hold some people's attention thus they become disruptive. If you ask me i think there should be a three tiered system:
    1. Post 14 apprentiships
    2. Normal comps where education can go to 18
    3. Selective schools, same system as above
    xxx
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    whether people are misinformed or not, that is there opinion. It would take a brave government to stand gainst grammars, we see now one of the most dominent governments ever and still they are scared of the issue.
    Brave in that many businesses profit from Grammar schools. i.e. book companies who publish exam papers, revision books etc..

    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    If there are over 3000 schools, 166 of which are grammars, this is not 25% Is my working wrong?
    There are many COMPREHENSIVES, fool.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire1985)
    I have been to both a selective and non-selective and have to say that I am encouraged to achieve my potential in the selective, but not in the non-selective. This was because of disruptive pupils in the classes, rubbish teachers and generally bad facilities. This shows the argument is not whether it's fair or not but it comes down to the fundemental problem with education, it doesn't hold some people's attention thus they become disruptive. xxx
    Like I said;

    Grammar schools create strange educational micro-climates, thus your experience is not entirely unexpected.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire1985)
    I have been to both a selective and non-selective and have to say that I am encouraged to achieve my potential in the selective, but not in the non-selective. This was because of disruptive pupils in the classes, rubbish teachers and generally bad facilities. This shows the argument is not whether it's fair or not but it comes down to the fundemental problem with education, it doesn't hold some people's attention thus they become disruptive. If you ask me i think there should be a three tiered system:
    1. Post 14 apprentiships
    2. Normal comps where education can go to 18
    3. Selective schools, same system as above
    xxx
    The govt came under criticism for considering 'basic maths' and 'History & Geography' GCSEs, but I support these. Some people who are not that academically gifted do not need many of the things even a lower tier GCSE course needs, but pupils shouldn't leave school without being able to do basic maths or not knowing where something is in the world or the basics of the world wars. I was quite surprised when I found out that the words 'Hitler' and 'Nazis' are not mentioned in History until the optional GCSE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by claire1985)
    I have been to both a selective and non-selective and have to say that I am encouraged to achieve my potential in the selective, but not in the non-selective. This was because of disruptive pupils in the classes, rubbish teachers and generally bad facilities. This shows the argument is not whether it's fair or not but it comes down to the fundemental problem with education, it doesn't hold some people's attention thus they become disruptive. If you ask me i think there should be a three tiered system:
    1. Post 14 apprentiships
    2. Normal comps where education can go to 18
    3. Selective schools, same system as above
    xxx
    Perhaps the non selective school was crap because the best quality factors were going to the selective school, or maybe the non selective didn't know how to push more able students properly because they didn't get many because they all went to selective schools.

    Also, post 14 apprenticeships? Zuh? I think everybody needs an academic education until at least 16.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)

    There are many COMPREHENSIVES, fool.
    Alright, calm down.

    How can 25% of 11-16 year olds attend 166 schools? Am I missing something?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    Alright, calm down.

    How can 25% of 11-16 year olds attend 166 schools? Am I missing something?
    Yes you are.
    Most of the top 25% of students attend Comprehensive schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Like I said;

    Grammar schools create strange educational micro-climates, thus your experience is not entirely unexpected.
    Micro-climates implies that I am sheltered from the larger world, I am not as I have experienced both and still believe they are a good thing. I did encounter a large volume of this kind of anti-grammar school propaganda when I told my Comp i was leaving for sixth form.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Yes you are.
    Most of the top 25% of students attend Comprehensive schools.
    Yes, so the percentage who attend grammars is lower, something like the top 10%?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hope you all dont mind if I join in the converstion.

    I went to a plain old secondary school and would like to say that I'm doin ok for myself.

    The problem with the schools at the top of the tables is they get so absorbed in them. Nothing else matters. There were schools in my home city that wouldnt enter you for an exam if they thought you were going to fail.

    I agree with earlier comments; they are good if you're acedemic in the first place, but there is no thought for supporting students with, say, a more practical based learning curve.

    ????
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    Yes, so the percentage who attend grammars is lower, something like the top 10%?
    How can you not see it?

    I mean, really....

    Grammar schools admit the top quartile of students in their area. The top quartile in areas where there are no Grammars, attend Comprehensive schools (unless there are competing Grammars and Comps in the same area). This is not hard to understand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemBOOM)
    Hope you all dont mind if I join in the converstion.

    I went to a plain old secondary school and would like to say that I'm doin ok for myself.

    The problem with the schools at the top of the tables is they get so absorbed in them. Nothing else matters. There were schools in my home city that wouldnt enter you for an exam if they thought you were going to fail.

    I agree with earlier comments; they are good if you're acedemic in the first place, but there is no thought for supporting students with, say, a more practical based learning curve.

    ????
    I agree with the last statement, however that is not the fault of grammars, it is the fault of the government.
 
 
 
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
Cats or dogs?
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.