Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I go to a school which is not only non-selective but which doesn't even stream its classes. However, in terms of examination results (both in terms of top marks and passes) its results would put it in top 1% of secondary schools in the U.K. But well yea...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I go to a grammar school and the standard of teaching's great. I'm so lucky to have gone there really. Though still think it's unfair that kids are tested at 11 and then bunged in a school appropriate to their ability at that age - some people develop later, esp boys. Maybe there should be more fluidity in the system?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emzie)
    sorry for making the generalisation. I still think those who earn more shouldnt be taxed more than those who earn less.
    Whyever not?! Taxation should be based on income. I totally agree with the idea that someone earning £40000 a year should pay more than someone scraping by on £8000, in fact, I can't think of anything fairer. And as for increasing the % taxed as income increases, again I think it's a good idea. Unfortunately money doesn't grow on trees so we need to raise to support society, and taxation of the rich is far better than taxation of the poor.

    Go socialism!!!!

    Grammar schools get less money than comprehensives. The government doesn't like them and finds ways to give them less money. However, grammar schools can get around this by becoming specialist schools.

    There is large disparity in ability between pupils in the same sets at grammar schools. Streaming at comprehensives is reletively ineffective and, furthermore, it has exactly the kind of effect that objectors to grammars seem to have a problem with - demoralising less able pupils.

    Grammar schools are necessary to give everyone, regardless of income, the chance of a first rate education. Even the most talented pupil has close to zero chance of being sucessful at a crappy comprehensive (which, unlike grammar schools, are alotted on the basis of postcode*).

    Entry to Oxbridge from state schools fell from 64 per cent in 1978 to 42 per cent by 1985 when the majority of grammar schools had been abolished.

    As for regressive taxation, most recent governments seem to think it's a good idea - they prefer raising VAT and similar taxes to increasing tax on income. Of course, the idea of regressive taxation is absurd, but excessive progressive taxation has a large affect on incentive to work.

    *I am not certain about this, but it is certainly true in my area. Here, grammar school applicants come from all over South London.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    Even the most talented pupil has close to zero chance of being sucessful at a crappy comprehensive (which, unlike grammar schools, are alotted on the basis of postcode*)..
    Not so IMO, my school had a pass rate of 27%, that is, nearly 3/4 of people left without 5 A - Cs, yet a few of us still managed a spate of A*s.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Not so IMO, my school had a pass rate of 27%, that is, nearly 3/4 of people left without 5 A - Cs, yet a few of us still managed a spate of A*s.
    hmmm... that doesn't seem that bad. The average is something like 40%, isn't it? The school I would have to have gone to if I didn't get into a grammar school and couldn't afford a private education has an A-C pass rate of 17%.

    I suppose some people are good enough that they can still do well even if other pupils make it very difficult and there is poor teaching. Mozart didn't need any lessons to compose masterpieces.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here's my random views on this business (I went to a state grammar - Colchester RGS - having passed my 11+):

    - the setup of universities in this country is much more exclusive and hierarchical than grammar/comprehensive. Once installed in your uni you are given its own examinations, making comparison with other ppls' performance at other places difficult. Centralised exams? Forget it. It amuses me that ppl find the 11+ more 'unfair' than the university system given the unquestioned clamour to get into Oxbridge so evident in this forum. Why not institute comparably difficult courses in the top 30 unis and bring in an examining system that would allow a straight country-wide ranking of students, irrespective of institution? Bright kids ill-done by their failing comp end up in a lower-tier of universities and subsequently can never show the same levels of attainment as those at more respected unis, even if they have the ability and put in the effort!

    - at my old school, you could join (and ppl did) either at 11, 13 or 16. I dare say if you show enough potential, you would be let in at other points too (grammars like good results). So the system is quite fluid. Any more fluid and it would be an administrative nightmare, as well as compromising the social stability of the school.

    - the teaching was generally very good. It was not intensive enough to count as 'hot-housing' though (that happened after I left). Streaming did have a detrimental effect on ppls' confidence tho (but some, having had their pride hurt by being dumped in a lower stream, ended up outdoing everyone)

    - if grammars take the top 10% or less (in my area, I think it was closer to top 2%), that still leaves the vast majority of resources free for comps - they would hardly be able to poach all the best teaching talent.

    - thankfully, I spent my secondary years around interesting and intelligent people rather than the random nonces at the local comp (bar the odd exception). If you're a bright kid surrounded by dullards, you can lose heart. This is the major plus for grammars, in my opinion - it was exciting to be around many of these people, because they were sharp.

    - the drop in state school admissions to Oxbridge is misleading - many of those who would have got admitted to a state grammar now get bursaries/scholarships at public schools and get in through that route. I would hazard a guess that at least half of those at Oxbridge from public schools had some kind of scholarship (public schools like their A*s).

    - i am amazed that it has only just dawned on the govt the 'value-added' factor of grouping the best together, bearing in mind how they support similarly elitist schemes in sport/culture/business. Putting the most committed, talented and successful together raises standards and provides a target for all the rest to follow - the reason that everyone accepts the greedy poaching of all the best by Oxbridge! People who want to dismantle such projects lower the bar for everyone, even if things are made 'fairer'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    Oooh, leaving just as your main argument is undermined...
    Leaving the argument because I have better things to do.
    You're response seems to be clutching at straws somewhat. Nothing you said properly addressed what I said. You just came up with some random source which didn't make much sense. I leave it for you to consider an appropriate response.

    BTW...

    Villa 2 - 1 Chelsea!!!!

    (Original post by fussy)
    - if grammars take the top 10% or less (in my area, I think it was closer to top 2%), that still leaves the vast majority of resources free for comps - they would hardly be able to poach all the best teaching talent.
    That seems very high. Assuming all the schools in your area are the same size, that would mean that there would have to be 49 non-selective schools for every grammar school, wouldn't it? I suppose students come from outside your area as well, but 2% still seems very high.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    hmmm... that doesn't seem that bad. The average is something like 40%, isn't it? The school I would have to have gone to if I didn't get into a grammar school and couldn't afford a private education has an A-C pass rate of 17%.

    I suppose some people are good enough that they can still do well even if other pupils make it very difficult and there is poor teaching. Mozart didn't need any lessons to compose masterpieces.
    17%? Bloody hell that's bad.

    Yes average is 40%.

    I suppose I'm going off the point anyway, my original argument is that resources shouldn't be redirected away to different tiers of education, because ultimately people should be able to get the full benefit whichever school they end up at. It's often the case that bright kids don't make it to the grammar schools, and shouldn't be left to depreciate in a slow school with rubbish teachers because the best factors are in the grammar schools.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fussy)
    Here's my random views on this business (I went to a state grammar - Colchester RGS - having passed my 11+):

    - the setup of universities in this country is much more exclusive and hierarchical than grammar/comprehensive. Once installed in your uni you are given its own examinations, making comparison with other ppls' performance at other places difficult. Centralised exams? Forget it. It amuses me that ppl find the 11+ more 'unfair' than the university system given the unquestioned clamour to get into Oxbridge so evident in this forum. Why not institute comparably difficult courses in the top 30 unis and bring in an examining system that would allow a straight country-wide ranking of students, irrespective of institution? Bright kids ill-done by their failing comp end up in a lower-tier of universities and subsequently can never show the same levels of attainment as those at more respected unis, even if they have the ability and put in the effort!
    Students are more able to cope with reject at the mature age of 18. At eleven, failing the eleven plus hits children hard and can scar them for life.

    (Original post by fussy)
    - at my old school, you could join (and ppl did) either at 11, 13 or 16. I dare say if you show enough potential, you would be let in at other points too (grammars like good results). So the system is quite fluid. Any more fluid and it would be an administrative nightmare, as well as compromising the social stability of the school.
    Maybe at your school. But I would hazard (a quite reliable) guess that most schools don't offer this fluidity. Have you thought about the stress of a child changing school? No. If it is good theoretically, it will do in practice. :rolleyes:
    This argument is irrelevant because maximum 'fluidity' is reached by Comprehensive schools.


    (Original post by fussy)
    - if grammars take the top 10% or less (in my area, I think it was closer to top 2%), that still leaves the vast majority of resources free for comps - they would hardly be able to poach all the best teaching talent.
    You underestimate in inner workings of an LEA.
    Top 10% is believable, but top 2% isn't feasable. Maybe they told you that.

    (Original post by fussy)
    - thankfully, I spent my secondary years around interesting and intelligent people rather than the random nonces at the local comp (bar the odd exception). If you're a bright kid surrounded by dullards, you can lose heart. This is the major plus for grammars, in my opinion - it was exciting to be around many of these people, because they were sharp.
    Very arrogant of you, and not very perceptive. Grammars are streamed and I would say that the level of intelligent conversation can be satisfied( well, it was for me)at a comp, whilst leaving you with some social humility (something you could do with).


    (Original post by fussy)
    - i am amazed that it has only just dawned on the govt the 'value-added' factor of grouping the best together, bearing in mind how they support similarly elitist schemes in sport/culture/business. Putting the most committed, talented and successful together raises standards and provides a target for all the rest to follow - the reason that everyone accepts the greedy poaching of all the best by Oxbridge! People who want to dismantle such projects lower the bar for everyone, even if things are made 'fairer'.
    The "value-added" factor is basically flawed. Refer back to previous posts. Anyone with a basic grasp of statistical representation and an interest can clearly see this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Students are more able to cope with reject at the mature age of 18. At eleven, failing the eleven plus hits children hard and can scar them for life.



    Maybe at your school. But I would hazard (a quite reliable) guess that most schools don't offer this fluidity. Have you thought about the stress of a child changing school? No. If it is good theoretically, it will do in practice. :rolleyes:
    This argument is irrelevant because maximum 'fluidity' is reached by Comprehensive schools.




    You underestimate in inner workings of an LEA.
    Top 10% is believable, but top 2% isn't feasable. Maybe they told you that.



    Very arrogant of you, and not very perceptive. Grammars are streamed and I would say that the level of intelligent conversation can be satisfied( well, it was for me)at a comp, whilst leaving you with some social humility (something you could do with).




    The "value-added" factor is basically flawed. Refer back to previous posts. Anyone with a basic grasp of statistical representation and an interest can clearly see this.
    Here bloody here. Very well put.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Here bloody here. Very well put.
    wow. Thank you.

    that rarely happens with my posts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    wow. Thank you.

    that rarely happens with my posts.
    Put them together like that more often, and I'll gladly praise them more often. I enjoyed reading that. So I thank you

    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Very arrogant of you, and not very perceptive. Grammars are streamed and I would say that the level of intelligent conversation can be satisfied( well, it was for me)at a comp, whilst leaving you with some social humility (something you could do with).
    Hmmm... I attend a grammar school and I do not have 'intelligent coversation' with my peers. Most are 'dullards' and the really intelligent ones are all squares.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    Hmmm... I attend a grammar school and I do not have 'intelligent coversation' with my peers. Most are 'dullards' and the really intelligent ones are all squares.
    Good point. Often the most intelligent conversations I have are with people not perceived to be as clever.

    i.e. Often more knowledgeable, usually less arrogant, can string a sentence together.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Good point. Often the most intelligent conversations I have are with people not perceived to be as clever.

    i.e. Often more knowledgeable, usually less arrogant, can string a sentence together.
    *nods* this was explained to me once as something to do with being slightly bluntened by suffering a few home truths of the real world. Thus the arrogance goes, knowledge is gained for the better, and stringing together a coherrent sentence is a necessity gained from both.

    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Students are more able to cope with reject at the mature age of 18. At eleven, failing the eleven plus hits children hard and can scar them for life.
    I don't think I know many people who have been 'scarred for life' because they weren't in the top 10% of the country when they were 11 years old.

    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Maybe at your school. But I would hazard (a quite reliable) guess that most schools don't offer this fluidity.
    Yeah, I don't know any state schools that do this in my area.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    I don't think I know many people who have been 'scarred for life' because they weren't in the top 10% of the country when they were 11 years old.
    Oh I do. For most the effect is subtle, but still lasting. Rejection at such a fragile age of development can only be a bad thing.

    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Oh I do. For most the effect is subtle, but still lasting. Rejection at such a fragile age of development can only be a bad thing.
    It builds character .
 
 
 
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.