Turn on thread page Beta

Poll: Do you support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools in the UK?
    Yes, but only if we change the admission process (alternative to the 11+)
    36.57%
    Yes, with the current 11+
    51.41%
    No
    12.02%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe we should stop looking at fixing the secondary schools and universities as the panacea to solve our educational and societal problems. Since the advantages of grammar schools is the culture of the pupil body according to several posters here we could try some better Cultural Indoctrination education and discipline at the Primary Level. If the solution to the problem proposed by grammar schools is to filter children at the age of 11 then perhaps the better idea is to ensure the graduates of primary schools are of a higher quality so that the majority of all students have the 'Grammar School' mindset.

    In posting this I just noticed very, very little is made of primary schools both on this board and in the news.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rascacielos)
    They do still exist - I go to one. But, on the whole, yes I think they should be re-introduced. They allow those who are willing to work hard to achieve their potential, whereas comprehensive schools are a pain for those who want to succeed but are hindered by others who can't be bothered.
    Just because some people don't past the entrance test to go to Grammar school doesn't necessarily mean that they 'can't be bothered' about their education. It may simply mean that they are less academic / don't cope well with exams. I think it is an important point to remember that just because not everyone is academic, it doesn't mean we should judge those people as all being 'slackers' or badly behaved. This is what worries me about Grammar schools - that everyone who doesn't get in is written off as stupid and lazy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Such a simplistic view. You really think "sets" and "streaming" work in reality?
    Well thats what grammar schools are, at the end of the day. One big set.

    The problem of course, is that it works on two false assumptions:

    1) that students can be neatly divided into "intelligent" and "stupid", and the ones who are good at one subject will be good at them all, and the ones who are not are destined to be failures so its hardly worth bothering with them at all. Of course, in real life different people are good at different things.

    2) that all aptitudes will have become evident before the individual is just eleven years old. This is patently rubbish, as the ability and motivation of pupils fluctuates enormously throughout their teenage years, and any remotely competent school system would be flexible enough to deal with this.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Its not a proven solution. In fact its the cause of the current set of problems. You can't have grammar schools without having their antithesis, the "secondary modern", the direct precursor of the bogstandard comprehensive system that is such an issue. It was the original introduction of the 11+ that inadvertently caused the problems we have today. Grammar schools aren't the solution, they're the very cause of the problem in the first place.

    As a pre-emptive measure, saying "but lets just send every kid to a grammar school" is breathtakingly stupid, so don't do it.

    There are plenty of valid alternative solutions. But until you have the intellectual capability to understand that the failed grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is the worst possible direction to move in, then I'm not going to waste my time talking over your head.
    I dont think every child should be sent to a grammar school, only the ones which demonstrate a personal conviction to getting the best education they can and an affinity for academics.

    Your solutions involve everyone being dragged to the level of the lowest.

    If I could set up the system we would have a split at age 14 (not 12):

    Technical/Science-based grammar schools;
    Arts-based grammar schools; and
    Vocational skills colleges.

    The latter of which prepare you for an apprenticeship in a chosen career, and take responsibility for helping you find one, while the former two would go on to universities or specialist acadamies (for particularly talented musicians for example).

    We need to get past the farcical pretence that everyone has an equal capacity for achievement given the right encouragement and opportunities. This is utter bull****- not everyone can be a brain surgeon or Barrister nor should they aspire to be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But that is partly the point.
    1 - Fair enough. The GCSE pass rate at my comp was a lot lot higher than that. Again, its partly attitudes though.

    2 - There is no reason why you can't be strict with people who don't want to be there. If they don't listen, kick them out of lessons and stick them in a referul unit or something.
    This I agree with wholeheartedly, however, it didn't really work as the problem was so widespread.

    The school is doing a lot better now thanks to funding and more social support staff. They also focused alot more on vocational courses and BTEC type things, but I don't know what this 'English Baccalaureate' is going to do to it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    There are plenty of valid alternative solutions. But until you have the intellectual capability to understand that the failed grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is the worst possible direction to move in, then I'm not going to waste my time talking over your head.
    Surely you can see that your post is incredibly arrogant?

    I support grammar schools, but I'm not going to accuse those who oppose them as "lacking intellectual capability". These things are about opinions.

    It is your opinion the grammar school system is the worst system. It doesn't make people who disagree with you intellectually lacking.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    Maybe we should stop looking at fixing the secondary schools and universities as the panacea to solve our educational and societal problems. Since the advantages of grammar schools is the culture of the pupil body according to several posters here we could try some better Cultural Indoctrination education and discipline at the Primary Level. If the solution to the problem proposed by grammar schools is to filter children at the age of 11 then perhaps the better idea is to ensure the graduates of primary schools are of a higher quality so that the majority of all students have the 'Grammar School' mindset.

    In posting this I just noticed very, very little is made of primary schools both on this board and in the news.
    Discipline and student attitude to learning are not significant problems at primary school level. Its only when kids hit secondary (around age 12) that everything goes to ****. Wide variety of reasons - watch "waiting for superman" (documentary) on this point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    I dont think every child should be sent to a grammar school, only the ones which demonstrate a personal conviction to getting the best education they can and an affinity for academics.

    Your solutions involve everyone being dragged to the level of the lowest.

    If I could set up the system we would have a split at age 14 (not 12):

    Technical/Science-based grammar schools;
    Arts-based grammar schools; and
    Vocational skills colleges.

    The latter of which prepare you for an apprenticeship in a chosen career, and take responsibility for helping you find one, while the former two would go on to universities or specialist acadamies (for particularly talented musicians for example).

    We need to get past the farcical pretence that everyone has an equal capacity for achievement given the right encouragement and opportunities. This is utter bull****- not everyone can be a brain surgeon or Barrister nor should they aspire to be.
    Nice strawman. When you're ready to rejoin the grown-up debate just let us know.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redpanda41)
    Just because some people don't past the entrance test to go to Grammar school doesn't necessarily mean that they 'can't be bothered' about their education. It may simply mean that they are less academic / don't cope well with exams. I think it is an important point to remember that just because not everyone is academic, it doesn't mean we should judge those people as all being 'slackers' or badly behaved. This is what worries me about Grammar schools - that everyone who doesn't get in is written off as stupid and lazy.
    "not academic" is a polite way of saying stupid, or at least less intelligent. It may not be PC to say it, but there it is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    What would you do if it turned out that "looking at how good comprehensives work" uncovers that the reason they do so well is because they have lower proportions of students from deprived backgrounds and more middle-class parents with sharp elbows? Ie, if its proven that everything you are criticising about grammar schools is exactly what makes some comprehensives actually work.
    Obviously socio-economic background is a VERY important factor. But please prove that state school in deprived catchment areas can't do well.... I am sure there are many comprehensives that serve mixed socio-economic (or even deprived) catchments that are outstanding. We need to look at these, and learn from them. You are basically saying that comprehensives that serve lower socio-economic groups can't do well. They are clearly facing more challenging circumstances, but they can and DO, do well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Surely you can see that your post is incredibly arrogant?

    I support grammar schools, but I'm not going to accuse those who oppose them as "lacking intellectual capability". These things are about opinions.

    It is your opinion the grammar school system is the worst system. It doesn't make people who disagree with you intellectually lacking.
    Yes it does. Because the only possible reason that someone could hold that view would be that they didn't possess the necessary mental acuity to fully comprehend the current system and the full implications of their retarded proposals.

    Accusations of arrogance are the characteristic cry of the intellectually inferior, so by all means keep 'em coming.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Well thats what grammar schools are, at the end of the day. One big set.
    Yes.
    The problem of course, is that it works on two false assumptions:

    1) that students can be neatly divided into "intelligent" and "stupid", and the ones who are good at one subject will be good at them all, and the ones who are not are destined to be failures so its hardly worth bothering with them at all. Of course, in real life different people are good at different things.
    Neatly? No. Roughly with a strong degree of accuracy? Yes. The important thing is the ensure there is enough mobility between the sets / schools.

    Its a terrible copout to say "different people are good at different things" - intelligent people are good at academic pursuits and therefore should be encouraged to go on to university to pursue them. It is not only ludicrous but also cancerously damaging to insist on pushing this career direction on less intelligent pupils in the interests of some bizarre corruption of the concept of equality. We need a powerful apprenticeships system for people who have expertise or skills at vocational pursuits, but at some point you will have to admit that there are a lot of people who are basically not good at anything particularly. You dont give up on them, you help them achieve the most they can, but you also dont hold everyone else back to their level just in the interests of equal treatment.

    2) that all aptitudes will have become evident before the individual is just eleven years old. This is patently rubbish, as the ability and motivation of pupils fluctuates enormously throughout their teenage years, and any remotely competent school system would be flexible enough to deal with this.
    Except that this doesnt deal with those of us (myself and Welsh Bluebird included) that advocate a different system not based on the 11+, together with heavy emphasis on mobility between sets and schools. Show excellence 2 years after first selection? Get a special catch-up class over the summer provided for you and join the more academic school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    "not academic" is a polite way of saying stupid, or at least less intelligent.
    No, its really not. Only a true idiot would think there was only one way of being intelligent.

    Take your bigoted and ill-informed views elsewhere thanks.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Surely you can see that your post is incredibly arrogant?

    I support grammar schools, but I'm not going to accuse those who oppose them as "lacking intellectual capability". These things are about opinions.

    It is your opinion the grammar school system is the worst system. It doesn't make people who disagree with you intellectually lacking.
    It is not a matter of opinion. Its about being able to prove which system best meets the objectives you want.

    If the objective is social mobility, then grammar schools do not deliver that. If its separating people at the age of 11 and giving them different educational experiences then it does. These things can and have been measured objectively, you need to familiarise yourself with the research.

    I think thats whats been lacking in this thread. People support or don't support grammar schools based on opinion and not on evidence. Opinions are worthless without evidence.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Accusations of arrogance are the characteristic cry of the intellectually inferior, so by all means keep 'em coming.
    But accusations of stupidity aren't?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Nice strawman. When you're ready to rejoin the grown-up debate just let us know.
    Your arguements in this thread have mostly been ad-homs, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who notices this.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    It is not a matter of opinion. Its about being able to prove which system best meets the objectives you want.

    If the objective is social mobility, then grammar schools do not deliver that. If its separating people at the age of 11 and giving them different educational experiences then it does. These things can and have been measured objectively, you need to familiarise yourself with the research.

    I think thats whats been lacking in this thread. People support or don't support grammar schools based on opinion and not on evidence. Opinions are worthless without evidence.
    But there is evidence on both sides of the argument.

    I've seen evidence. These threads have been done before.

    As far as I was aware, LSE did research where they said closing grammar schools could have resulted in a social mobility decline. You have produced research that concluded the opposite.

    Why do you think opinion is so divided on this issue? It's very unclear what system has more benefits and drawbacks. (well, the poll is pretty one-sided, but I think TSR is a bit more in favour of grammar schools than the general population.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I went to a grammar school and am from one of the poorer areas of Belfast, the Falls Road. Quite a few people i know are in university because they got into the same grammar school i did which was a great school.

    My parents couldn't afford to pay for a tutor and my dad has no qualifications at all, but they still sat me down and helped me through my education when i was young, even when they barely had time between work. If you want your kid to do well, encourage them? You don't need money to do that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fivebyfive)
    Obviously socio-economic background is a VERY important factor. But please prove that state school in deprived catchment areas can't do well.... I am sure there are many comprehensives that serve mixed socio-economic (or even deprived) catchments that are outstanding. We need to look at these, and learn from them. You are basically saying that comprehensives that serve lower socio-economic groups can't do well. They are clearly facing more challenging circumstances, but they can and DO, do well.
    No, I'm saying that comprehensives that are not favoured by the sharp-elbowed parents and their pro-intellectual children can't do well.

    Its an attitude thing. While we allow anti-elitist and anti-intellectual attitudes to flourish among society as a whole and comprehensive schools in particular, the worst schools will never improve. The kids have to WANT a better education.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    But there is evidence on both sides of the argument.

    I've seen evidence. These threads have been done before.

    As far as I was aware, LSE did research where they said closing grammar schools could have resulted in a social mobility decline. You have produced research that concluded the opposite.

    Why do you think opinion is so divided on this issue? It's very unclear what system has more benefits and drawbacks. (well, the poll is pretty one-sided, but I think TSR is a bit more in favour of grammar schools than the general population.)
    Could you link to the evidence please?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.