Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x 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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    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.
    Don't you ever get bored of spilling this bile?

    More ad-homs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Yes.

    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.



    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.

    Go away, remove the strawmen arguments, and try again. Also get over your ridiculous confusion between intelligence and academic ability. They're not the same thing at all. Social psychologists would laugh you out of the lecture theatre.

    Some of what you say (almost) has merit, particularly this idea that pupils should be able to move between the two schools if they show particular aptitude (or presumably a lack of aptitude). But what if a pupil was exceptionally good at French but not very good at History at all? Would you put him up or hold him back? Either way its not a particularly acceptable solution. How would you get round this problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    But accusations of stupidity aren't?
    Not really, especially when the other person is making a stupid argument, its only fair to point that out to them, is it not?

    Did you have anything constructive to add to the debate?
    Offline

    13
    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.
    On what evidence are you basing your "opinion" that grammar schools do not deliver social mobility?

    You cant make statements like "you need to familiarise yourself with the research." without citing your own claims - I'm almost tempted to call troll on this one.

    Your entire post calls for evidence, but provides none for the multiple bare assertions in its first paragraph.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    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.
    Personally, I don't feel the need for a seperate "more academic" school.
    It can all be the same place. Doing it that way makes it much easier for pupils to be able to move between "sets". You work very hard in a lower set and show that you are capable of more "academic" work, then you are moved up. You don't work, or struggle, or misbehave then you are moved down. Simple.

    While such a system doesn't on its own create the sense of academia and learning that a grammar school does, there is no reason why that cannot be incorperated into such a system. As I have said, I do think it is more of an attitude / culture problem than anything else, and if you work to solve that (educating parents, getting the right staff, getting the right staff attitudes etc etc) then the education imrovements will fall into place.

    You solve the problem some comprehensives have of other pupils distrupting the more able pupils, but you also solve the problem a lot of people (including myself) have with Grammar schools.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    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.
    That's a bit of a narrow view. I have known schools that have gone from being rated poor to outstanding. Their catchment makeup have stayed the same. Culture is a barrier, but I believe given the right conditions the majority can succeed.

    Parents need to be engaged more, that's half the battle.....
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Not really, especially when the other person is making a stupid argument, its only fair to point that out to them, is it not?

    Did you have anything constructive to add to the debate?
    And when you are being arrogant by accusing others of being stupid, it's only fair for me to point that out to you, is it not?

    As for adding to the debate. I thought regions with a lot of grammar schools got very good results? Eg, Kent, Bucks, Northern Ireland. To be fair, I haven't seen the stats, but I've seen it mentioned on here before. I'm sure the statistics would be available if one knew where do look. And indeed, I could be wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    And when you are being arrogant by accusing others of being stupid, it's only fair for me to point that out to you, is it not?

    As for adding to the debate. I thought regions with a lot of grammar schools got very good results? Eg, Kent, Bucks, Northern Ireland. To be fair, I haven't seen the stats, but I've seen it mentioned on here before. I'm sure the statistics would be available if one knew where do look. And indeed, I could be wrong.
    It would probably be more useful if you actually read the debate and conclude for yourself that HR was a bigoted fool.

    Of course grammar schools get good results. Thats like saying if we culled all the fat people then we would all be healthier on average. The original grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is primarily to blame for the poor results and low quality of education all round the country. Going back to this dreadful system would simply condemn another couple of generations to poor standards of education and social immobility.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Personally, I don't feel the need for a seperate "more academic" school.
    It can all be the same place. Doing it that way makes it much easier for pupils to be able to move between "sets". You work very hard in a lower set and show that you are capable of more "academic" work, then you are moved up. You don't work, or struggle, or misbehave then you are moved down. Simple.

    While such a system doesn't on its own create the sense of academia and learning that a grammar school does, there is no reason why that cannot be incorperated into such a system. As I have said, I do think it is more of an attitude / culture problem than anything else, and if you work to solve that (educating parents, getting the right staff, getting the right staff attitudes etc etc) then the education imrovements will fall into place.

    You solve the problem some comprehensives have of other pupils distrupting the more able pupils, but you also solve the problem a lot of people (including myself) have with Grammar schools.
    Precisely. Arbitrarily splitting apart the pupils every year in such a crude manner is such a stupid idea its frankly laughable. I can't see why anyone could honestly recommend this system.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    It would probably be more useful if you actually read the debate and aw for yourself that HR was a bigoted fool.

    Of course grammar schools get good results. Thats like saying if we culled all the fat people then we would all be healthier on average. The original grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is primarily to blame for the poor results and low quality of education all round the country. Going back to this dreadful system would simply condemn another couple of generations to poor standards of education and social immobility.
    Yes, but I'm not just talking about the grammar schools, I mean with regions with grammar schools. So that those pupils not at grammar schools, will be at comprehensives.

    As far as I know, northern Ireland still has grammar schools, and they definitely get better results (google it). Unfortunately, that's the only region I could find. I tried googling for Kent etc, and regions in England which would be a better comparison, but couldn't find anything.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    No, that's true. However, I think it is important to maintain comprehensive schools to a high standard as well, and of course, ensure that the admissions' system is fair, which I don't think it currently is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Go away, remove the strawmen arguments, and try again. Also get over your ridiculous confusion between intelligence and academic ability. They're not the same thing at all. Social psychologists would laugh you out of the lecture theatre.
    And real scientists would laugh the social psychologists out of it imediately following.

    Academic achievement and intelligence are sufficiently correlative to use one as an indicator of the other.
    Some of what you say (almost) has merit, particularly this idea that pupils should be able to move between the two schools if they show particular aptitude (or presumably a lack of aptitude). But what if a pupil was exceptionally good at French but not very good at History at all? Would you put him up or hold him back? Either way its not a particularly acceptable solution. How would you get round this problem?
    If you could stop the streams of invective long enough to engage properly in the arguement this could actually be a productive debate.

    The way I would get this to work is complex and overlaps with lots of other ideas I have for education reform (which have nothing to do with this debate), but in brief:

    - do away with "year groups" and "academic years", but keep the term structure.
    - teachers would teach modules in their subject which would last (through regular time slots) 1 term, prior to which they would provide a synopsis of it, an approximate difficulty level and, crucially, list prerequisite other course/modules (for example, to do Applied Physics 4, you would need to have passed Applied Physics 3 and Maths - Mechanics 2), and allow any pupil to apply who has the relevant prerequisites to take part.
    - pupils would sit an exam at the end of each module which would be pass/fail, could sit or resit as many modules as they liked (and could timetable themselves) and could do so at any school.
    - Some modules might combine multiple other modules for example "Pure Maths 2 & 3" but would have tougher prerequisites as they would effectively be taught twice as fast.
    - Overall qualifications would require combinations of module credits.
    - School would last as many or as few years (with limits, possibly) as the pupil wanted.
    - Universities could specify very specific entrance requirements regarding modules, but would also have their own ability-testing exams if they so wished (LNAT etc).


    Streaming would thus occur on a self-selecting and natural basis - pupils would just aggregate towards modules that matched their abilities and interests.

    Schools which offered mostly more advanced modules would arise, specialisms would conglomerate and so on.

    Because pupils would be basically free to move between schools pretty much with impunity, bullying would be greatly reduced (you could leave that school the next term without disruption to your ongoing education).

    You wouldnt have big, high pressure exams at certain key year groups.

    The biggest difficulty would be making sure that Greek classical history 2 at some small town school in Northumbria is the same quality as Greek classical history 2 at some middle-class area in south west london.

    Idea not perfect, but certainly something I'm actively working on.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    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.
    And that's something to look at. Why does it happen then? Can't we indoctrinate them better at primary level to avoid that?

    And if the problems occur around age 12 then how is the 11+ suitable to decide it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anoushka1)
    I used to go to a normal comprehensive and the teaching was awful, in all truth there was a lack of opportunities and the teachers did not care as much from my experience. I had to work so hard to get my GCSE's because I learnt everything by myself and as nobody else was working it was hard to be motivated

    I moved to a grammar school for Sixth form after passing some tests and now Im hopefully going to study Law at Cambridge next year

    I cant have seen that happening in my old school , not only because of the teachers but the attitude of the kids which would have been detrimental for me they don't really care about their work and this would have probably affected me due to disruptions

    So from my experience i think grammar school are very important they are a key component of social mobility in a way, providing people who want to work and can be bothered to go to school and behave with chances to do well in life

    However, they do lead to further segregation but I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages

    you didnt go to a "normal comprehensive" you went to a bad comp there is a difference!
    it really depends on where you live and what the schools are like,
    i went to a country comprehensive class sizes about 20 or less, teachers who really cared, and still do my sisters at that school now and while they all call her charlotte much to her annoyance they also ask her to ask me to come and visit them every time im home, teachers who never taught me and i dont even remember being there when i was there know who i am (its very bizzar) and i wasnt a bad pupil or an amazing one i was and still am bog standard average.

    going to a grammar doesnt neccessarily mean you WILL do well, (not saying they didnt do well but...) my dad and aunty went to grammar back in the old 11+ times my dad left there and became a mechanic... my aunty, works for bulmers driving tractors and has a farm, neither need a high education.


    they lead to more than just further segregation, we already have problems getting kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to even finish education, the good teachers wont want to teach them.. theyd much rather teach a friendly little group in a grammar school...
    i think it would be a bad move (my dissertation is on education) and i think they have learnt that from the past...
    what needs to be focused on is why kids arent behaving, why there not finishing school, why they dont have aspirations.
    x
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    We have gone over this before. Yes I do think they work, because I have seen them work.

    Why is the idea of grammar schools so different to sets and streaming then?

    They are the same thing really. Seperating out the pupils on ability, and putting them in environments to reflect that. The difference is that streaming allows more fluid movement, rather than having to undergo the huge shift that changing school brings.

    So why do you feel Grammar schools work, but sets / streaming pupils does not?
    Because it will encourage those at a grammar school to do better. There is a big difference between a bright pupil attending a grammar school, and one attending a state comprehensive. Although the latter may be in "top sets", he or she will not do as well as he or she would have done at a grammar school. There is one word for this: environment. I meant the overall environment, not the academic environment.

    Bear in mind that top sets at comprehensive schools still have a lot of disruption compared with grammar schools, and that is the nature of comprehensive schools. There are some truths within the stereotypes.

    It's like saying universities should be streamed. There is reason why Oxbridge exists, i.e. "one big set".

    You really think a person will do as well in a top set at a comprehensive with low-level disruption, and abilities STILL do vary; in comparison with a grammar school where it is more focused, more students want to do well, and a greater emphasis on academics?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Bear in mind that top sets at comprehensive schools still have a lot of disruption compared with grammar schools, and that is the nature of comprehensive schools. There are some truths within the stereotypes.
    id dissagree with that my housemates both went to grammar schools, i didnt, i was in 2nd set for pretty much everything.... the stories they have of what people did in lessons amazing! ... except the odd occasion with a slight mad biology teacher... and a physics teacher who cried because we didnt know how to wire a plug (he just gave us the plugs and said wire them no lesson or anythign about how to do it before hand) we didnt really have disruptions, biggest one for my set was the weather, several teachers commented on our weird fascination with it..... afraid not even grammar schools can remove the weather....

    x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    And real scientists would laugh the social psychologists out of it imediately following.

    Academic achievement and intelligence are sufficiently correlative to use one as an indicator of the other.


    If you could stop the streams of invective long enough to engage properly in the arguement this could actually be a productive debate.

    The way I would get this to work is complex and overlaps with lots of other ideas I have for education reform (which have nothing to do with this debate), but in brief:

    - do away with "year groups" and "academic years", but keep the term structure.
    - teachers would teach modules in their subject which would last (through regular time slots) 1 term, prior to which they would provide a synopsis of it, an approximate difficulty level and, crucially, list prerequisite other course/modules (for example, to do Applied Physics 4, you would need to have passed Applied Physics 3 and Maths - Mechanics 2), and allow any pupil to apply who has the relevant prerequisites to take part.
    - pupils would sit an exam at the end of each module which would be pass/fail, could sit or resit as many modules as they liked (and could timetable themselves) and could do so at any school.
    - Some modules might combine multiple other modules for example "Pure Maths 2 & 3" but would have tougher prerequisites as they would effectively be taught twice as fast.
    - Overall qualifications would require combinations of module credits.
    - School would last as many or as few years (with limits, possibly) as the pupil wanted.
    - Universities could specify very specific entrance requirements regarding modules, but would also have their own ability-testing exams if they so wished (LNAT etc).


    Streaming would thus occur on a self-selecting and natural basis - pupils would just aggregate towards modules that matched their abilities and interests.

    Schools which offered mostly more advanced modules would arise, specialisms would conglomerate and so on.

    Because pupils would be basically free to move between schools pretty much with impunity, bullying would be greatly reduced (you could leave that school the next term without disruption to your ongoing education).

    You wouldnt have big, high pressure exams at certain key year groups.

    The biggest difficulty would be making sure that Greek classical history 2 at some small town school in Northumbria is the same quality as Greek classical history 2 at some middle-class area in south west london.

    Idea not perfect, but certainly something I'm actively working on.
    ok, lots of things to potentially debate there, but you haven't actually answered my question, and addressed the topic of the thread itself.

    Would it not be better that a pupil was able to be in a higher stream/set for one subject whilst being in a lower stream for another subject? Clearly this is something that would not be an issue at a large institution in which the former grammar and comprehensive pupils were both registered. I see no reason why forcing people into two neat little boxes of "good" and "bad" would ever be anything other than detrimental to their overall education.

    I see no logical reason why you would need to divide all these different faculties you propose into completely separate institutions. Rather than having a specific school that teaches highly academic arts subject, why not simply have a department within a larger structure that teaches the subject. Other than nomenclature, the difference is that in my system the pupils would be able to take as many or as few modules from this department throughout their school career, whereas in your seperatist system, the pupils would face a black and white choice as to where they fit in. This seems to me to be completely unnecessarily inflexible and educationally detrimental.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Because it will encourage those at a grammar school to do better. There is a big difference between a bright pupil attending a grammar school, and one attending a state comprehensive. Although the latter may be in "top sets", he or she will not do as well as he or she would have done at a grammar school. There is one word for this: environment. I meant the overall environment, not the academic environment.
    I disagree. There is no reason why you can't have the same "overal environment" in the top sets at a state comprehensive.
    I don't suppose you have any actual evidence to suggest that a pupil would do better in a Grammar school than in a good state comprehensive? (say one that gets similar results, has similar inspections, etc etc etc). Thought not.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    Bear in mind that top sets at comprehensive schools still have a lot of disruption compared with grammar schools, and that is the nature of comprehensive schools. There are some truths within the stereotypes.
    Really? Again, I hugely disagree. The only disruption in the top sets that I experienced was to do with teachers who have other roles within the school (so having to leave a lesson to deal with other stuff).

    Anyway, that is the point of the top set. You wouldn't have the distruptive pupils there.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    It's like saying universities should be streamed. There is reason why Oxbridge exists, i.e. "one big set".
    Errr no.
    University education is a million miles from secondary education. You cannot say X works in the university space so it must work in secondary education. They are totally different things, with different aims and different problems.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    You really think a person will do as well in a top set at a comprehensive with low-level disruption, and abilities STILL do vary; in comparison with a grammar school where it is more focused, more students want to do well, and a greater emphasis on academics?
    Again, what I said above. You really don't grasp this do you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .:Doctor:.)
    Yes I know, they exist in small numbers in England mainly in the South-East, where I live and go to one. I meant mass reintroduction across the whole of the UK.
    The South West has a fair few, Torbay alone has two. I turned down my local grammar school after passing the 11+ god knows why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Really? Again, I hugely disagree. The only disruption in the top sets that I experienced was to do with teachers who have other roles within the school (so having to leave a lesson to deal with other stuff).

    Anyway, that is the point of the top set. You wouldn't have the distruptive pupils there.

    .
    As an addition to this, if you had the pupils currently at the grammar school present as well, the probability of a disruptive pupil in the top couple of sets for each subject is virtually negligible.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.