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
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I disagree. There is no reason why you can't have the same "overal environment" in the top sets at a state comprehensive.
    Pupils' attitude. Yes, there is a difference between attitudes within grammar schools and in top set comprehensives.

    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.
    That's because it cannot be statistically measured. But it is obvious being in an environment where everyone wants to be successful would help you to push yourself even more.

    You'll probably respond that this can also happen in state comprehensives. Remember, the best state comprehensives are inherently selective.

    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).
    That is not the reality.

    Anyway, that is the point of the top set. You wouldn't have the distruptive pupils there.
    But there are. You are just too close-minded to accept that.

    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.
    So why is it wrong to differentiate with ability via grammar schools? What's wrong with giving a poor student the chance for essentially, a free private education?

    Again, what I said above. You really don't grasp this do you.
    You're distorting the reality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    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.
    Yes definitely. I think as a general rule however, that you would be hard pressed to find someone who is in the top set for Biology and bottom for chemistry. Or even the same dichotomy for French and History. People who are very good at one aspect of academia tend to be at least moderately good at most aspects. Thus it is not such a risk to have seperate schools as you might think.

    I know this is hard for you to accept as it runs counter to your "everyone is good in different ways" political view.

    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.
    The main reason to divide the schools is to focus on the culture - at a high achieving school its easy to foster a pro-learning environment as there is less disruption (and in any case, disruptive elements can be excluded - for which purpose I would have specialist schools designed to deal with children with behavioural issues (which would be treated seperately to children with learning difficulties but without behavioural issues - one size does not fit all)). The choices wouldnt be black and white - movement to and from the 'elite' school would be fluid. The two schools could even partially share a campus and facilities, provided they are seperate enough that they have seperate atmospheres and cultures (no bullying kids for being clever, basically).

    In the long run, this division wouldnt be needed because you would eventually aim to erradicate anti-intellectualism at all schools, but that would require such a massive paradigm shift in attitudes and cultures that its unthinkable for now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    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.
    The evidence is already on this thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Pupils' attitude. Yes, there is a difference between attitudes within grammar schools and in top set comprehensives.
    Except there is no attitude difference between those right at the top in comprehensives and those who do well in grammar schools. Pupils who want to do well will want to do well no matter what school they are in.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    That's because it cannot be statistically measured. But it is obvious being in an environment where everyone wants to be successful would help you to push yourself even more.
    And that is exactly what the envionment in a top set would be like.


    (Original post by im so academic)
    You'll probably respond that this can also happen in state comprehensives. Remember, the best state comprehensives are inherently selective.
    Not all though. There are some very good comprehensives in poorer areas that are not selective.


    (Original post by im so academic)
    That is not the reality.
    But there are. You are just too close-minded to accept that.
    If the school is doing streaming right, it is the reality. If it isn't the reality, then the school has itself has messed up.


    (Original post by im so academic)
    So why is it wrong to differentiate with ability via grammar schools? What's wrong with giving a poor student the chance for essentially, a free private education?
    Because it isn't? It is giving a small number of students the chance of a slightly better level of education at the expense of everyone else. Instead of sorting out the comps to bring the standard up, which would allow anyone to get that better level of education (if they wanted to).

    As I said, university education is a totally different beast. You can't bring it up because it has nothing at all to do with the topic.

    (Original post by im so academic)
    You're distorting the reality.
    Nope. You just seem blind to other possibilities than Grammar schools.
    There is no real reason why state comprehensives cannot give a level of education that is as good or better than grammars to those who want it.
    The only reasons that exist are attitudes and pre-conceptions that can be changed and shaken off.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I go to an upper school (the flip side of the grammar system) and its interesting to note that 40% of the students in my year are on EMA. However, just down the road at the local grammar only 3 people out of the corresponding year are on EMA. This either implies that poor people are dumb (unlikely) or they haven't had years of tuition in exam technique to pass the 11 plus. Middle class kids are at a distinct advantage when taking the 11 plus and thus the system fails to support the poor kids who have not been drip fed exam technique since year 3.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Pupils' attitude. Yes, there is a difference between attitudes within grammar schools and in top set comprehensives.
    I assume you have attended both?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    On what evidence are you basing your "opinion" that grammar schools do not deliver social mobility?
    Refer to my other post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Yes definitely. I think as a general rule however, that you would be hard pressed to find someone who is in the top set for Biology and bottom for chemistry. Or even the same dichotomy for French and History. People who are very good at one aspect of academia tend to be at least moderately good at most aspects. Thus it is not such a risk to have seperate schools as you might think.

    I know this is hard for you to accept as it runs counter to your "everyone is good in different ways" political view.



    The main reason to divide the schools is to focus on the culture - at a high achieving school its easy to foster a pro-learning environment as there is less disruption (and in any case, disruptive elements can be excluded - for which purpose I would have specialist schools designed to deal with children with behavioural issues (which would be treated seperately to children with learning difficulties but without behavioural issues - one size does not fit all)). The choices wouldnt be black and white - movement to and from the 'elite' school would be fluid. The two schools could even partially share a campus and facilities, provided they are seperate enough that they have seperate atmospheres and cultures (no bullying kids for being clever, basically).

    In the long run, this division wouldnt be needed because you would eventually aim to erradicate anti-intellectualism at all schools, but that would require such a massive paradigm shift in attitudes and cultures that its unthinkable for now.

    Sharing facilities and a campus, specialised, ease of movement for pupils... Are you sure you're talking about separate schools here?

    Sounds to me just like faculties is the word you're looking for.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    I go to an upper school (the flip side of the grammar system) and its interesting to note that 40% of the students in my year are on EMA. However, just down the road at the local grammar only 3 people out of the corresponding year are on EMA. This either implies that poor people are dumb (unlikely) or they haven't had years of tuition in exam technique to pass the 11 plus. Middle class kids are at a distinct advantage when taking the 11 plus and thus the system fails to support the poor kids who have not been drip fed exam technique since year 3.
    Richer people are at a distinct advantage in every system.

    It isn't just about tutoring, it's about the whole background and attitude. Our current system certainly places rich people at an advantage, wouldn't you say, with private schools?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Richer people are at a distinct advantage in every system.

    It isn't just about tutoring, it's about the whole background and attitude. Our current system certainly places rich people at an advantage, wouldn't you say, with private schools?
    Yes it does, but that is a different argument entirely. What I am saying is that with grammar schools its very much like catching a ferry, if you catch it you are set for educational career. However, if you miss the boat at the age of 11 you are effectively blocked from entering (even if you do pass the 12 plus, the waiting lists are incredibly long).This system does not take into account those who intellectually develop later and thus those who do lose out. Therefore, all the rich have to do is to prep little Johnny for the test from year 3 (and yes, create the right environment for him) and then he is set for life. A comprehensive system would allow fluidity so that those who are naturally intelligent will rise to the top and those who are not will not. I doubt a lot of those middle class families who pay for tuition can afford private school fees anyway.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Except there is no attitude difference between those right at the top in comprehensives and those who do well in grammar schools.
    There is.

    Pupils who want to do well will want to do well no matter what school they are in.
    True, they will do statistically well, but they could've done better and have reached their full potential.

    And that is exactly what the envionment in a top set would be like.
    Would be, but it isn't.

    Not all though. There are some very good comprehensives in poorer areas that are not selective.
    Define "good". Examples please? Because good doesn't quite cut it. Those at top private schools will inevitable enjoy much greater educational advantages compared with those at "good state comprehensives".

    If the school is doing streaming right, it is the reality. If it isn't the reality, then the school has itself has messed up.
    So the majority of schools have messed up right? Or perhaps the system they are using is inherently wrong? Or because the school already has an intake of similar people (good family backgrounds, middle socio-economically speaking), that is why streaming works?

    Because it isn't? It is giving a small number of students the chance of a slightly better level of education at the expense of everyone else.
    Labour closed down the Assisted Places Scheme because it used up taxpayers' money. These days virtually all bursaries to attend private school are through donations or other private means. How the hell is that at the expense of everyone else?

    And "slightly better level of education"? There is a difference studying at a top private school than a bog-standard state comprehensive. What on earth are you talking about?

    Instead of sorting out the comps to bring the standard up, which would allow anyone to get that better level of education (if they wanted to).
    Even you are admitting that a school's standard is based on the quality of pupils.

    As I said, university education is a totally different beast. You can't bring it up because it has nothing at all to do with the topic.
    Yes it does. There is a reason why many parents try hard to get their children into grammar school/private schools.

    Nope. You just seem blind to other possibilities than Grammar schools.
    You only offer one solution: sets. :rolleyes:

    There is no real reason why state comprehensives cannot give a level of education that is as good or better than grammars to those who want it.
    No, there are many. Would you like me to elaborate?

    The only reasons that exist are attitudes and pre-conceptions that can be changed and shaken off.
    Explain how Mr Secretary of State for Education.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You are condemning kids from the age of 11 to go to substandard schools. I did no work at all when I was 11; I spent all my time daydreaming and the teachers told my parents I would never amount to anything. I only started working when I applied for a bursary to another school when my parents moved.

    Those in 'secondary moderns' would have worse teachers (as few teachers would wish to teach second-rate kids) sub-standard equipment and would more often than not be lumped into technical and vocational careers when many of them have probably no clue what they want to do. What is the British obsession with making kids decide careers ridiculously early on in life.

    You are essentially labelling these kids as 'failures'. whether they are or not is a different matter but is it really something you want to give an 11 year old! John Prescott still holds a grudge against it; I doubt he's the only one. Yes it's good for an 'elite' but it won't help social mobility, and, more likely than not, will create a group of increasingly arrogant people who believe themselves superior than others by virtue of an exam passed when they're barely into double figures. Some - especially people who often need to flaunt how learned they are - may see that as a good thing; I say grammar schools were abolished for a reason and the continuous harking back to them is nothing more than rose-tinted nostalgia
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeschylus)
    You are essentially labelling these kids as 'failures'. whether they are or not is a different matter but is it really something you want to give an 11 year old! John Prescott still holds a grudge against it; I doubt he's the only one. Yes it's good for an 'elite' but it won't help social mobility, and, more likely than not, will create a group of increasingly arrogant people who believe themselves superior than others by virtue of an exam passed when they're barely into double figures. Some - especially people who often need to flaunt how learned they are - may see that as a good thing; I say grammar schools were abolished for a reason and the continuous harking back to them is nothing more than rose-tinted nostalgia
    Seriously, this myth of Grammer students being arrogant is so rife and so stupid. Grammers have nothing to do with social mobility, if those who want to succeed and strive to a better education; then by all means, they should have the access to it.

    The fact remains, the majority of students end up in comprehensives; and the number of grammer intakes remains a distinct low percentage of children. The government really needs to wake up and adress this education inequallity between gramers and comprehensives. Instead of worrying about free schools, they should strive to fix this broken learning envrionment across comprehensives; especially in inner city and disadvantaged areas.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abzy1234)
    Seriously, this myth of Grammer students being arrogant is so rife and so stupid. Grammers have nothing to do with social mobility, if those who want to succeed and strive to a better education; then by all means, they should have the access to it.

    The fact remains, the majority of students end up in comprehensives; and the number of grammer intakes remains a distinct low percentage of children. The government really needs to wake up and adress this education inequallity between gramers and comprehensives. Instead of worrying about free schools, they should strive to fix this broken learning envrionment across comprehensives; especially in inner city and disadvantaged areas.
    Look at what I wrote. I didn't say grammar school kids are arrogant. I said if you introduced it countrywide you would decrease social mobility and cement the gap between the haves and have nots and potentially create an arrogant elite
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeschylus)
    Look at what I wrote. I didn't say grammar school kids are arrogant. I said if you introduced it countrywide you would decrease social mobility and cement the gap between the haves and have nots and potentially create an arrogant elite
    "Yes it's good for an 'elite' but it won't help social mobility, and, more likely than not, will create a group of increasingly arrogant people who believe themselves superior than others by virtue of an exam passed when they're barely into double figures"

    Sorry if I misunderstood you.

    Look, we need to go back to the idea behind a grammer. A grammer is historically rich, with an excellent governing body; and a solid set of staff who want to create the best learning environment. There's nothing wrong there. Every school should be like this.

    To create equallity, comprehensives need to do the same thing; and frankly the government needs to help comprehensives to achieve this. The government just doesn't want to admit that our tarnished learning environements, and the joy of learning has vanished from many states.

    Social mobility is increasingly difficult with such a diverse society. I'm afraid with democracy in such a society, there will have be some losers and some winners. That's life, and I'm afraid you can't change that.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeschylus)
    Look at what I wrote. I didn't say grammar school kids are arrogant. I said if you introduced it countrywide you would decrease social mobility and cement the gap between the haves and have nots and potentially create an arrogant elite
    "Yes it's good for an 'elite' but it won't help social mobility, and, more likely than not, will create a group of increasingly arrogant people who believe themselves superior than others by virtue of an exam passed when they're barely into double figures"

    Sorry if I misunderstood you.

    Look, we need to go back to the idea behind a grammer. A grammer is historically rich, with an excellent governing body; and a solid set of staff who want to create the best learning environment. There's nothing wrong there. Every school should be like this.

    To create equallity, comprehensives need to do the same thing; and frankly the government needs to help comprehensives to achieve this. The government just doesn't want to admit that our tarnished learning environements, and the joy of learning has vanished from many states.

    Social mobility is increasingly difficult with such a diverse society. I'm afraid with democracy in such a society, there will have to be some losers and some winners. That's life, and I'm afraid you can't change that. You have to strive to compete, just like our very own purpose.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Grammers are a waste of time. All they do is allow better off parents to buy houses in its catchment area and tutor their kids to pass the entrance exam.

    It fixes social classes rather than promote social mobility.
    And who told you that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I go to a grammar school. And I'm very glad I had that opportunity.

    (Original post by Maker)
    All they do is allow better off parents to buy houses in its catchment area and tutor their kids to pass the entrance exam.
    But I do agree with this.

    My parents are far from well off, but they saved enough money to allow me to be tutored before my 11+. How unfair it is to those who can't afford that advantage.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,621

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.