Poll: Do you support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools?
Scroll to see replies
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
(edited 13 years ago)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
It fixes social classes rather than promote social mobility.
And who told you that?
I go to a grammar school. And I'm very glad I had that opportunity.
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.
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.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should we scrap all grammar schools or build new ones?
- Is grammar school actually better?
- Set maths
- GCSE
- help!! regular sixth form or grammar?
- Is having 11+ exams in September too early for kids after summer hols?
- Should I consider switching to a grammar (state school) for sixth form?
- Confused between King Edward Camp Hill Girls vs Stratford Grammar Schools
- Newcastle University Partners
- Is anyone thinking of going Newstead Wood sixth form 2023?
- Applying for competitive UNIS (ALEVELS/SIXTH FORM SCHOOL CHOICE)
- Co-ed vs Single-sex sixth form
- Grammar sixth form or college
- Grammar school sixth form or college?
- Colchester Royal Grammar or Chelmsford County High for sixth form?
- ecology and conservation degree
- one day exclusion in year 10 please help im going crazy
- Is the 11 plus the unfairest of all academic exams?
- Sixthform Choice
- GCSE predicted + Practice questions
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
amazon apprenticeship Buying and MerchandisingLast reply 13 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 17 minutes ago
Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entryLast reply 19 minutes ago
Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Casework Support AO 2024Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 10 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 10 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
