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

Announcements
  • 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%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simstar)
    Ah ok, Didn't come across as that when written down, you know how it is on the internet and humor. I'm guessing you're too young to vote then!
    I probably should have used a smilely!
    Yes I am too young to vote, I can still influence people though mwhaha! However I was going to join the conservatives but I still have fundamental areas of disagreement concerning their policies. Grammar schools for example, and the NHS, but I shall not go into this, since this particular thread is not about that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fran.ha)
    I've never known anything different as I come from West Kent and EVERYONE either takes the 11+ or isn't intelligent enough so doesn't...

    I definitely think its a good idea. I was not intelligent enough to go to one but there are plenty of people I know who went and they got a beter standard of education and are now at top universities. Makes sense really?

    And in no way does it mean that 'richer' students are more likely to get in because they get tutored and such, as someone suggested. My cousins both go to grammars and they would be considered 'poorer' and more 'working class' than my household and I didn't get in. Wish I had though, would've pushed me so much more. I was always bright but not quite bright enough for grammar.
    I don't think it's a good idea.

    Richer students are more likely to attend a grammar school, because they are more likely to be in the top 25% of candidates on the 11+.

    Middle-class children rightly or wrongly (I'm not getting into the morals of money in education right now), enjoy a few advantages in the education system.

    Firstly, in the case of grammar schools, their parents can often afford some kind of tutoring to help them pass it.

    Secondly, middle-class parents are far more likely to take an interest in their child's education because they value education more. Education got them where they are and they want their children to do as well as them. Now, I'm not saying working-class parents don't take an interest in their child's education. My mother took a great interest in mine. However, if my father had his way, I'd have been a labourer at 16, or a brickie, a carpenter or a joiner. He doesn't value education, and I know fine well from my own experience and the experience of others, that there are plenty of parents who do not actively encourage their children to do well at school.

    As for the 11+ itself...

    Firstly, I don't think that an intelligence test at the age of 11 is fair at all. Educational psychologists know fine well that people develop at different rates. Now yes, I know that you can change schools at 13, 15 and then 16 if the grammar has a 6th form.

    However the problem with that is that some people are quite reluctant to move schools at that age. At the end of primary, quite a few people go to different schools. In secondary, moving schools is not common. It's a bit of an upheaval to change schools, especially when it's a step up from before. If there isn't a place at the grammar school (i.e. its oversubscribed, then you can't move at all)

    Secondly, in it's old format (I'm not sure about new) the 11+ was quite biased towards middle-class males. It probably still isn't, but it used to be. Much like IQ tests were.

    I'm certainly not denying the benefits of going to a grammar school, but I certainly don't support them.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ab1odun)
    I live in an area without opportunity and promise with a lot of gang violence and social deprivation. In Year 6, I passed my 11+ without tuition or paying for people to help me practice etc. I currently attend a high-performing Grammar school, and am going to be studying Law at Nottingham next year. I cannot help but support the mass expansion of Grammar schools, for they have done well by me and have given me a sense of purpose and empowerment.
    And what about the other 75% of people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .:Doctor:.)
    ^
    Labour's legacy.
    Yeahhhh blad inniiit
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As the system was working well in Northern Ireland (as shown by test results and general IQ tests) before they removed it, I do support the reintroduction of them.

    That said, we also need to promote better secondary schools as well and not let them languish.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    But if you attract swathes of kids from the private sector to grammar schools (as you say has hapened in NI [or at least that there's been no need for much of a private sector]), that's significant additional expenditure for the state. How would that be funded?
    Isn't that bit like saying "we shouldn't improve the NHS because people will stop using private health companies and it will put an additional burden on the state" though?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Definitely.
    Offline

    15
    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.
    Yes but the poor smart kids can still slip through and get in. Under the current system, how well you do is entirely decided by the factors you just listed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    No, definitely not. Secondary moderns (the implied ancillary of grammar schools) were, by and large, hellholes. The current system is deficient, yes, but the previous one was much worse.
    I think a fair few comprehensives we have nowadays could be described as hell holes.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .:Doctor:.)
    The Conservative party officially does not support their reintroduction, do you?
    I went to a grammar school ,and generally found it an excellent experience.However, don't think you can increase the grammar schools without a wholesale change of the education system in general. At the moment we are reaping the fruit of seeds sown in the sixties,often with the best of intentions. Someone in government needs to say that certain aspects of the liberal experiment have failed eg poor discipline ,so in the light of experience things have to change. For a start we need to raise standards generally ,and this might mean in the first place of putting teacher's status somewhere back where it fifty years ago,so that many of our brightest people will look to teaching as a great career.
    When you see documentaries about africa you see small children who will do anything to raise a pittance in order to pay school fees,so we have to get back to a place where people value education.I suggest we go back to an idea of school fees ,which will be paid by the state if children have a good attendance and behaviour record. Alongside side this would be other incentives ,such as you can't take a driving test unless you have a school leaving certificate of good behaviour.
    A very important move would be to get rid of this petit bourgeoise idea that the only type of success is academic success ,and that vocational activities are looked down upon. This isn't the case in countries with genuinely strong economies like Germany. We still have this non-sense aspiration amongst certain groups where they would rather have little nigel,or nigella, being a 'professional' on 30k a year ,rather than a plumber.or central heating engineer on 70k a year.
    I would like to see the creation ,or rebranding of pre-existing academic institutions,into really prestigious vocational uni's. I would put medicine ,dentistry ,pharmacy into these vocational institutions to raise the prestige of artisans ,craftsman etc.
    There is a lot of talk that social mobility has reduced because of the reduction in grammar schools ,but anyone who has studied sociology knows this is first class myth and non-sense. Certainly the grammar schools provided a pathway to the traditional professions for the working class,but even at the peak of social mobility the numbers were still painfully smalleg in about 1970 only about 3 per cent of med students were working class ,and the recent figures i can get is that this figure has fallen to about one per cent now.
    No the grammar schools are the drivers of social mobility for the middle classes,that is the truth of the matter. A quasi public school education without the ultra expense.Related to this is the myth that it was labour in their attempt to get rid of elitism,that drove them to bring in comprehensive education . This is only partially true. There was a fundamental flaw with the 1944 education act. You see before the war a local businessman could essentially buy their children into a grammar school ,as it was fee driven anyway. The problem with the 11+ was that if young nigel,or nigella,were 'not bright'despite their good start in life,and flunked the exam,then they were destined for the secondary modern ,which essentially had always been the training ground for factory or 'in service' fodder for the working classes. The 11+ in that sense was too meritocratic, the middle classes could handle the idea of free grammar(or just about ,the rare ,but excellent technical schools), but couldn't handle the idea of the secondary modern for their kids. It was as much middle class pressure as it was socialist pressure to get rid of the 11+.
    Going back to social mobility ,it is a mistake to think that the working class only improved themselves via the grammar schools. We are paying the price for the Thatcher era which really gave up on us as a creative nation. Basically there were to be 2 sectors ; financial ,and the mcjob service sector. The manafacturing sector became vestigial. The thing was that within that sector were thousands of semi and skilled jobs that,with a bit of overtime,paid 'good money'. It was the attainment of apprenticeships and training in these jobs that was the real driver of social mobility ,when measured across a number of parameters such as home-ownership. Even at the peak of social mobility the grammar school system only provided 3 per cent of med students from a social group that probably took up close to 50 per cent of the poulation in that era. This is social apartheid on a truly impressive scale . Unfortunately the last labour party only put ethnic and gender diversity on the statute book,and not social class (even though the labour party was created for just this purpose-who could make that one up). In that so-called halcyon period of social mobility ,there were less high court judges from a working class background than there had been 100 years before, in a time when there was no statutory right to secondary education beyond about age 13/14.Shocking,but lets face it ,our PM ,chancellor,and mayor of our principal city all went to eton, and most of the coalition,and opposition leading lights went to top public schools and thence to PPE at Oxbridge.
    Personally i say bring back the grammar schools but only within wider educational reforms. What we don't want is institutionalized classism,and like with social disorder ,it is for the sake of good people living in sink estates,and or who go to sink schools we must bring back rewards and punishments for good behaviour. To fix our country we have to stop subsidising the lowest common denominator.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Err, no.

    I went to a grammar school in Kent, which still does things properly and has selective grammars all over the place, and there were people from all sorts of backgrounds.

    Grammar schools were a powerful force for mobility in the 60s-70s and helped an awful lot of children move up the social ladder through receiving a quality education. I fully support the restoration of grammar schools throughout the counties that abolished them.
    Grammar schools have no effect on social mobility.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ocial-mobility
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They still exist and yes I support them
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Streaming in schools yea, maybe keep existing grammar schools to avoid costly upheaval, but don't create new ones.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I go to a grammar school. If I hadn't, I would not have done as well as I have today. The current system is flawed, the amount of tutoring some people get is ridiculous, but it's better than the "one size fits all" approach.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .:Doctor:.)
    The Conservative party officially does not support their reintroduction, do you?
    I'm a Tory and I support it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackspur)
    I go to a grammar school. If I hadn't, I would not have done as well as I have today. The current system is flawed, the amount of tutoring some people get is ridiculous, but it's better than the "one size fits all" approach.
    Your statement is impossible to prove.

    If grammar schools were really that good, you should have realised your statement is meaningless.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Evidence suggest that whether rich or poor, the current comprehensive B/C/D GCSE student would have performed better at a grammar school.

    My own experience was that i went to a comprehensive because i was not in the catchment area for Heckmondwike grammar and parents are very poor so could not rent nearby, so poor that i am in fact one of those council estate 'kids'. After being in a comprehensive, i can assure you all now that my children will be getting private tuition and going to a grammar school.

    Another issue at comprehensives is the teaching. It is not bad 'per say' however in a grammar school you are pushed to get straight A*'s where as at a comprehensive you just have the 5C's rammed down your throat and thus you have little encouragement to push yourself. I was a perfect example of this in that i got A/B's in my mocks, so never bored with revision as i thought C's were good enougth.

    I voted yes although i would like to see changes to the system.

    The first change is a 2 tier education system from the age 11 to 14. We would have the current comprehensives and grammar schools partnered with them and a student ratio of 80:20. There would be annual test where the lowest 10% of students in the grammar school would move to the comprehensive and the highest 10% of students in the comprehensive woud move up to grammar school, this would occur each year from 11 to 14.

    At 14 (year 9) students would take the final exam and stay in the grammar they were in/had gotten into or the comprehensive to do their GCSE's. It is for years 10 and 11 that i would add a 3rd tier because the lowest 10% in the comprehensive school would learn a trade at college while studying English and Maths 1 day per week.

    It is my belief that my proposal would add much needed competition to the system as students would compete for grammar school places based on their ability and the students at grammar school would have to work to avoid dropping down. Doing this on an annual basis means that students will always remain motivated. The inclusion of the third tier for students performing poorly also takes a large disruptive element out of the comprehenive system which would allow the compehensive to perform better while still giving the students learning a trade an adequate level of Maths and English.

    For those of you interested in the TSR HOC, it should be noted that there is a lot of support from the TSR Conservatives for selective education.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Personally, I think that separating children at aged 11 based on academic ability is wrong. Those who don't make the cut and end up at comprehensives for whatever reason are not necessarily going to be less academic by the time they're at GCSE or A-level age. Many people who were in the lower sets when I was in Year 7 achieved some pretty impressive GCSE results, and vice versa.

    But by literally separating the more and less able students into different schools, all you'll do is create the mindset of intellectual snobbery in those who go to grammar, and inferiority in those at comprehensive. If a comprehensive student is treated so differently to a grammar student, what motivation would he/she have to continue with education and try to forge a better lives for themselves? Almost none.

    If nothing else, it would help those who would go to grammar school to prepare for the 'real world'. You can't hide from the working class forever.

    EDIT: Don't mind being negged, but I'd be interested to hear why. Is anything I said wrong?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Evidence suggest that wher rich or poor, the curren comprehenive B/C/D GCSE student uld have performed better at a grammar school.

    My own experience was that i went to a comprehensive because i was not in the catchment area for Heckmondwike grammar and parents are very poor so could not rent nearby, so poor that i am in fact one of those council estate 'kids'. After being in a comprehensive, i can assure you all now that my children will be getting private tuition and going to a grammar school.

    Another issue at comprehensives is the teaching. It is not bad 'per say' however in a grammar school you are pushed to get straight A*'s where as at a comprehensive you just have the 5C's rammed down your throat and thus you have little encouragement to push yourself. I was a perfect example of this in that i got A/B's in my mocks, so never bored with revision as i thought C's were good enougth.

    I voted yes although i would like to see changes to the system.

    The first change is a 2 tier education system from the age 11 to 14. We would have the current comprehensives and grammar schools partnered with them and a student ratio of 80:20. There would be annual test where the lowest 10% of students in the grammar school would move to the comprehensive and the highest 10% of students in the comprehensive woud move up to grammar school, this would occur each year from 11 to 14.

    At 14 (year 9) students would take the final exam and stay in the grammar they were in/had gotten into or the comprehensive to do their GCSE's. It is for years 10 and 11 that i would add a 3rd tier because the lowest 10% in the comprehensive school would learn a trade at college while studying English and Maths 1 day per week.

    It is my belief that my proposal would add much needed competition to the system as students would compete for grammar school places based on their ability and the students at grammar school would have to work to avoid dropping down. Doing this on an annual basis means that students will always remain motivated. The inclusion of the third tier for students performing poorly also takes a large disruptive element out of the comprehenive system which would allow the compehensive to perform better while still giving the students learning a trade an adequate level of Maths and English.

    For those of you interested in the TSR HOC, it should be noted that there is a lot of support from the TSR Conservatives for selective education.
    I like your idea of admitting the highest academically achieving students from comprehensives to the grammar schools (and vice versa), though some alterations would probably be required. It would certainly keep the majority motivated. I do not however support your third tier, mainly because it would not currently be economically feasible but also because of certain social problems that may arise by concentrating all of the 'disrupting' students into one place. Yes I am being very general by suggesting that all the badly behaved students are the academically weakest but there is certainly a strong correlation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, even though I went to a state school I'd want the 11+ back.
 
 
 
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.