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

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who went to one, I voted yes.

    But a different admission than the 11+.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I fully support grammar schools, but believe selection should take place at 14 rather than 11.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I should add though, they should still be relatively uncommon. Everyone should be able to apply but there shouldn't be 5/6 in every area.

    It should be an achievement, not a rite of passage.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    And what about the other 75% of people?
    That's the very problem of grammar schools.

    Benefit the few at the expense of the many.

    No schooling system is perfect. However, nothing destroys the chances of children doing well like the tripartite system.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    The grammar school system has done you well.

    However, what if you, for whatever reason, hadn't passed the 11+?

    Do you accept that it is right for the 75% of children who didn't pass, that they should receive a lower standard of education?

    Why create a two-tier education system?

    Nobody wants to teach in a secondary modern when they could teach in a grammar, meaning the teachers there are only there for the money, not because they want to teach. The students go there full in the knowledge that they are failures and are branded such by rejection from a grammar school. Why label a child with 'failure' at such a young age? What good does that do? Why base it on one damn exam?

    Putting children into ability sets at the end of KS3 using a range of testing methods such as school reports, teacher assessments and in-house exams at the end of year 9 to decide what student goes in what set is much, much fairer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Reintroduction? I went to a grammar school.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I think people only need to watch 5 minutes of 'Jamie's Dream School' to realise why we need Grammar schools. It's not fair to put good students with these children, who are disfunctional because of their home lives.[]
    Their circumstances are beyond their control. Nobody chooses to be born working class.

    And what? those disfunctional stutents already disregarded by the system sacrafice their right to equality of opportunity, and go to an even more deprived school so the middle class dont have to put up with them anymore?
    Out of sight, out of mind?
    The Tripartite system was taken out because it activily reinforced class inequality.
    I would never support this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, definitely.

    However, I do not believe that the 11+ (or indeed any IQ test) is a fair assessment.

    I did not get into my local grammar school, but a few people from my class did. Most of these were not especially bright, scored only averagely on SATs and other class tests, and every single one who got in had private tuition. [Incidentally, no-one from my school who had private tuition failed to get in.]

    Just goes to show though, I managed to get better grades in GCSE and A-Level from my comprehensive (as well as KS2 SATs) than they did from the grammar school.

    I believe that these days, entrance should be based on SATs or some other form of relevant academic testing, not arbitrary IQ reasoning style tests. I believe the reason for using the 11+ stemmed from the need to have some sort of independent test which would not be affected by the extent of education (and ultimately affluence of background) of the subjects. However, these days such things are irrelevant as we have all the resources of the internet (something I found way more valuable than nearly all of the teachers I had when it came to GCSE time) which is of course open to almost everyone.

    Also I do support the idea of transfers in and out at age 14, but I do not believe teachers should be responsible for this (I had bad times with some teachers who demonstrated extreme favouritism towards other pupils, and besides having teachers refer their best students to a different school goes against the school's interests -- i.e. league tables). SATs I believe would be the most effective measure, as there is no teacher bias on the results of these tests.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    That's the very problem of grammar schools.

    Benefit the few at the expense of the many.

    No schooling system is perfect. However, nothing destroys the chances of children doing well like the tripartite system.
    Exactly, the benefit a small minority gain (which, lets face it, would do pretty well any way as they're generally from a better class background and are more intellegtn) doesn't offset the destruction of the life chances of the other 75% of children who are plunged into a culture of failure.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Exactly, the benefit a small minority gain (which, lets face it, would do pretty well any way as they're generally from a better class background and are more intellegtn) doesn't offset the destruction of the life chances of the other 75% of children who are plunged into a culture of failure.
    That's just simply not true. Hey why don't we scrap university admissions and let everyone go, because let's face it those students would do just as well anyway, even if the standard of learning is dramatically reduced. This way the rest of the public wont be plunged into certain failure in their life too.
    Offline

    13
    These sorts of polls particularly attract those who support the status quo. Polls on retaining the monarchy are a comparable example, yet such support is not indicative of the populus as a whole - in either case - but rather indicate that the vociferous minority distort the outcomes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    These sorts of polls particularly attract those who support the status quo. Polls on retaining the monarchy are a comparable example, yet such support is not indicative of the populus as a whole - in either case - but rather indicate that the vociferous minority distort the outcomes.
    Have you seen the poll results?
    What are your opinions on the matter?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I support the reintroduction of grammar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I do. On the basis that we properly fund comprehensive schools and give kids more than one chance to go to a grammar school. The current system is nothing like a fair one because of the postcode lottery of comprehensive schools in a lot of areas up and down the country - meaning the rich parents, if they don't like the school they're in the catchment area for, can leave and move to a new catchment area a hell of a lot easier than people from a working class background.

    We need to properly fund education on all levels, we need to put focus on vocational subjects for those who don't want to go down the academic route. Fully restoring grammar schools with more than one entry point, with properly funded comprehensives and scrapping the postcode lottery system we have at the moment are key to having a good education system.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    Whilst of course there comes a time when students must accept the fact that they will be sorted by ability, I think that doing this via the method of sets in comprehensive schools would be the best way for all parties.
    Sets definitely does not solve the problem.
    Offline

    14
    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?
    Good question - all I can say is that we seem to manage here with the costs. I'm not sure why that is.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    Personally, I think that separating children at aged 11 based on academic ability is wrong.
    Why? Mixed ability classes do not work. I think it's necessary to separate children at the age of 11, so they can reach their full potential. Separating them at 13 is simply too late.

    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.
    Then they can have a second chance at 13, or a third chance of 16. What's wrong with that?

    Many people who were in the lower sets when I was in Year 7 achieved some pretty impressive GCSE results, and vice versa.
    Grades =/= intelligence

    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.
    But it is true that if someone is more academic than another person, they ARE superior to them - academically speaking. What's so politically incorrect about that? Some people are more "intellectual" than others.

    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.
    Bull****. What about the chance to go to a grammar school? To study for a course at a top university?

    You're implying comprehensive students have no ambition.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    The grammar school system has done you well.

    However, what if you, for whatever reason, hadn't passed the 11+?

    Do you accept that it is right for the 75% of children who didn't pass, that they should receive a lower standard of education?
    Is it fair that those who are more academically able than others have to suffer a lower standard of education?

    As I believe, reducing *everyone* to the lowest common denominator. And people wonder why private school pupils do so well...

    Why not offer some bright although poor kids the *chance* to receive a better education?

    Why create a two-tier education system?
    I'm afraid there already IS one.

    Nobody wants to teach in a secondary modern when they could teach in a grammar, meaning the teachers there are only there for the money, not because they want to teach. The students go there full in the knowledge that they are failures and are branded such by rejection from a grammar school. Why label a child with 'failure' at such a young age? What good does that do? Why base it on one damn exam?
    Absolute bull****. I know many people who *preferred* to teach at a secondary modern, oh and they're the types who could've gone into banking, law etc. No, they chose to work in a state comp.

    Trust me, "rejection from a grammar school" =/= failure. That's like saying if you're rejected from Oxbridge, you're a failure. What is this absolute crap? Most kids couldn't care if they "failed" the 11+, they simply move on. Not going to a grammar school is not the end of the world.

    Also, you're saying "why base on one damn exam". Well, that's how the education system works. One damn exam could make you fail your English GCSE, your Biology A-level, prevent you from studying Mathematics at Cambridge (STEP), be rejected for Oxford History (HAT), not being able to study Medicine (UKCAT/BMAT).

    That's how it is - fail your exam, tough. That's the point of an exam. Not everyone can pass.

    Putting children into ability sets at the end of KS3 using a range of testing methods such as school reports, teacher assessments and in-house exams at the end of year 9 to decide what student goes in what set is much, much fairer.
    They do not work. Trust me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .:Doctor:.)
    That's just simply not true. Hey why don't we scrap university admissions and let everyone go, because let's face it those students would do just as well anyway, even if the standard of learning is dramatically reduced. This way the rest of the public wont be plunged into certain failure in their life too.
    Oh please, there is a major difference between selection at 11 and at 18. At 11 kids are still developing physically, mentally and are at very different levels of development overall-it isn't an even time to take a test. 11-16 education provides almost all of the most important skills that everyone needs to get on in the world while university education is exactly what it says-higher and further education that is needed to get into certain jobs.

    In short they are not directly comparable.

    The period 11-16 is possibly the most important in directly determining a childs future. We learn pretty much all the skills we need to function in the modern world and develop hugely. At 11 date of birth, level of development and so forth are wildly different from child to child while by 16 these differences have largely evened out. At 11 a childs potental is still largely up in the air-we have pointers but due to different rates of development we can't really know how good each child can be. By seperating the supposed 'talent' (which, of course, is largely determined by class, tutoring and so forth) from the apparently 'less talented' we condemn the vast majority of pupils to sub standard education and to a culture of failure. To label 75% of people failures at such a early age is, quite simply, wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Asking this question on here would never represent how people think up and down the country. It'd be like asking the catholics in NI what they think of Bloody Sunday.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.