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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I say leave education in the hands of the individual rather some IQ test at the age of 11.
    Some parents can afford better education for their kids, that's life.
    At least in the comprehensive system- even if you go to a really crappy one- you can teach yourself the syllabuses and still have the same opportunity as your friend to get an A grade.
    In an ideal world, everyone would have the exact same education and there would be no hierarchy of schools but, sadly, that will never happen. Sigh.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I like th eidea of Grammar Schools in theory, but I hate the 11+. When I was in school, it was always the post parents who paid for their children to have tutors (a friend of mine had 2- one for the actual knowledge, and one for exam practice), whereas those from poorer families who would be the ones who SHOULD be benefiting from the system are at an unfair advantage. But with the education system being the way it is now, it couldn't do much more damage, but it needs to be made a lot less elitist (My friend didn't pass, so her parents just sent her to the nearest public school instead)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    It doesn't solely benefit them, but it does give them an advantage.

    Some children, some intelligent children receive little support from home.

    There is a reason grammar schools are predominantly middle-class.

    It's not because their children are cleverer, either.
    Yeah, some. You fail to acknowledge that not all of this is by choice. Like fair enough, I would agree ith you had you said that some working class parents did not go to university themselves, etc, and therefore can not help with things they haven't experienced.

    As well as that, yes, there are many reasons why grammar schools are predominantly middle-class, but not all of these boil down to the parents.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    It was meant to be unseen.

    The fact that it wasn't unseen basically just gives the children with wealthier parents more chances of being tutored to pass it.

    I appreciate what you're saying, but IMO, I really don't see grammars as the way forward.

    Maybe I'm too much of a socialist, who knows
    No you're absolutely spot on with all your posts

    I went to a school in Buckinghamshire that was basically a 11+ factory. Parents bought their children into those grammar schools with extra tuition when many of these kids, pardon the french, were thick as pig****

    I left the school because my father got employment elsewhere in the country but I remember all the extra tests, the pressure heaped on the kids, the unsaid assumption that if you failed to get in your life would be rubbish and you'd get a substandard education

    Now roll out along the country and parents will buy little Tabitha into those schools. Look at what people do now to send their kids to private schools.

    It will segregate education. Very good for keeping an elite (and way to make many on here feel that they are academically superior) but as for social mobility, it will go completely backwards. It would be far better to abolish the national curriculum imo, and let teachers teach rather than jump through hoops, though having had very little experience teaching take my opinion for what it's worth

    P.S Ilickbatteries - York brofist!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I actually see Grammar schools as a big equaliser. I passed my 11+ when it was 5 exams (the first two were shoved into files and only bought out again if you failed and were appealing, and then you received the marks for the final three and they averaged the top two). I wasn't coached though my parents were supportive of my education.

    There were people of all backgrounds in my school. As for the coaching: two people in my class were from private schools and had been coached to extremes to pass. By the end of the Spring term they were both back at private school. It can get you in but it can't keep you there.

    The five exam system had the advantage of giving you a practice even if you hadn't been coached (and we had the standard Bucks prep session that every school in the county had).

    As for the other schools? I think the entire education system needs a rehaul. It is utterly daft to force people to study subjects that they are never going to be able to do. Particularly ones that have no bearing in the real world. Personally, I cannot draw. At all. Year 9 SATS I scored a L3 when every other subject was L7 or above. What was the point of me studying it? And it's the same with less academic students and Maths. Don't teach people trigonometry (for example) who can't do it, don't understand it and will never use it again. There's nothing wrong with not being able to do trig, because how useful is it as a life skill?

    So surely it would be better for everyone if schools were changed to teach more vocational subjects earlier so that KS3 students could be taught things they're good at. Which (in my mind) would be better for their self-belief, better for their education and give them skills they're likely to use in the future.

    But that's just my 2 cents. I am now prepared for an onslaught of neg rep.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    They still exist and work very well. It begs the question of why many were removed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    They still exist and work very well. It begs the question of why many were removed.
    Ask Margaret Thatcher, she closed a lot down.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I believe they are a good thing.

    Of course if reintroduced nationwide, the private prep schools will just tutor all the rich kiddies to pass the entrance exams whilst the comprehensive kids are left to fend for themselves
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by medbh4805)
    This is bull****, and shows you don't know much about how grammar schools operate (where they still do). At least 15% of my sixthform is composed of students who formerly attended secondary schools. They're all scarily ambitious too. Maybe the 11+ doesn't have such a devastating effect on students' self esteem as some would have you think.
    Your own stat works against you. I never said comprehensive students wouldn't go for higher education, only that they'd be less inclined to (as proven by the 15%). Out of genuine interest, how many pupils transferred from a comprehensive to your grammar school? If it's a low number, then my point is proven.

    The fact that they're 'scarily ambitious' is probably due to the fact that, regardless of their actual ability, them going to comprehensive school means that they've had to work a lot harder than yourself to get there, and will need the same work ethos to get into uni. They're disadvantaged, and all because they didn't do so well on one test when they were 11 - it's an unfair system.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    Your own stat works against you. I never said comprehensive students wouldn't go for higher education, only that they'd be less inclined to (as proven by the 15%). Out of genuine interest, how many pupils transferred from a comprehensive to your grammar school? If it's a low number, then my point is proven.

    The fact that they're 'scarily ambitious' is probably due to the fact that, regardless of their actual ability, them going to comprehensive school means that they've had to work a lot harder than yourself to get there, and will need the same work ethos to get into uni. They're disadvantaged, and all because they didn't do so well on one test when they were 11 - it's an unfair system.
    We don't have comprehensives in Northern Ireland, we have secondary schools. About 30 pupils transferred to my school. There are 4 grammar schools in my city of ~130,000 people, so replicate that in each of them, remembering that the two biggest grammar schools are nearly double the size of the next biggest secondary schools. Virtually all of them will go to university. About 25% of the students who remain in secondary school will also go to university. Less students from comprehensives go to university? No **** sherlock. And all-ability intake means that most students don't want or are not able for university entrance.
    My point was that any later developers can and do move between schools if they want a grammar school education, and their secondary school education does not serve as a hinderance.

    Disadvantaged? As I said in an earlier post I would rather any of my future children went to a secondary school in NI than a comp in England. You can read my reasons if you look back - I would add that another advantage is the more focused help on for students who are struggling. But if you want to believe that secondary schools are still like they were in the 50s and 60s then you can, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to the current reality. (older sister went to a secondary, mother taught in one for 15+ years, I'm well informed enough to make this judgement).

    Had to work a lot harder? :holmes: Maybe. I did/do a few extra subjects in my own time but that's just me. Presently I easily do an 80 hour week but clearly you're prepared to make judgments anyway. :teehee:

    Personally I would like to see selection at 14 rather than 11 like in Germany but that's another issue. I don't believe that they're disadvantaged - but we would all be disadvantaged if they tried to offer the curriculum offered by the secondaries and the grammar schools in one school. Someone would lose out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Err, good luck with that? :lolwut:
    I know
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    To me the main aim of Grammar schools is to help increase social mobility. This study has shown that they don't: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ocial-mobility

    All you're really doing is creating a two tier system, with no real social benefit. In fact, the top 20% are going to have a more socially limited experience, as they will only be interacting with those similar to themselves (largely middle class, similar academic ability). State schools tier sets for the core subjects, so I don't see why the needs of the brightest cannot be met?

    Education standards have improved since Grammar schools have began to be phased out. Whilst there are a number of factors at play, surely if Grammar schools were that important, their removal would have made a big dent in that improvement. Consequently, I think it is better to focus on improving comprehensives then reintroducing Grammars.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by fivebyfive)
    To me the main aim of Grammar schools is to help increase social mobility. This study has shown that they don't: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ocial-mobility

    All you're really doing is creating a two tier system, with no real social benefit. In fact, the top 20% are going to have a more socially limited experience, as they will only be interacting with those similar to themselves (largely middle class, similar academic ability). State schools tier sets for the core subjects, so I don't see why the needs of the brightest cannot be met?

    Education standards have improved since Grammar schools have began to be phased out. Whilst there are a number of factors at play, surely if Grammar schools were that important, their removal would have made a big dent in that improvement. Consequently, I think it is better to focus on improving comprehensives then reintroducing Grammars.
    How do you propose we improve comprehensives then? What the hell do you mean by such a vague statement?

    Oh and that article is from the Guardian, not the best of sources... Especially since social mobility can't be measured statistically.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The campaign to restore grammar schools is a distraction from the need to provide better education for the majority of children. Additionally, there are successful comprehensives all over the country. It is nonsense to pretend that comprehensives can't be as successful as grammar schools in teaching the academically able while also catering for the less academic.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    How do you propose we improve comprehensives then? What the hell do you mean by such a vague statement?

    Oh and that article is from the Guardian, not the best of sources... Especially since social mobility can't be measured statistically.
    Eh? Social mobility can clearly be measured statistically. That's what they did in the study. The Guardian is not unbiased, but the study that the article is based on should be, as it's a published paper. The Guardian did not change those results.

    I just don't think U turning the current policy towards Grammar schools is going to help anyone, considering these findings. Comprehensives can provide a equal (or even better education) than Grammar schools, and some do.

    We should be looking at these comprehensives in order to improve state education across the board. I've highlighted the disadvantages of Grammars schools in my previous post, considering these, and that Grammars schools have only a slight impact on social mobility, it clearly makes sense to focus on Comprehensives.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by fivebyfive)
    Eh? Social mobility can clearly be measured statistically. That's what they did in the study. The Guardian is not unbiased, but the study that the article is based on should be, as it's a published paper. The Guardian did not change those results.

    I just don't think U turning the current policy towards Grammar schools is going to help anyone, considering these findings. Comprehensives can provide a equal (or even better education) than Grammar schools, and some do.

    We should be looking at these comprehensives in order to improve state education across the board. I've highlighted the disadvantages of Grammars schools in my previous post, considering these, and that Grammars schools have only a slight impact on social mobility, it clearly makes sense to focus on Comprehensives.
    You have not answered my question. You keep enforcing this idea that we should "improve comprehensives", but how?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think there needs to be some sort of system where poorer students with ability can get a solid education from a grammar school without the restrictions of less able students you get at a normal school. The ones that don't particuarly want to follow an academic GCSE course, but would be better suited to a more vocational skills based education.

    The change for me from a Comp. for GCSE and Grammar school for Sixth Form was huge. The attitude of the students was so different and people actually wanted to learn, the disruptions to lessons due to bad behaviour were non-existant. This is also due to the school being more strict.

    It's not one of those things that can be solved in an hour, it'll take many many years to get a fairer system that caters to everybody, and then, there will always be people left out
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why can't we just have large schools with a wide range of subjects and effective streaming? And do it on a year by year, pupil by pupil basis. Expecting Grammar schools to solve young people's complex educational and developmental requirements, with their utterly arbitrary binary division of pupils aged 11, is like attempting open heart surgery with a meat cleaver.
    Offline

    4
    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.
    You don't have to belong to specific catchment area to go to a grammar....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    You have not answered my question. You keep enforcing this idea that we should "improve comprehensives", but how?
    This is a really open ended question, there are lots of ways: by looking at how good comprehensive works, and learning from this, as I suggested in an earlier post. Stream lining the amount of red tape, so teachers can do their jobs more effectively. Greater investment, but it is clearly not going to happen in the current economic climate.

    My point is, Grammar schools will take some of that improvement away from comprehensives. They lose the majority of the top 20% of students for a start. I just don't see the need for Grammars when state schools can clearly provide the same standard of education.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.