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:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    You have not answered my question. You keep enforcing this idea that we should "improve comprehensives", but how?
    Just because the best route forwards is not entirely clear, does not mean we should start moving in the wrong direction entirely.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Just because the best route forwards is not entirely clear, does not mean we should start moving in the wrong direction entirely.
    This is exactly the arguement that will cause rolling grey-outs in the UK when our aging and unreplaced nuclear reactors are finally offlined.

    An imperfect solution is vastly better than no solution at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .:Doctor:.)
    The Conservative party officially does not support their reintroduction, do you?
    They do still exist - I go to one. But, on the whole, yes I think they should be re-introduced. They allow those who are willing to work hard to achieve their potential, whereas comprehensive schools are a pain for those who want to succeed but are hindered by others who can't be bothered.

    I don't think the 11+ is indicative of the sort of intelligence you need to succeed at GCSE/A-level though. I admit that I wouldn't have achieved a place at my current school if it weren't for extensive tutoring to help me through the 11+, but since then I achieved good GCSEs and AS-levels, so I don't think it's a very good indicator at all.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fivebyfive)
    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.
    What would you do if it turned out that "looking at how good comprehensives work" uncovers that the reason they do so well is because they have lower proportions of students from deprived backgrounds and more middle-class parents with sharp elbows? Ie, if its proven that everything you are criticising about grammar schools is exactly what makes some comprehensives actually work.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by fivebyfive)
    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.
    Greater investment? You do know that the majority of grammar schools have less spending per pupil compared to state comprehensives? Money is not the issue here.

    Having said that, we do not need to know how good comprehensive schools work. It is quite simple:

    *People from a better socio-economic background
    *Selective
    *Strong discipline
    *Students who want to learn

    http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news...lly-selective/
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...rs-535906.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8611907.stm
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...y-1942111.html
    http://montrose42.wordpress.com/2010...ool-selective/

    There is no such thing as a truly "top comprehensive" school. Sure, there may be good comprehensive schools which take people from a range of abilities, but that is not the case at top comprehensives.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Just because the best route forwards is not entirely clear, does not mean we should start moving in the wrong direction entirely.
    Which is what politicians have been doing so for decades, just look at the stick Gove's English Baccalaureate plan has received. Arguably the "EBacc" is trying to encourage state school pupils to have the same chances as private school pupils by taking more respected subjects at GCSE (as it is widely known schools enter pupils for "easier" qualifications to boost league table points).

    Yet that has been given a lot of criticism due to reasons pertaining about "elitism".
    Offline

    0
    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.
    i live 14 miles away from my school, and I still got a place
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In reality, what makes a Grammar school better than a comprehensive school?
    I'd say 2 things:
    1 - In general the kids want to learn and you don't have the people who are distruptive.
    2 - The school wants to push your education further.

    Now, take a comprehensive school. The first point I made above can be done through a set of streaming pupils into different classes based on ability (allowing movement between the classes). The second point I made is already true in some comprehensives and is more of an attitude problem than something that is "wrong" with comps.

    So really, what are we left with in favour of Grammars that couldn't be done within a comprehensive?
    Nothing.

    (Original post by moneyballs2)
    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.
    1 - Part of that is explained by the move to sixth form (which is not compulsary, so you will lose a lot of the people who just don't want to be there).

    2 - As you said, it is also partly down to how strict it was.

    So really, it wasn't just the fact it was a Grammar school was it.

    (Original post by py0alb)
    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.
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    This is exactly the arguement that will cause rolling grey-outs in the UK when our aging and unreplaced nuclear reactors are finally offlined.

    An imperfect solution is vastly better than no solution at all.
    The nuclear power debate is a different thread, in this thread we're talking about the merits of the grammar school/secondary modern binary divide.

    Thanks for the contribution, anyway. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    In reality, what makes a Grammar school better than a comprehensive school?
    As you imply, its not rocket science to figure out that the kind of parents who tutor their kids to pass their 11+ will generally also be more likely to tutor them to do well in their GCSEs and A-levels.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    As you imply, its not rocket science to figure out that the kind of parents who tutor their kids to pass their 11+ will generally also be more likely to tutor them to do well in their GCSEs and A-levels.
    If it was just down to parents, why would it matter whether such kids went to a comprehensive or grammar school - the kids without such motivated parents will be relatively worse off either way.

    Hint: its because the problem is not just inequal resources, its the actual -cultural- atmosphere at sink comprehensives - anti-elitist, anti-intellectual and above all else anti-learning.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    The nuclear power debate is a different thread, in this thread we're talking about the merits of the grammar school/secondary modern binary divide.

    Thanks for the contribution, anyway. :rolleyes:
    The current modern comprehensive model is failing horribly. Standards of literacy and numeracy are falling faster than measures can be dropped to make them appear otherwise. Bullying is as bad or worse than it has ever been (and this is NOT an unrelated problem).

    You shoot down a proven solution, without providing anything more than nebulous handwaving as an alternative.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    1 - Part of that is explained by the move to sixth form (which is not compulsary, so you will lose a lot of the people who just don't want to be there).

    2 - As you said, it is also partly down to how strict it was.

    So really, it wasn't just the fact it was a Grammar school was it?
    T
    1) I also attended a comp sixth form before I went to the Grammar School. The attitude of the pupils was largely the same. I also mentioned that this attitude of wanting to learn is shown throughout the entire school, whereas at my old school it was only a minority that wanted to learn. We were largely hindered by the majority of students who couldn't give a crap. The GCSE pass rate for my year was well below 30%, which pretty much sums up the extent of the collective 'want' to be there.

    2) The Grammar school was able to be strict because the pupils want to be there. The pupils will listen to the teachers and behave. At the other school, many of the pupils didn't want to be there, so didn't give a crap about the strictness of the school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    The current modern comprehensive model is failing horribly. Standards of literacy and numeracy are falling faster than standards can be dropped to make them appear otherwise. Bullying is as bad or worse than it has ever been (and this is NOT an unrelated problem).

    You shoot down a proven solution, without providing anything more than nebulous handwaving as an alternative.
    Its not a proven solution. In fact its the cause of the current set of problems. You can't have grammar schools without having their antithesis, the "secondary modern", the direct precursor of the bogstandard comprehensive system that is such an issue. It was the original introduction of the 11+ that inadvertently caused the problems we have today. Grammar schools aren't the solution, they're the very cause of the problem in the first place.

    As a pre-emptive measure, saying "but lets just send every kid to a grammar school" is breathtakingly stupid, so don't do it.

    There are plenty of valid alternative solutions. But until you have the intellectual capability to understand that the failed grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy is the worst possible direction to move in, then I'm not going to waste my time talking over your head.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I do support it, I've experienced private,comprehensive and grammar and for my experience at grammar school was by far the best. It does need some serious reforms to the entry system though.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    In reality, what makes a Grammar school better than a comprehensive school?
    I'd say 2 things:
    1 - In general the kids want to learn and you don't have the people who are distruptive.
    2 - The school wants to push your education further.

    Now, take a comprehensive school. The first point I made above can be done through a set of streaming pupils into different classes based on ability (allowing movement between the classes). The second point I made is already true in some comprehensives and is more of an attitude problem than something that is "wrong" with comps.
    Such a simplistic view. You really think "sets" and "streaming" work in reality?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Hint: its because the problem is not just inequal resources, its the actual -cultural- atmosphere at sink comprehensives - anti-elitist, anti-intellectual and above all else anti-learning.
    But that is partly the point.

    1 - Quite often that attitude will come from somewhere. Often the parents.
    2 - Its just that. An attitude. With the right staff, the right approaches, the right staff attitude and work ethic, you can change that.

    (Original post by moneyballs2)
    1) I also attended a comp sixth form before I went to the Grammar School. The attitude of the pupils was largely the same. I also mentioned that this attitude of wanting to learn is shown throughout the entire school, whereas at my old school it was only a minority that wanted to learn. We were largely hindered by the majority of students who couldn't give a crap. The GCSE pass rate for my year was well below 30%, which pretty much sums up the extent of the collective 'want' to be there.

    2) The Grammar school was able to be strict because the pupils want to be there. The pupils will listen to the teachers and behave. At the other school, many of the pupils didn't want to be there, so didn't give a crap about the strictness of the school.
    1 - Fair enough. The GCSE pass rate at my comp was a lot lot higher than that. Again, its partly attitudes though.

    2 - There is no reason why you can't be strict with people who don't want to be there. If they don't listen, kick them out of lessons and stick them in a referul unit or something.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tillytots)
    I do support it, I've experienced private,comprehensive and grammar and for my experience at grammar school was by far the best. It does need some serious reforms to the entry system though.
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    grammar schools are a good, free alternative to private schools. they are for people who cannot afford to send their kids to private school, but still want them to have a good education. GO GRAMMAR SCHOOLS yeah
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Such a simplistic view. You really think "sets" and "streaming" work in reality?
    We have gone over this before. Yes I do think they work, because I have seen them work.

    Why is the idea of grammar schools so different to sets and streaming then?

    They are the same thing really. Seperating out the pupils on ability, and putting them in environments to reflect that. The difference is that streaming allows more fluid movement, rather than having to undergo the huge shift that changing school brings.

    So why do you feel Grammar schools work, but sets / streaming pupils does not?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
    Discussions on TSR

  • Latest
  • Personalise

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.