Grammar Schools - Good idea or bad idea?

Before trying to put words into my mouth, you should understand what I actually mean first.

What I am saying is grammar schools look as thought they are getting kids good grades by selecting kids who would have got good grades anyway, even if the teaching was average.

They are not adding any value, just maintaining it. Adding value would be to get kids who would not have got good grades, good grades. Its a far tougher job to add value than just to maintain value.

.

I go to a grammar school now and I definitely think they're a good idea. The comps in my area are absolutely cr*p, and I know the argument is that kids do as well as they would do in a comprehensive anyway but I don't think this is true. The atmosphere at my school is really competitive and that's what gets better results imo - I need to be motivated and pushed to do work unfortunately. My grades would have been worse in a situation where it was down to me to do work outside the classroom. The problem here is the standard of comprehensives across the country.

About 40% of my school are from a working class background, so I think they do help with social mobility and providing better opportunities. In fact, it's many of these people who are going on to do Medicine and Dentistry at uni because they've had a better study environment arguably.

As for the 11+, I really didn't feel under that much pressure, but maybe that's down to my parents not being pushy and not making it seem like the be all and end all.

I think it is harsh to write off the work done in the seven years between 11 and 18 and say that the school has no effect.

Could it not be the case that as schools are not having to cater for such a broad spectrum of abilities they are able to focus there teaching more effectively.

It would be interesting to compare the overall attainment between two areas with multiple schools. One area with a mix of grammar and comprehensive schools and another purely comprehensive.

Before trying to put words into my mouth, you should understand what I actually mean first.

What I am saying is grammar schools look as thought they are getting kids good grades by selecting kids who would have got good grades anyway, even if the teaching was average.

They are not adding any value, just maintaining it. Adding value would be to get kids who would not have got good grades, good grades. Its a far tougher job to add value than just to maintain value.

.

I appreciate this argument. What worries me is the bright kids who go to comprehensives and 'lose' value. It's only anecdotal, but I've heard it enough times to make me worry, of the number of people I know, or friends of friends etc., who just fall through the cracks. they're bright, but need the push - and in a comprehensive environment, unless there is a teacher like my mum who refuses to let them fail, they just sink without a trace. They get in with the wrong crowd, or they dont' want to seem 'uncool' by doing well.

and then there is the comment I hear a lot from people i went to uni with - they just don't have the same self-confidence that their peers from independent schools or grammars have; they have spent their secondary education working hard, but hiding it, and aren't used to speaking up in class with the right answer. again, it's anecdotal, but i think it's an important anecdote. the culture of the comprehensive school does seem to be failing students, at least at some level.

I'm in favour of grammars from that perspective, but I actually think a real revisitation of our educational culture is needed by people more learned than I. and I don't mean just instituting a gifted and talented register....

I know... of it

The fact that all of the people who went to a grammar school are in favour of them must be saying something.

Grammar schools is not a solution to low average educational attainment, they merely move the problem elsewhere. It would be like having a 2 tier health system.

One hospital where patients are selected because they are not too ill so will get better and another hospital where all the really ill patients end up. People will still end up dead but out of sight.

By having a school where all the kids are assummed to not benefit or need a good education, all the kids that would have benefited from a good education would not get the chance because they did not pass an entrance exam which sets an arbitary cut off.

So the argument that grammars aids social mobility can be turned on its head because having a grammar system must be definition also have a secondary modern part as well whether they are called that or not.

One of Britain's educational problems is not educating those at the top end of the academic range, Britain's higher education system is very good but its the people in the middle and lower end of the ability range that the British system does less well than many other countries like Japan and Germany. So more grammars are not needed because there is not a problem for them to solve.

I went to one and it was awful. Facilities were ancient or non existent, we literally had nothing. The ceiling leaked all over the building whenever it rained. The teachers didn't give a ****, I don't blame them, as it was a grammar school it got no funding from the government so they probably got paid next to nothing. One of the huts (we had barely any classrooms) was so rotten that it collapsed during a lesson. I was so jealous of my friends at up to date schools with teachers that cared, who didnt have the CONSTANT PRESSURE and threat of being thrown out if you didnt meet the grades. Also, as someone has already commendably mentioned - LET ONLY BRIGHT PEOPLE IN AND YOU WILL GET GOOD RESULTS. Thats how they do it. We all taught ourselves most subjects because we cared so much about our education.

well, I don't think that bringing back the grammar system necessarily means that children who don't get in don't need a good education. But, like I said in my post, I think the main problem is that there lacks a good educational environment - and respect amongst the student body for achievement and academic success - in many comprehensive schools.

I agree that the 11+ is problematic, and if something like a grammar system was ever brought back, there would need to be something more flexible. But I do think we need to face up to the fact that not everyone is academic; some pupils need much more vocationally focussed education, and I'm not convinced that a unitary educational system suits. I think, at least as it currently is, it fails children of all abilities.

I'm not saying that grammars are necessarily the solution, but they are one solution. but, as I said before, i think a serious review of educational culture in our country is needed.

To be honest, grammars are not really that selective. They choose around the top 25-30% by academic ability which I think is a bit lax. If you have ambitions to get a job like dentistry or academia, getting into a grammar should be a walk in the park.

I appreciate this argument. What worries me is the bright kids who go to comprehensives and 'lose' value. It's only anecdotal, but I've heard it enough times to make me worry, of the number of people I know, or friends of friends etc., who just fall through the cracks. they're bright, but need the push - and in a comprehensive environment, unless there is a teacher like my mum who refuses to let them fail, they just sink without a trace. They get in with the wrong crowd, or they dont' want to seem 'uncool' by doing well.

and then there is the comment I hear a lot from people i went to uni with - they just don't have the same self-confidence that their peers from independent schools or grammars have; they have spent their secondary education working hard, but hiding it, and aren't used to speaking up in class with the right answer. again, it's anecdotal, but i think it's an important anecdote. the culture of the comprehensive school does seem to be failing students, at least at some level.

I'm in favour of grammars from that perspective, but I actually think a real revisitation of our educational culture is needed by people more learned than I. and I don't mean just instituting a gifted and talented register....

Grammar schools is not a solution to low average educational attainment, they merely move the problem elsewhere. It would be like having a 2 tier health system.

One hospital where patients are selected because they are not too ill so will get better and another hospital where all the really ill patients end up. People will still end up dead but out of sight.

By having a school where all the kids are assummed to not benefit or need a good education, all the kids that would have benefited from a good education would not get the chance because they did not pass an entrance exam which sets an arbitary cut off.

You don't need a separate school in a separate building to tailor education to different kids.

You don't need a separate school in a separate building to tailor education to different kids.

My school had streaming so kids of similar ability were taught together. The streams were flexible so people who were good at science were in the appropriate class but if they were less good in say history, they were in a lower class for that. You could also move up and down streams depending on your yearly exam results.

This is better than a grammar where if a kid was good at English but poor at maths, he may not get into a grammar because he did not pass the entrance exam due to his lessor ability in maths but also could not fulfil his potential in English because he had to go to a secondary mod where he wasn't taught English to the level that would have made the best of his ability.

Personally think they're a lousy idea and a pointless one at that as essentially the state ends up needing to run 2 schooling systems.

I believe a better system would be instead of running a whole separate school, where a student can perform exceptionally well then that student should be given the choice to enter a better private school in the vicinity should it be a better place to be. A funding system should be in place and it doesn't have to be means tested, if the student is good then he or she is good, the state and the school pays for the cost of that student being in the private school. A win-win for everyone, the private school gets some money, the student gets a better education and the parents doesn't have to fret over not being able to afford it because it should essentially cost nothing to the parents if their brat is good enough to be there. The state gets to save on cost as well because it essentially means it does not need to keep a school running.

The reality of Grammar schools tends to be that they are for the upper middle class who can afford to tutor their children into them.