Grammar Schools Watch

Poll: Do you support the existence of Grammar schools?
Yay (299)
81.03%
Nay (70)
18.97%
yawn
Badges: 13
#541
Report 12 years ago
#541
(Original post by The Ace is Back)
Exactly, which clearly demonstrates that GCSEs are not highly regarded as the best indicators of academic potential.
C'mon - that demonstrates no such thing!

In tie-breaker situations, the grades at GCSE provide evidence of greater potential for degree outcomes, since there is a greater correlation between them.

Are you worrying that you might not do so well as GCSE?
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#542
Report 12 years ago
#542
(Original post by The Ace is Back)
So - grammar schools produce paedophiles and stalkers, comprehensives don't?
Maybe they do!
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#543
Report 12 years ago
#543
(Original post by yawn)
C'mon - that demonstrates no such thing!

In tie-breaker situations, the grades at GCSE provide evidence of greater potential for degree outcomes, since there is a greater correlation between them.
Still a weak argument. If there was a 'greater' correlation, more universities would use them, and not just in a tie-breaker situation.
0
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#544
Report 12 years ago
#544
(Original post by yawn)
What is close to 100% - that each student at a grammar school will get more GCSE's than those who aren't?

All students in grammars should get 5 A*-C grades at GCSE, but they don't! In fact, considering their intake, many of these schools get a lower percentage through the benchmark than many of the comps with a comparative top quartile cohort...and this is what the researchers have commented on!
Not at all - don't twist my words. The question was whether "11+ rejects" would be outperformed by grammar students. Failing the 11+ and simply not attending a grammar school are different things.
The point is that the 'cream' as you choose to describe them - I prefer to refer to the top 2 to 5% ability range - do better in comps.

So why do you assume that it's better than having 'purely comprehensives'?
Because if I had stayed in with the rest of my primary school classmates, I would have had the **** kicked out of me in secondary school.
Your assertion about the top 2-5%, is that research you've already linked to?
0
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#545
Report 12 years ago
#545
(Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
I was simply pointing out that ex-pupilsfrom my local grammar school have been arrested for stalking, others have had a complete mental breakdown, others have been done for paedophila. Never heard anything like that about anyone from my comprehensive. Mind you, thats probably because its an all-boys grammar...
And? The local comprehensive where I live churns out large numbers of teenage mums, drug addicts and petty criminals.
0
reply
myself
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#546
Report 12 years ago
#546
It annoyed me greatly to watch the levelling-down antics of backbench Labour MPs during the latter stages of the progression of the Education Bill through the Commons.

The chance that poorer parents have of saving their children from the abysmal performance of sink schools provided by state-funded selective establishments should be greatly cherished.

It may not be right to have a fully selective education system, but the small number of remaining free Grammar Schools do a bloody fine job of increasing social mobility and providing those who cannot afford private education the opportunity of an atmospheric, wholesome and enriching educational environment.

State boarding is another good cookie, too.

So thumbs up to the 11+
0
reply
City bound
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#547
Report 12 years ago
#547
Grammar schools are by far the best way to ensure social mobility. It is interesting to note that during teacher training, lessons are given on teaching "special needs" children; this is defined as anyone under an IQ of 70 and over 130. There are specialist schools for the lower bracket, so why the opposition to those for the upper? There are too many talented children who are currently stuck in a state system that only educates them to whatever the current average is. Grammar schools make it easier for the teachers to pace lessons and deliver an effective program of tuition. They should be encouraged further, not restricted.
0
reply
amie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#548
Report 12 years ago
#548
(Original post by myself)
It may not be right to have a fully selective education system, but the small number of remaining free Grammar Schools do a bloody fine job of increasing social mobility and providing those who cannot afford private education the opportunity of an atmospheric, wholesome and enriching educational environment.
Well, I'm sure a lot of them do but certainly not all of them.

The one I went to was full of people who had happily enough passed the 11+, but whose parents had planned for them to go to one of the local private schools if they failed! In my area, there's a very obvious divide between those at the grammar and those at the secondary modern (and I should know, having been a student at both).

When I went to the secondary modern, the stereotype was that the grammar school girls (both were girls schools) were posh, snobby and looked down on secondary modern girls. When I moved to the grammar, people told me they were surprised that I was so nice and was doing so well because they had assumed I would be a chavvy thug with low grades having come from the secondary modern! Neither stereotype was true (well, except the one about grammar girls looking down on secondary modern ones, because that did happen a bit) but the fact that we were all divided did nothing to stop the perpetuation of them.

In the case of my area I think that most people would benefit from a comprehensive system. However, this is because in my area the standards at the secondary modern and grammar were pretty much exactly the same - the teaching, facilities, extra-curriculars and so on weren't any better but understandably expectations were higher at the grammar. I think that if we were all taught together, we'd benefit from becoming more integrated and stopping such ridiculous divisions, plus the secondary modern girls would be pushed harder to get better grades (whilst I was there, I was definitely cruising as I knew it'd be easy to do well by their standards).

In other areas where there's a huge difference between the standards of regular comps and grammars, well I can't see that they're doing any harm.
0
reply
subterfuge
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#549
Report 12 years ago
#549
Generally my experience of grammar school has been pretty good. I think that ive probably done better than i would have if i'd been at a comp due to the pressure and expectations, aswell as the good teaching and fairly large workload (I know my brother, currently in his 1st year of GCSEs at a comprehensive school gets far less homework than i did in year 7). I think i'd have performed worse at a comprehensive if i'd not been pushed into working hard. Although perhaps this could put some grammar school pupils not used to motivating themselves so much as some comprehensive school pupils at a disadvantage when at university.

I remember my english teacher once pointing out that, even though we all knew most of the answers, most people didnt bother putting their hand up to answer questions and asked whether it would be different if we were in a class of mostly lower achieving pupils. He said that pupils at other schools were often much more willing to take part, and show that they understood whereas we were much more comfortable sitting there waiting for somebody else to do the question answering. I think being in a large group of able students can make you feel a bit lazy & complacent sometimes, though i know that a lot of boys grammar schools operate more of a competitive scheme (displaying lists of marks/grades etc.)

There's a big issue over whether the 11+ is really measuring what it is supposed to. A lot of parents, particularly in the area i live in, send their children to tutors for excessive amounts of time to make sure they can pass the exam. Sometimes these kids can really struggle to keep up once they get to a grammar school, and perhaps they would have been better off at a comprehensive school.

Grammar schools are obviously selecting a lot of higher achieving pupils when compared with comprehensive schools, so they should be performing better, shouldnt they?
Does anybody have any views over whether grammar schools which are outperformed by comprehensive schools (perhaps continuously over a period of a couple of years) should be shut down, or turned into comprehensive schools?
0
reply
by-torslayshisfoe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#550
Report 12 years ago
#550
What's wrong with schools selecting pupils? And on the basis of academic ability? Oh yeah, it "hurts the feelings" and "damages" the self-esteem of think 11 year olds. :rolleyes:

Of course there SHOULD be NO state run education at all! My tax pounds should be forcibly taken from me to fund someone else's education. All positive rights are bunk!
0
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#551
Report 12 years ago
#551
(Original post by numero sept)
What's wrong with schools selecting pupils? And on the basis of academic ability? Oh yeah, it "hurts the feelings" and "damages" the self-esteem of think 11 year olds. :rolleyes:

Of course there SHOULD be NO state run education at all! My tax pounds should be forcibly taken from me to fund someone else's education. All positive rights are bunk!
What a funny joke. I would love, for maybe one year, for someone with views like yours to get into power, and put all of the ideas into place, just to show people how the country would be ruined. No state-run education? Economy would collapse and we'd be a country as ill-educated as the poor of Africa, you muppet.
0
reply
by-torslayshisfoe
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#552
Report 12 years ago
#552
The free market can provide education.
0
reply
Lemonsoul
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#553
Report 12 years ago
#553
(Original post by myself)
It may not be right to have a fully selective education system, but the small number of remaining free Grammar Schools do a bloody fine job of increasing social mobility and providing those who cannot afford private education the opportunity of an atmospheric, wholesome and enriching educational environment.

State boarding is another good cookie, too.

So thumbs up to the 11+
Who says Grammar Schools increase social mobility? And if increasing social mobility is so important why do we allow the existance of private schools, whose primary function is to undermine social mobility. It's also worth remembering that this 'atmospheric, wholesome and enriching educational environment' is only made availible to 25% of state-sector pupils, so maybe a better way of looking at the grammar school system is to see it as depriving the other 75%, and doing so on the basis of a half-days worth of exams taken at the age of 11 which many children are now tutored for.

(Original post by numero sept)
The free market can provide education.
No it can't, even the Victorians realised that.
0
reply
Alan Smithee
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#554
Report 12 years ago
#554
(Original post by numero sept)
The free market can provide education.
Lol. I'm sure people like you believe this kind of **** just to be different.
0
reply
sophisti_kate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#555
Report 12 years ago
#555
(Original post by numero sept)
What's wrong with schools selecting pupils? And on the basis of academic ability? Oh yeah, it "hurts the feelings" and "damages" the self-esteem of think 11 year olds. :rolleyes:

All positive rights are bunk!
Hear hear to that! It was a clear meritocracy with the 11plus - if you were good enough you got into the best schools, yes it might seem unfair but tough. In the end, the pupils got the education that suited them best.
0
reply
RieLouise
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#556
Report 12 years ago
#556
(Original post by sophisti_kate)
Hear hear to that! It was a clear meritocracy with the 11plus - if you were good enough you got into the best schools, yes it might seem unfair but tough. In the end, the pupils got the education that suited them best.
Oh dear!

'The rich man in his castle/The poor man at his gate', huh?

I wonder whether you got the education that suited you best.
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#557
Report 12 years ago
#557
In the three years that I have been a member of this forum, the subject of Grammar schools has formed numerous thread topics.

There is nothing more than can be added so why another one?

Forum guidelines suggest that before starting a new thread, one does a search to see if there is one raised already about the same subject.

Here's the most recent one, devoted entirely to grammar schools!

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...rammar+schools

I'm going to ask a mod if they will amalgamate this new one with the previous one.
reply
Golden Maverick
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#558
Report 12 years ago
#558
(Original post by yawn)
Forum guidelines suggest that before starting a new thread, one does a search to see if there is one raised already about the same subject.
If that rule was rigidly adhered to there might be one new thread per day in this forum, if we were lucky.
0
reply
Arminius
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#559
Report 12 years ago
#559
yes, i think grammar schools are a good idea. They have a good ethos and i think probably "save" more children from becoming dossers.

The only thing i don't like is the 11+, i quite like the idea of the system in germany. Whereby you can be moved between the grammar (where more academic subjects are studied) and the secondary modern (which offers more vocational courses). Theres free movement between them based on your grades etc, as far as i can tell the teachers make a reccomendation as to which one would be best for you, but ultimately the child and parents decide which one to go to.
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#560
Report 12 years ago
#560
(Original post by Golden Maverick)
If that rule was rigidly adhered to there might be one new thread per day in this forum, if we were lucky.
The salient point of the repetition of same thread titles and discussions is that selective education has been discussed ad nauseum and the last thread that I posted the link to only ended four weeks ago!

It was over 500 posts long and covered the viewpoints of all very comprehensively

Pun not intended!
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (52)
98.11%
No (1)
1.89%

Watched Threads

View All