Grammar Schools

The thing about grammar schools is the environment - the students want to work and achieve whilst the teachers push you much harder than they would in a comprehensive.

See the posts above by myself and others.

The research does not demonstrate clearly, and beyond refute, what you claim it does.

Exactly, you are removing choices, why not add them instead?

You have no way on knowing that absolutely, without having done it.

You have no way of absolutely not knowing that, without having done it yourself - but that card is totally irrelevant. You cant base your argument entirely upon stats, i go to the grammar, i wouldnt lie if i didnt enjoy myself there!

What happens if the same few is held nationaly?

You're missing my point, your research does not take into account many such variables (that was only one example) and therefore is not an accurate reflection of the situation, it works only as an indicator, not as a statement of facts.

You have no way of absolutely not knowing that, without having done it yourself - but that card is totally irrelevant. You cant base your argument entirely upon stats, i go to the grammar, i wouldnt lie if i didnt enjoy myself there![/QUOTE]

That is a fatuous defence of grammar schools if ever there was one!

Do you not think that many thousands of children enjoy themselves at their schools, whatever the status?

As I said before, on more than one occasion - the 'success' of a school is purely down to intake, intake, intake.

But then i could quite easily say the same the inverse about the local grammar. Certainly, my brother was never pushed as much as i was, and ended up getting far worse GCSE results than i did.

Your local school isn't crap because its a comprehensive, its crap because its a crap school. The beauty of grammar schools is that, even when they're crap, the inate ability of the students allows them to coast along. When comprehensives are bad the quality of the students means they are really, really bad.

Personally, i don't see how stealing the brightest (or at least the best tutored!) 11 year olds helps anyone. Surely we;d be better off scrapping grammar schools and making sure all of our comprehensives were up to scratch?

Have you read any of the published research carried out by academics, rather that referring to anecdotal 'experiences' of forums members. The latter hardly constitues hard evidential research, does it?

You haven't read any of the methodology of the research, have you? Go on, admit it!

Otherwise you would know that to be considered credible, all variables have to be explored.

How the hell do you make comprehensives up to scratch? Pumping money doesn't work as that's the method they tried to use for the comp. If students don't want to learn then it's incredibly hard to make them. I don't see what's wrong with taking the people that do and putting them in an environment where they can.

I'm not at all surprised by the arguments here or the results of the poll. Did anyone stop to consider that certain comprehensives are in the state they are in BECAUSE of the selective process going on leaving them behind with a sub-standard education? Unfortunately the issue of education isn't quite as simple as the people who want to work and are intelligent going to grammars and the idiot trouble makers going to comprehensives. It's also closely linked to your parents education and income and the area you live. I'm sorry, but wanting to work hard and being intelligent isn't a god-given right to have a better education than anyone else, and people who go to comprehensives are just as entitled to a good standard of education.

If everyone recieved the same standard of schooling then we wouldn't have a two tiered system in which certain portions of the population are entitled to a good education and future whilst others are condemned to the poor schools in the 'bad' areas where respectable parents wouldn't dream of sending their hard working, well raised children! If there was no selection then the ability of students would be equally dispersed amongst schools, thus the 'bad' comprehensives would cease to be composed of mostly underacheiving students, and all schools would have an equal spread of ability and standard of education.

Furthermore those who attended grammars wouldn't come out with an elitist, patronising and generalising attitudes towards comprehensives and education in general.

If everyone recieved the same standard of schooling then we wouldn't have a two tiered system in which certain portions of the population are entitled to a good education and future whilst others are condemned to the poor schools in the 'bad' areas where respectable parents wouldn't dream of sending their hard working, well raised children! If there was no selection then the ability of students would be equally dispersed amongst schools, thus the 'bad' comprehensives would cease to be composed of mostly underacheiving students, and all schools would have an equal spread of ability and standard of education.

The best solution is that in comps and grammar schools there should be systematic testing after the first couple years of secondary education to make sure that the children are in the correct stream/type of school - allowing for transfers between grammar and comp so that children are always at the right level for them to achieve to their maximum capacity.

And, presuming that you did not go to a Grammar school - you would have a totally different opinion if you had, instead of pretending that Grammar schools are not good.

Not necessarily true - I got into one as well as a comp, and hated the grammar school as I outlined in my post. Perhaps it was just that one grammar school, maybe it was an exception, I don't know. But you can't assume that people will love grammar schools if they go to one.