Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Eh? Sorry, I don't really follow.
    I'm saying allowing everyone to take tests to see if they are eligble for gramamar school is a must whether they are stressful or not, for a fairer education.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I'm saying allowing everyone to take tests to see if they are eligble for gramamar school is a must whether they are stressful or not, for a fairer education.
    So you think that if the 11+ didn't exist, then Grammars would just accept rich kids (even though they are non-fee paying)?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    So you think that if the 11+ didn't exist, then Grammars would just accept rich kids (even though they are non-fee paying)?
    Poor kids parents are not likely to 'donate'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    Poor kids parents are not likely to 'donate'.
    Neither are rich parents IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    There is also the question of intellectual development. Grammar/High school system doesn't allow for late intellectual developers to be correctly placed.
    Maybe so, but this is always going to be a problem right up to higher education. Is it fair that the most academically rigorous universities select the majority of their applicants based on their performance in tests at ages 16-18? Especially when you consider that the average person does not intellectually peak until 25 - and there is not necessarily a uniform trend of intellectual development i.e. someone may come on leaps and bounds at age 23.

    In any exam, intelligent people, whether their intelligence be present or latent will always slip through the net. No examination is 'perfect' and I doubt whether one ever will be. A case could be made that your average 16 year old(especially a boy) is subject to massive hormonal upheaval when faced with GCSEs, whereas this is not nearly so much the case with the 11+.

    When you consider that several independent schools in this country (and the wider world) test children every year from top juniors up to leaving the school, and that the those deemed to have performed badly are shown the door - the 11+ isn't all that bad!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Maybe so, but this is always going to be a problem right up to higher education. Is it fair that the most academically rigorous universities select the majority of their applicants based on their performance in tests at ages 16-18? Especially when you consider that the average person does not intellectually peak until 25 - and there is not necessarily a uniform trend of intellectual development i.e. someone may come on leaps and bounds at age 23.

    In any exam, intelligent people, whether their intelligence be present or latent will always slip through the net. No examination is 'perfect' and I doubt whether one ever will be. A case could be made that your average 16 year old(especially a boy) is subject to massive hormonal upheaval when faced with GCSEs, whereas this is not nearly so much the case with the 11+.

    When you consider that several independent schools in this country (and the wider world) test children every year from top juniors up to leaving the school, and that the those deemed to have performed badly are shown the door - the 11+ isn't all that bad!
    Good point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Although, as I have made clear in previous posts, I feel that the 11+ has many shortcomings - the abolition of grammar schools would not solve the problem of a rather patchy comprehensive system. I say rather patchy because there are some fabulous comprehensive schools which provide an education to all children (including the most able) which is of an international standard.

    If I take my personal experience though, had I have failed the 11+, or to be more accurate, had I have not achieved the required mark to enter my school (as several candidates pass the exam, but are not necessarily accepted) then I would have been in a sticky position. The comprehensive schools near me are largely abysmal (I'm not basing this on rhetoric, or league table results, but OFSTED reports). I have no doubt that had I have attended the local comprehensive, I probably wouldn't be on here now - more like in inner city Birmingham either using or selling narcotics (like a lot of my old schoolmates are).

    It is very sad that the comprehensive school system in the UK does not provide a total, effective provision in many areas of the country for pupils of all abilities. The grammar system allows many bright children from low and middle-income homes (who would not be able to afford a private schooling) to have a decent education. I feel that the problem lies in decades of underfunding of comprehensive education and the fact that most teachers (for the job they do) earn a pittance.

    The egalitarian in me says that grammar schools are unjust and that whichever school somebody attends, they should be able to get an education which allows them to achieve their potential. Afterall, education is a merit good and benefits the whole of society, the inadequate provision of it in a country such as modern-day Britain is ridiculous though.

    However, I think that people using their financial clout (sometimes just by living where they live i.e the postcode lottery) to enable their children to attend good comprehensives (often in middle/upper class areas) is just as bad as sending someone to a grammar school. And yet to complete the syllogism, neither activity is bad - the problem lies in the patchy and inadequate provision of education by the state.

    Abolishing grammar schools will do nothing to help the root cause of the problem which is that state education provision at its best is excellent and at its worst is dire. I would gladly shut all grammar schools if the state could provide an effective secondary education solution for all, in all places.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    So you think that if the 11+ didn't exist, then Grammars would just accept rich kids (even though they are non-fee paying)?
    My point is everyone should take it. I don't want to abolish it. How else would they select?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    My point is everyone should take it. I don't want to abolish it. How else would they select?
    In my system, they wouldn't.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.