Should we bring back grammars?

Watch
Poll: Should we bring back grammar schools across the UK?
Yes (26)
65%
No (10)
25%
Ambivalent (3)
7.5%
Other (1)
2.5%
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
This is one of those rare areas in which i don't really have a position on: should we bring back grammars across the UK.

There's an interesting article by Tim Farron of all people on ConservativeHome and some intrigueing responses to it here:

http://www.conservativehome.com/plat...hool-plan.html

Some interesting facts:

Social mobility has decreased since grammar schools have been taken away (not the sole factor but could be significant)

Existing Grammar Schools ****** the progress of nearby comprehensives.

Existing grammar schools only cater to a small percentage of working class people.



...

I went to a awful (but previously good) comprehensive and most likely would have done better at a grammar school (I didn't take the 11+ as I wanted to go to the same school as my friends). That said I know of many people that became bums who went to grammar school and plenty of people who have done well from my school.

Thoughts?


L i b
Rakas21
gladders
ChaoticButterfly
Observatory
Jammy Duel
paul514
0
reply
hellodave5
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Davij038)
This is one of those rare areas in which i don't really have a position on: should we bring back grammars across the UK.

There's an interesting article by Tim Farron of all people on ConservativeHome and some intrigueing responses to it here:

http://www.conservativehome.com/plat...hool-plan.html

Some interesting facts:

Social mobility has decreased since grammar schools have been taken away (not the sole factor but could be significant)

Existing Grammar Schools ****** the progress of nearby comprehensives.

Existing grammar schools only cater to a small percentage of working class people.



...

I went to a awful (but previously good) comprehensive and most likely would have done better at a grammar school (I didn't take the 11+ as I wanted to go to the same school as my friends). That said I know of many people that became bums who went to grammar school and plenty of people who have done well from my school.

Thoughts?


L i b
Rakas21
gladders
ChaoticButterfly
Observatory
Jammy Duel
paul514
What is the proportion of working class people that go to grammar school? Personally I think everyone should be in the same sort of environment (a good one; doesn't make sense to give one person a poor/okay environment, and another that is striving for perfection). I always had it in my head that not that many working class people get to utilise such provision? This is not something I really know anything about.
0
reply
ckfeister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
no, no and no

its stupid to test people ability when they all grow up at different stages...
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by ckfeister)

its stupid to test people ability when they all grow up at different stages...
Tbh I don't think that's a great argument- surely there's going to have to be some level of standardisation- for instance technically I was disadvantaged because I was born in August and thus had a late start compared to most.

I'd be inclined to think that kids should have less control over their education until they reach 16...
0
reply
AlannahK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
I went to a grammar school, and I will be starting at Cambridge University in the next couple of weeks. I come from a working class background, and I am the first person in my family to attend university. I had no tutoring for the 11+ and passed. I would have been unable to gain a place at Cambridge without the support of a grammar school because they were more able to help me with the Oxbridge application process than a comprehensive would have been able to. In addition to this, the teachers and other students were so enthusiastic about their subjects and helpful, going above and beyond to help me and others. To say that grammar schools reduce social mobility is absurd; Myself and other friends (all of whom are also from working class backgrounds) are heading to fantastic universities this year, and I'm sure they're as grateful for their education and the opportunity as I am. If you want to point the finger at discrimination based on finance, I suggest you look at private schools, which also tutor their students to pass the 11+ and push others who can't afford tutoring out.
5
reply
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Many of the arguments against presume that what will happen is a reintroduction of the dumbed down and cheapened Labour version of what the 1944 Education act envisaged with the tripartite system.

The non-Grammars won't be forced to offer an inferior school leaving certificate , nor will be they be encouraged to have people leave before the normal age for level 1/2 qualifications to be taken ...

there may well be opportunities to transfer in at ks4 and at post GCSE , rather than the sec mod vs grammar inability to transfer
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
If having more grammar schools increases social mobility and that is a statistically proven fact I don't see what's wrong with that? Personally I would have loved to have gone to grammar school instead of the sub-par comprehensive that I did. When I eventually have children they will be going to grammar school or private school (If I can afford it)
0
reply
ckfeister
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Davij038)
Tbh I don't think that's a great argument- surely there's going to have to be some level of standardisation- for instance technically I was disadvantaged because I was born in August and thus had a late start compared to most.

I'd be inclined to think that kids should have less control over their education until they reach 16...
Some people mature a bit at 11, others brain develop at 13 years old. Then maybe 13 year old ability was higher at 25 years old than 11 year old who got into grammar school. Its not a good system, they should use the system where it has public school + grammar school group (top set)
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
maybe working class people don't actually want to go to Grammar School... they would end up alienated from their unintellectual class peers and become de facto middle class :eek:
0
reply
user 42005
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
As long as there is no evidence that it detracts from social mobility (at present there doesn't appear to be any, and there is a case for the contrary) then I am fully supportive. Even if it has a neutral effect on social mobility it's beneficial, because then academic children can get along well in a more academic environment. I, for one, would have benefited from this. There aren't any grammar schools in my area so I was forced to go to a poor-performing state comprehensive/academy, and the 'top' set ranged from A* grade individuals to people aiming for C's. It just isn't conductive for either of these groups. The A*s were held back and the C's suffered from trying to keep up. I still managed to achieve fairly good grades through a lot of independent study, but not all people are able or willing to do this so would benefit from a grammar school directing them academically.
0
reply
Tiva4Eva
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
I went to a Grammar School (I took the Kent selection tests and the Bexley selection test and passed both). Personally the grammar system benefited me. In primary school, I was often held back by others who learned slower and differently to me. Being in a grammar allowed me to be in an environment with people of a similar intelligence level, without others holding me back. That is not to say I would have been worse off without the grammar system, it is all I have known, so I unfortunately am unable to have an unbiased view (but I do not deny this.).
There are drawbacks with the grammar system (as there are with all systems) the main one, in my opinion, being that you are judged at 11 as being either smart enough or not. Many people who were borderline were able to scrape through with the help of tutors whilst others, who arguably would have been better in a grammar, just missed getting in. I have such a friend who ended up thriving at her local comprehensive, but in the same vain my younger brother could possibly have done better had he not gone to a grammar as they pushed him too hard. Unfortunately it is true that people mature at different rates, relative intelligence at 11 is unlikely to remain the same throughout your education and when GCSEs start some at grammar's would be better off in a comprehensive and vice versa, although at 11 they were in the correct place.
A grammar school system allows the 11 year olds that are more academically inclined to thrive around similarly placed individuals as they are pushed so that they are in a position to get the best grades they can at GCSE. However, in my experience the more intelligent people at a Grammar (those who were not borderline) often helped themselves anyway, and helped those around them that were struggling (sometimes covering the failings of some teachers at the same time.). If in a comprehensive/non grammar would they have been able to progress those who would not get into a grammar? Probably. But on the flip side those that in a grammar neither struggled nor excelled, would probably have been held back if around those who aren't in a grammar. Being around people of a similar ability allowed them to push themselves and not coast as much as they would have, probably being at the higher end of a 'non selective'. For those people a grammar school is essential. They lack the motivation to push themselves or achieve all that they can, but have the intelligence to achieve great things when pushed and encouraged. Often their motivation comes from "not being bottom" so they do just enough to get by. Which in a grammar is more than it would be if they were in a school with those who struggle in a non-selective. Is the grammar system a good thing? For me, yes. For most of my peers it was too. But there are many draw backs. Not everyone tests well, so some people who have the intelligence to pass an 11+ don't, and thus don't get into a grammar; this can hold them back. By sixth form, those who were in a non-selective and got in on GCSE results did so because they didn't want to be in a comprehensive anymore, they had the drive and intelligence to get themselves through GCSE's. Other's who didn't enjoy being in a grammar, failed to get the grades to get back in or didn't stay on for sixth form. However more than one, that fall into the latter group, I know of ended up in apprenticeships and are happy too.
Ultimately, whatever system is applied to education, most students who want to succeed will succeed. Those who don't probably won't reach their potential wherever they are, whatever their potential is.
1
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by AlannahK)
I went to a grammar school, and I will be starting at Cambridge University in the next couple of weeks. I come from a working class background, and I am the first person in my family to attend university. I had no tutoring for the 11+ and passed. I would have been unable to gain a place at Cambridge without the support of a grammar school because they were more able to help me with the Oxbridge application process than a comprehensive would have been able to. In addition to this, the teachers and other students were so enthusiastic about their subjects and helpful, going above and beyond to help me and others. To say that grammar schools reduce social mobility is absurd; Myself and other friends (all of whom are also from working class backgrounds) are heading to fantastic universities this year, and I'm sure they're as grateful for their education and the opportunity as I am. If you want to point the finger at discrimination based on finance, I suggest you look at private schools, which also tutor their students to pass the 11+ and push others who can't afford tutoring out.
Yes but you passed the 11+.Its stupid to seperate people based on ability at age 11.How about all those people who didnt pass? Maybe at age 11 they didnt take education too seriously but there is no reason why that should be the case in later years.
0
reply
BabyLadDarren
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Yes

My parents were too dumb to even know what grammar schools were so they didn't even enter me. But my area literally had only one Grammar school which made competition ridiculous.

Keeping really smart kids in subhuman state schools is wrong.
1
reply
AlannahK
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Robby2312)
Yes but you passed the 11+.Its stupid to seperate people based on ability at age 11.How about all those people who didnt pass? Maybe at age 11 they didnt take education too seriously but there is no reason why that should be the case in later years.
So it's better to leave those with potential to go to schools where they won't do as well? The people who didn't pass were upset, and then went to local comprehensives, some of which had grammar streams for students that attempted but didn't pass the 11+. These students were then provided with different support - More focus on apprenticeships and other non-uni options. At my grammar, university was pushed as basically the only option people could take. This is obviously as unfair on people who are not academic as holding back those who are academic is. The two schools are different but equal in support, but both types are suited to different people.

Also, the 11+ isn't fully based on taking education seriously. It's partially intuition, for example with the non verbal section. I understand your point, but I personally don't agree with it.
0
reply
Pinkberry_y
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
Ideally we should just make every school in this country of the same high quality standard if we're really striving for fairness for all. But realistically that will never happen so we may as well increase opportunities for those less well off/can't afford private schools to make something of themselves by introducing grammar schools in their areas
3
reply
tcameron
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
Although, I don't agree that the teaching is necessarily better in grammar schools (I went to one for sixth form and the teaching was honestly worse than my old comprehensive school) I'd say the environment is better as all the students strive to succeed.
It was no longer embarrassing to get high grades as I used to be in secondary school (a lot of my friends who came from comprehensive school agreed on this as well) or to join in what may be considered 'nerdy' things in a comprehensive school.
I also honestly don't think I would have gotten into uni without the support of the grammar school as they had waaaay more opportunities and seemingly more experience in tailoring people for top courses.
My sister who went to a comprehensive for sixth form and wanted to do medicine was completely in the lurch because the school had no idea what to do with stuff like UKCAT and BMAT and I think she would have benefited more at a grammar school.

I honestly don't see the negative in them at all.
1
reply
kimkarsd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
yes, they should. what's wrong with them? it will bring about more mobility.
1
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by AlannahK)
I went to a grammar school, and I will be starting at Cambridge University in the next couple of weeks. I come from a working class background, and I am the first person in my family to attend university. I had no tutoring for the 11+ and passed. I would have been unable to gain a place at Cambridge without the support of a grammar school because they were more able to help me with the Oxbridge application process than a comprehensive would have been able to. In addition to this, the teachers and other students were so enthusiastic about their subjects and helpful, going above and beyond to help me and others. To say that grammar schools reduce social mobility is absurd; Myself and other friends (all of whom are also from working class backgrounds) are heading to fantastic universities this year, and I'm sure they're as grateful for their education and the opportunity as I am. If you want to point the finger at discrimination based on finance, I suggest you look at private schools, which also tutor their students to pass the 11+ and push others who can't afford tutoring out.
How do you know you would not have had the same educational experience at a comprehensive?
0
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
Grammars have been proven to discriminate against the poor and thus decrease social mobility.
0
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by AlannahK)
So it's better to leave those with potential to go to schools where they won't do as well? The people who didn't pass were upset, and then went to local comprehensives, some of which had grammar streams for students that attempted but didn't pass the 11+. These students were then provided with different support - More focus on apprenticeships and other non-uni options. At my grammar, university was pushed as basically the only option people could take. This is obviously as unfair on people who are not academic as holding back those who are academic is. The two schools are different but equal in support, but both types are suited to different people.

Also, the 11+ isn't fully based on taking education seriously. It's partially intuition, for example with the non verbal section. I understand your point, but I personally don't agree with it.
I dont think its fair to separate half the population from each other at the age of 11 based on some test.And back in the day there were a lot more opportunities for apprenticeships and the like because our economy was a lot more manufacturing based.Nowadays not so much.We shouldnt be saying that education is just for those academically able.Why not just send half the population straight to work if thats the case? We should provide good teaching across all schools and not have one elite stream of school and one second rate stream.Anyone can learn if they really want to and we shouldnt tell one group of pupils its not for them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

What support do you need with your UCAS application?

I need help researching unis (29)
13.49%
I need help researching courses (14)
6.51%
I need help with filling out the application form (9)
4.19%
I need help with my personal statement (90)
41.86%
I need help with understanding how to make my application stand out (52)
24.19%
I need help with something else (let us know in the thread!) (4)
1.86%
I'm feeling confident about my application and don't need any help at the moment (17)
7.91%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed