Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

i support grammar schools....why are they bad?

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why is it bad if a city/town has a grammar school tha everybody can get to? is it cos people going to Oxbridge don't want chavs going there? scared a chav will show you up, because s/he may outshine you academically or be more successful than you overall in the end?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because the 11+ exam is completely extra curricular. It isn't taught so the only way a child can learn to be good at it is 1) being naturally gifted, as the designers of grammar schools intended or 2) paying for tuition.

    Everyone who can afford it pays for tuition. That's why more rich children get in to grammar schools than poor children, as opposed to the genetics argument that is whispered in Tory chatboxes
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They are a good thing.

    But too often they don't aid social mobility as much as they should. In many cases only middle-class families can afford houses in the right catchment areas and private tuition for entrance exams.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I support grammar schoools but I understand why they upset people.

    Essentially middle class parents are able to pay for people to tutor their children in preparation for the 11 plus exam, whilst poorer students parents cannot afford to do so. Additionally if you look at property prices in grammar school catchment areas you will find that they are more expensive which again puts poorer students at a disadvantage. As well as this people oppose testing kids at age 11, they argue it's unfair that their entire future is determined by a test that they took so young and worry that those children who don't pass will think that they are failures. Also summer born children tend to be put at a huge disadvantage, again this is argued to be unjust.

    However what people don't seem to realise about the new proposed grammar schools is that they are planned to open in poor areas with reformed 11 plus exams which can't be tutored for thus the May government hopes this will improve social mobility.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    social division
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Because there is absolutely zero evidence that they support the aim they claim to achieve, i.e. social mobility.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have no idea, I support them too. But I go to one so I guess I'm going to be kind of biased
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Couldn't the 11+ just be changed so that people cannot be tutored to pass it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andrewdwilliams)
    Couldn't the 11+ just be changed so that people cannot be tutored to pass it?
    There is no test that cannot be tutored for.

    I would be more inclined to support grammar schools is there was any evidence that they increased either social mobility or overall increased outcomes. There isnt.

    E best edication systems in the world do not select, they expect every child to be able to fulfil their potential as opposed to this country where people give up on their children when they arent ven 10.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I get their problems, as rich people can pay for tuition so they are dominated by rich kids. I went to a grammar school in Kent and like half of the kids went to private primary schools.
    However, when there are no grammar schools, all the smart rich kids still get the best education as they will just go to selective private schools, and the smart poorer kids will have to go to the local comp, even if they had the ability to flourish at a selective school. Everyone complains that grammar schools are dominated by middle/upper-middle class kids, but it's like they forget selective schools do still exist, but they're all private so only the rich kids can go. At least grammar schools give poorer kids a chance of going to a top school.

    There are other issues with grammar schools though. I don't know to what extent it's true but it's said that even if the smarter kids do better in a grammar school, those who don't get in and go to comp schools do worse than they would've if there was no selective system. The majority of the comp students will be poorer, as those richer kids who don't get in to grammars will go to private schools. So you could say there are two sides when it comes to social mobility. They have the social mobility of the most able kids, but hinder the social mobility of others.

    If grammar schools were to come back, a lot of work would need to be done to improve comps.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who completed the 11 Plus (with no tuition, although this was in 2002) I really don't see the problem. What's wrong with wanting a top quality education surrounded by like minded people? If I ever have children I would never send them to a state school that wasn't selective. Bright children get bullied and constantly have their lessons disrupted by people who don't want to learn.

    Just have a reduced offer for people who meet certain conditions e.g live in a **** area, low household income, studies disrupted by personal circumstances and give X% of the places to them. Problem solved.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The 11+ judges kids somewhat early and, as has been said, does not necessarily locate aptitude. I just don't want to see a two-tier education system; our schools are pretty crap as it is, with the focus on building more grammar schools, we could see the existing comprehensives get even worse. Additionally, a lot of the time the top 10% don't need any extra help, that's why they're the top 10%. Sure, some people - especially boys, at least in my experience - can be negatively influenced by the comprehensive environment and do worse than they should've. But I see no evidence to believe that that's the norm. We're talking about giving A*-A students a few more A*s while letting the vast majority of students rot.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    The 11+ judges kids somewhat early and, as has been said, does not necessarily locate aptitude. I just don't want to see a two-tier education system; our schools are pretty crap as it is, with the focus on building more grammar schools, we could see the existing comprehensives get even worse. Additionally, a lot of the time the top 10% don't need any extra help, that's why they're the top 10%. Sure, some people - especially boys, at least in my experience - can be negatively influenced by the comprehensive environment and do worse than they should've. But I see no evidence to believe that that's the norm. We're talking about giving A*-A students a few more A*s while letting the vast majority of students rot.
    The evidence simply shows that grammar schools do not improve social mobility. They didn't in the past, there is no reason to think they will now.

    They largely only seem to help better off students (although not by that much).

    It's strange that I agree with George Osborne and David Cameron on this issue. Grammar schools are not the silver bullet that many seem to think they are. The real answer, as has been demonstrated in London is to seriously invest into comprehensive schools, to care to children of all ability.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have always wanted to go to a grammar school but never had the opportunity. In my local comprehensive I was sorrounded by friends who were involved in drugs, violence and generaly lacked any motivation for school. My GCSEs turned out so bad that my A level prediction based on them was BBB, whereas having done my AS exams I am now predicted A*A*A*. My current school is a new dedicated sixth form and so it is a "grammar" in every aspect but name since non academic people have gone to college. I am absolutely certain that if a grammar school were available in my area my GCSEs would not have been as poor as they were.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because well-off parents pay for private tuition or send their children to private prep schools specifically to help them pass the 11+

    Less well-off parents can't afford that and may not have the time, teaching methods or exam specific knowledge to help their own children with the exam.

    Reinforces a successful or failure division at a ridiculously young age (I even think that deciding what to study at uni at 18 is too young for a lot of teens who don't really have a clue about the real world).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think the 11+ exams are not accessible to all working class kids. I took it, had no idea what was going on and failed to get into any grammar schools.

    I don't think it really matters that much though, I mean most kids that go to grammar schools get like 8A grades at GCSE which are easily obtainable.

    There will be those kids that get 8 A*s but my school had them too.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.