Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do we need selective education? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Since Grammar Schools were closed down across most of the country, we have gone backwards with far fewer working class people rising to lead in business, politics, even sport.

    Selective education put intelligent children on the same level as those who could afford private education. It also allows those who aren't academic to learn a trade earlier instead of being pushed into university and later set up their own businesses.

    It's shown to help the economy and help social mobility. What do you think?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I have never and will never understand people’s issue with grammar schools. Maybe I am biased as I went to one (live in Kent) but as you say it enables children to access better education even though they don’t come from as wealthy a background.

    The only argument I guess is that grammar schools will attract the best teachers within an area so as a result the comprehensive schools will fare off worse?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by del1rious)
    I have never and will never understand people’s issue with grammar schools. Maybe I am biased as I went to one (live in Kent) but as you say it enables children to access better education even though they don’t come from as wealthy a background.

    The only argument I guess is that grammar schools will attract the best teachers within an area so as a result the comprehensive schools will fare off worse?
    I didn’t go to a grammar but I agree with you.

    People have this idea that they are second class if they don’t get into the grammar school but it’s no different to going to a better uni.

    You passed the qualifications to get in they just cry as this happens at 11 rather than 18 like that’s unfair.

    Well you can still get in up to 14 and as if 18 isn’t really young as well
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I didn’t go to a grammar but I agree with you.

    People have this idea that they are second class if they don’t get into the grammar school but it’s no different to going to a better uni.

    You passed the qualifications to get in they just cry as this happens at 11 rather than 18 like that’s unfair.

    Well you can still get in up to 14 and as if 18 isn’t really young as well
    Yes you are right, the analogy that it is like getting into a better uni is a very good one!!

    Everyone is entitled to a student loan just as everyone is entitled to a grammar school place
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    so many people who went to Grammar School have bettered themselves. take for example one young lad called Jerome ( not his real name ). he lived in a Manor House & went to Grammar School after being educated privately and although he did not cope successfully with university he is now living in a house worth £650 000 and is often on the telly.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    Since Grammar Schools were closed down across most of the country, we have gone backwards with far fewer working class people rising to lead in business, politics, even sport.

    Selective education put intelligent children on the same level as those who could afford private education. It also allows those who aren't academic to learn a trade earlier instead of being pushed into university and later set up their own businesses.

    It's shown to help the economy and help social mobility. What do you think?
    Hi, I moved to Society
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I dislike the idea of grammar schools, I just don’t see the point.

    I went to a non selective school which was surrounded by grammar schools so you would assume most of the smartest people went to the grammar schools. I thought that I was dumb and stupid for not passing (I didn’t care when I did the 11 or when I got results or anything I started to care when I was in year 11!) I realised that they had so much more advantages to get better grades plus my school had bad ofsted rating (3) compared to all the grammar schools surrounding us (1’s and 2’s) and they probably had better teachers eg. My science teacher left mid way year 11 to go teach a grammar school!! So I had no teacher just covers.

    I realised that in our classes I was in top set but the top set was so varied. Eg. In maths this guy was getting 9’s in his mocks (he failed his 11 also as he didn’t know that verbal reasoning existed) but the lowest people were also getting was U’s and 1’s. I thought that if there was no grammar schools this class would be full of people of the same ability no matter if they went grammar or not.

    I loved my secondary school though even though the education was non existent. Even the guy getting 9’s in his maths mocks turns out was getting private tuition.

    I got to a grammar school now for sixth form and wow most people here had rich af parents who are very “supportive” of their children eg. they’re having high expectations. In my previous school my parents and mostly everybody’s parents in that school didn’t care at all about their children’s grades as long as they work hard to best of our ability and they would be happy. Also, I found it utterly unfair that I had to teach myself basically everything to get the highest grades eg in maths teacher taught us mostly level 4 and 5 stuff to suit to the majority of the class so they would pass.

    So no I don’t think we should have grammar schools because the schools that are non selective are suffering.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeverGrowUp)
    Just because "non-selective schools are suffering" doesn't mean grammar schools should be closed down. The government should just work towards improving the standard of comprehensive schools. Being in a working class family, being accepted to a grammar school was great as I had the chance to be in an environment where people had a similar mindset towards education. I decided to move to a non-selective school for sixth form, despite achieving high grades to stay in a grammar school. I then realised that if I were put into a non-selective school in year 7, I do not think I would have performed as well for my GCSE's as many students (not all) were not aiming high + the lessons were slowed down for students who did not understand the content as fast as others. This was really demotivating and I ended up missing lessons to self-teach as the lessons just seemed pointless. My parents didn't pressure me at all during my grammar school years, and most students parents didn't either. I found that the students themselves pressured themselves to do well to achieve their goals. I'd say only 7 people max. in my class were 'rich", most of the rich people go to private grammar schools. I think parents should just show their children not to let the 11+ affect them. My parents didn't expect me to pass and told me to try my best and accept the outcome. The argument that the 11+ has a negative impact on children so it should be scrapped is ridiculous. Everyone will face "failure" or disappointment in life, people will get into top universities, others wont, does that mean we should scrap oxbridge and russell group universities etc.?
    If there wasn’t grammar schools the classes would still be set up at top set, second set etc and the top set students would be at the similar ability anyway.

    I’m saying that because all the smart kids go to grammar schools the kids that developed later (eg. I didn’t even know what the grammar test was when I sat it and most of the children that passed from my primary school were the children that had tuition or help from parent or learnt it in primary school - I’m not saying all children as some maybe were naturally gifted or taught themselves) this means that those as non selective schools the top sets are basically people of all abilities from those as smart as grammar school children and those who hadn’t really learnt anything from primary school. This wouldn’t be a problem if there were no grammars.

    Also, at this sixth form at grammar lots of students from private grammar schools come to this public one now. They said it was mainly because they said they would’ve got better grades at a public one as hers was rubbish. She got lower GCSE’s than me and I taught myself and went to one of the worse schools in my area.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Icypricy)
    If there wasn’t grammar schools the classes would still be set up at top set, second set etc and the top set students would be at the similar ability anyway.

    I’m saying that because all the smart kids go to grammar schools the kids that developed later (eg. I didn’t even know what the grammar test was when I sat it and most of the children that passed from my primary school were the children that had tuition or help from parent or learnt it in primary school - I’m not saying all children as some maybe were naturally gifted or taught themselves) this means that those as non selective schools the top sets are basically people of all abilities from those as smart as grammar school children and those who hadn’t really learnt anything from primary school. This wouldn’t be a problem if there were no grammars.

    Also, at this sixth form at grammar lots of students from private grammar schools come to this public one now. They said it was mainly because they said they would’ve got better grades at a public one as hers was rubbish. She got lower GCSE’s than me and I taught myself and went to one of the worse schools in my area.
    I think if there's a new generation of grammar schools there has to be an opportunity each year for the best students at comprehensives to move up to grammar schools. At the moment because there are so few, the house prices go up nearby and richer, pushy parents will move there and try to tutor or put pressure on their children. If they were in every town it wouldnt be a big problem.

    Sure, you can have different sets within comprehensive schools but the teachers and direction will be broadly the same. Learning technical skills and trades isn't a failure, it's more sensible than continuing with academics when you arent well suited to it. And schools do have reputations, whether we like it or not.

    Thanks for sharing your experiences.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    I think if there's a new generation of grammar schools there has to be an opportunity each year for the best students at comprehensives to move up to grammar schools. At the moment because there are so few, the house prices go up nearby and richer, pushy parents will move there and try to tutor or put pressure on their children. If they were in every town it wouldnt be a big problem.

    Sure, you can have different sets within comprehensive schools but the teachers and direction will be broadly the same. Learning technical skills and trades isn't a failure, it's more sensible than continuing with academics when you arent well suited to it. And schools do have reputations, whether we like it or not.

    Thanks for sharing your experiences.
    In my area there’s 3 grammar schools to 1 non selective secondary school. I think we need more non selective schools in my area tbh. I agree with you though, most people from my secondary that were in set 2 and below went off to college mainly because they don’t suit studying and the ones that stayed were the top sets (Around 40 people stayed out of the 200 odd) I left to go to grammar school but there’s lots of people there like 120 students and classes are huge but that’s what happens when all the chemistry and biology teachers leave to teach grammar schools.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. There is next to no evidence that grammar schools do or ever did increase social mobility. The main benefactor of them has always been wealthy, middle class families anyway.

    Having bright kids in a school lifts the overall performance. It means that parents of all children, however bright have an interest in the school.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I didn’t go to a grammar but I agree with you.

    People have this idea that they are second class if they don’t get into the grammar school but it’s no different to going to a better uni.
    It's different for a number of reasons. I'll address age below, but:
    i) "Better uni" and "worse uni" is not a dichotomy. There's a continuum of university quality, and of course some people don't go. With the grammar school system, unless you were one of a that small minority who lived in an area which also had a Technical School, it was a pure simplistic dichotomy between Grammar School (good) and Secondary Modern School (bad).
    ii) At university you all ultimately earn the same qualification for the same subject, taught by academics qualified to teach that subject. Yes, a BA from Oxford is more prestigious than one from Sheffield Hallam, but they're still both BAs. Kids at Secondary Modern Schools generally only had the opportunity to get a CSE worth marginally more than the paper it was written on. Maybe a handful of kids for year would get entered for a couple of O-Levels (not necessarily taught by teachers qualified or equipped to teach at that level), while a Secondary Modern pupil sitting an A-Level was almost impossible.
    iii) Delays and "do-overs" at 18 are much more acceptable than at 11. Resitting your A Levels because you mucked them up the first time is a bit of a blot on your record, but ultimately that's all it is, and you can move on when you've got them right, because they're qualifications that you can, in theory at least, get at any time. Going to university at 19 or 20 rather than 18 isn't a big deal. If you mucked up your 11-plus, tough. Yes, if you were lucky then you had a second chance at 13 or 14, but unlike GCSEs and A Levels, it wasn't a qualification requiring a fixed level of skill and knowledge.

    You passed the qualifications to get in they just cry as this happens at 11 rather than 18 like that’s unfair.
    11 year olds are prepubescent children. 18 year olds are legal adults. That's a huge difference. It's the reason why we sit our actual qualification exams at 16 and 18, not 11.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The problem isn't so much selectivity as entire separate institutions. Setting by ability within a school is fine. The problem with the old selective school system was that, in the minds of their pupils, a Grammar School spelt "real school where there is a clear purpose to why you're there" while a Second Modern spelt "pointless dumping ground where they pretend to teach you to keep you occupied for five years because you can't actually be sent out to to work until you're 15".

    To stand any chance of rectifying this in a hypothetical revived selective system, massive investment would be needed in the Secondary Moderns, which would basically permanently need more attention. Which would result in Grammar School parents moaning that they're being treated "unfairly".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No. There is next to no evidence that grammar schools do or ever did increase social mobility. The main benefactor of them has always been wealthy, middle class families anyway.

    Having bright kids in a school lifts the overall performance. It means that parents of all children, however bright have an interest in the school.
    The current system entirely benefits wealthy families, since only they can afford house prices in areas with good schools. Grammar schools are much fairer and give bright children the opportunity to compete academically at the highest level, meaning we have the best people as engineers, in financal services and business, rather than selecting only from a pool of the privileged.

    Grammar schools allow those selected to reach much greater potentials rather than being dragged behind by others' pace. I seriously doubt parents would pay any less interest in the school because their children aren't being outperformed as much.

    Please don't comment in my threads with arrogant know-it-all comments if you haven't bothered to research stating facts like "there's no evidence".
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    The current system entirely benefits wealthy families, since only they can afford house prices in areas with good schools. Grammar schools are much fairer and give bright children the opportunity to compete academically at the highest level, meaning we have the best people as engineers, in financal services and business, rather than selecting only from a pool of the privileged.

    Grammar schools allow those selected to reach much greater potentials rather than being dragged behind by others' pace. I seriously doubt parents would pay any less interest in the school because their children aren't being outperformed as much.

    Please don't comment in my threads with arrogant know-it-all comments if you haven't bothered to research stating facts like "there's no evidence".
    Provide me some actual staitstical evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Provide me some actual staitstical evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility.
    No. Please stop following me around whenever I post anything on this site, pretending to debate while deleting the posts when you lose. Just back off of me.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    No. Please stop following me around whenever I post anything on this site, pretending to debate while deleting the posts when you lose. Just back off of me.
    So you make a claim and then when asked to provide evidence for that claim you're response is 'no, leave me alone'.

    I thought you wanted a debate, instead you seem to want to state your position and lose your cool when challenged on it.

    In 2016, only 3% of kids at grammar schools were eligible for free school lunches, compared to 14% of kids nationally.

    Hardly seems like many poorer kids go to grammar schools, even in areas where they still exist because they can't get in.

    Grammar schools are and always have been for the benefit of middle class kids, not working class kids. If you have grammar schools you create a two tier education system in which less Bright students are left to rot in failing schools that no one cares about.

    Hence why comprehensives in London far outperform grammar schools in Kent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So you make a claim and then when asked to provide evidence for that claim you're response is 'no, leave me alone'.

    I thought you wanted a debate, instead you seem to want to state your position and lose your cool when challenged on it.

    In 2016, only 3% of kids at grammar schools were eligible for free school lunches, compared to 14% of kids nationally.

    Hardly seems like many poorer kids go to grammar schools, even in areas where they still exist because they can't get in.

    Grammar schools are and always have been for the benefit of middle class kids, not working class kids. If you have grammar schools you create a two tier education system in which less Bright students are left to rot in failing schools that no one cares about.

    Hence why comprehensives in London far outperform grammar schools in Kent.
    I don't mind debate, I don't want it with bullies like you. Just don't post on my threads and dont quote me. Simple.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hatter_2)
    I don't mind debate, I don't want it with bullies like you. Just don't post on my threads and dont quote me. Simple.
    Rather strange given you quoted me and in every discussion we've had, you have quoted me first.

    I'll quote who I want, thanks.

    Do you have any statistical evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Rather strange given you quoted me and in every discussion we've had, you have quoted me first.

    I'll quote who I want, thanks.

    Do you have any statistical evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility?
    You must be so proud that as a 23 year old the most exciting part of your day is to wind people up on an online forum. Why not pick on someone else and stop harassing me.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.

  • 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.