Should we scrap all grammar schools or build new ones?

This poll is closed

Should we scrap grammar school or build more of them?

Build more grammar schools making 11+ fairer. 64%

Scrap all existing grammar schools.36%

Total votes: 11

Ambitious1999

Until the 1970s nearly every town in Britain had a grammar school. All a child had to do was pass the 11+ and they were in.
Very few grammar schools remain with fierce and unfair competition to get a place. There is NO pass mark. It varies every year with the number of grammar school applications. The exam is often tutor proofed by changing the format and reducing the time so children can easily be tricked. Also there is no actual score so nobody knows if the selection is fairly conducted or if it’s a ‘who you know’ rather than ‘what you know’ basis.
It seems the unfairness of the 11+ is due to lack of places. How can you mess with an impressionable 10 year old child like this? They could lose all faith in the educational system and become disillusioned by it all.

So there are two ways to go. Scrap every grammar school in Britain or build more grammars to make the exam and selection fairer. I’d support building more grammars.

(edited 6 months ago)

Reply 1

Muttley79

20

Original post by Ambitious1999

Until the 1970s nearly every town in Britain had a grammar school. All a child had to do was pass the 11+ and they were in.
Very few grammar schools remain with fierce and unfair competition to get a place. There is NO pass mark.

?? Bucks has the same qualifyng mark every year [121] and there are 13 Grammars across the county.

Reply 2

McGinger

18

There are inherently unfair, allowing middle-class parents to game the system.

Reply 3

frauschlange

11

As someone who grew up in a non-Grammar area, I would have really appreciated the chance to go to a selective institution. I don't think it should be controversial to say we all have different academic abilities and strengths. Personally, I favour a German-modelled school system, where you have the option of going to a vocational, comprehensive, or grammar school. Vocational schools usually cater to those who are more inclined to work trades who don't thrive in an academic environment. Most go to a comprehensive, while the top 10-20% go to a Gymnasium (grammar school).

In truth, the ''one school fits all'' model is unfair and only addresses ''middle-of-the-pack'' students - the 10-20% less academically-inclined students fall through the cracks in getting extra support, while the top 10-20% are not stretched enough. Having a tiered model could address this.

But, of course, this would be hugely costly to implement. This country could not afford it even as things are.

Reply 4

McGinger

18

Original post by frauschlange

As someone who grew up in a non-Grammar area, I would have really appreciated the chance to go to a selective institution.

But would you have 'appreciated the chance' to go to the alterative?
You seem to be assuming that every child passes the 11+.
What happens to 'all the other kids'?

Reply 5

frauschlange

11

Original post by McGinger

But would you have 'appreciated the chance' to go to the alterative?
You seem to be assuming that every child passes the 11+.
What happens to 'all the other kids'?

The way I see it, it's not so much an academic issue as it is a ''support issue''. There will always be kids who need more support, average support, or who need stretching rather than supporting. The ''other kids'' are just those who need a regular amount of support - they can still do well academically.

Reply 6

Ambitious1999

OP

20

Original post by McGinger

There are inherently unfair, allowing middle-class parents to game the system.

And of course parents who know the right people. No wonder there is so little clarity in the 11 plus with no score or percentage given to each parent/ pupil. No doubt there are so many reserved places for those who know the right people irrespective of pass or fail.

Reply 7

McGinger

18

Original post by frauschlange

The way I see it, it's not so much an academic issue as it is a ''support issue''. There will always be kids who need more support, average support, or who need stretching rather than supporting. The ''other kids'' are just those who need a regular amount of support - they can still do well academically.

You assume you'd be going to the grammar school. And not the 'other' school which has now been starved of cash, facilities and motivated staff - because all of that went to the grammar school. Because that's the way selective school systems work in reality. And it marks 'the other kids' for life.

Reply 8

Napp

22

The fact one has to ask this is really depressing but what has 'fairness' got to do with school entrance? The whole point of selective schools is that theyre not especially fair, otherwise they wouldn't be selective. As to the 'lose faith in the system', we all know that this is complete nonsense. If it hasn't happened yet it isn't going to, whether it happens to the odd kid is unfortunate but irrelevant.

Reply 9

Rakas21

21

Original post by Ambitious1999

Until the 1970s nearly every town in Britain had a grammar school. All a child had to do was pass the 11+ and they were in.
Very few grammar schools remain with fierce and unfair competition to get a place. There is NO pass mark. It varies every year with the number of grammar school applications. The exam is often tutor proofed by changing the format and reducing the time so children can easily be tricked. Also there is no actual score so nobody knows if the selection is fairly conducted or if it’s a ‘who you know’ rather than ‘what you know’ basis.
It seems the unfairness of the 11+ is due to lack of places. How can you mess with an impressionable 10 year old child like this? They could lose all faith in the educational system and become disillusioned by it all.

So there are two ways to go. Scrap every grammar school in Britain or build more grammars to make the exam and selection fairer. I’d support building more grammars.

The primary flaw in the original grammar school system was that non-grammar schools were extremely vocational and so did not serve the needs of those of more average intelligence who were maybe bright enough for a grammar but not driven (perhaps due to class background if we are honest). I don't believe there was any real flaw in the way grammar schools themselves operated.

Personally I would strongly favour expanding the grammar school number since modern comprehensive schools have largely resolved the previous issue with technical schools and so now only serve to sorround the bright with the mediocre and basically don't care above a C grade equivelent in many cases (i'll forever remember a Math teacher who said 'i will only teach to a C grade, above that and you will need to study yourself'.

If we could expand private and grammar school access to about 25% of the student cohort then that would be ideal with the remaining state comprehensives becoming Free Schools of the Cameron government mold.

The one thing i would change for state owned grammars is that there should be a dual entry and exist system. Students should take entrance exams in both year 5 and year 8 rather than just once and a set percentage of students should be allowed to rise while at the grammars, the bottom x% of year exams fall. That would resolve the late bloomer issue better and also catch out some of the less deserving who's parents gamed the system.

Reply 10

Muttley79

20

Original post by McGinger

There are inherently unfair, allowing middle-class parents to game the system.

Not true where the top third is selected ...

Reply 11

Muttley79

20

Original post by Rakas21

The primary flaw in the original grammar school system was that non-grammar schools were extremely vocational and so did not serve the needs of those of more average intelligence who were maybe bright enough for a grammar but not driven (perhaps due to class background if we are honest). I don't believe there was any real flaw in the way grammar schools themselves operated.

.

Bucks do select a third of the cohort and there is also a 12+ and 13+