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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeeDub)
    I think grammar schools as a whole are a good thing as they give an excellent education that you would otherwise have to pay for.
    They're good for the people who get in, but if you have a system where one fifth of the population get streamed into good schools at the age of 11 - what's to become of the other four fifths?

    Grammar schools are great for those who get to go to them, but to be sent to a comp on the assumption that's a school for 'less academic' students who are less able, just because you did badly in one test when you were eleven, seems incredibly unfair.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Went to a superb State School.

    Wouldn't have minded a private education, but it's hardly screwed me over. Had a good time, learned enough.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    EDIT: decided I'm not going to get involved :ninja:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a minority so the chances of me getting in are slim.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by douchebagz)
    I'm a minority so the chances of me getting in are slim.
    I'm several minorities, and I'm going to a private school. :yes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    They're good for the people who get in, but if you have a system where one fifth of the population get streamed into good schools at the age of 11 - what's to become of the other four fifths?

    Grammar schools are great for those who get to go to them, but to be sent to a comp on the assumption that's a school for 'less academic' students who are less able, just because you did badly in one test when you were eleven, seems incredibly unfair.
    I agree. As I said in the previous post the 11+ is an arbitary measure. It only takes a snapshot of a child at a particular time and not all the children are the same age when they take it which has a big effect. I went to a mixed selective grammar school and the people in my year had they birthdays concentrated towards the start of the academic year. However just because not everyone can go to them, doesn't mean that they should cease to exist. I don't think grammar schools are the problem with our education system, they just highlight problems elsewhere in the system. There doesn't seem to be any golden solution to school structuring, all systems have their flaws.

    I think to a certain extent operating an open sixth form acts as a good leveler. At my school's sixth form people would join with reasonable GCSEs from a comprehensive and get excellent A-level results to go onto top unis.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fredscarecrow)
    It's a life lesson.
    My favourite history teacher told me something once which always stuck with me...we'd done a test and I'd got one mark off an A* and I was gutted. I begged her to remark it and give me an extra mark. She just said "Next time, get the extra mark."
    You don't get something, it's because you don't deserve it, you didn't work hard enough or whatever. Yes, it's one test and everyone has had a bad day, but you didn't get it, hard luck. Make sure you get it next time.

    I'll probably get negged for this, because it's very easy to say as someone who did get in. I'd also like to comment however, that grammar schools are not 'everything' in my mind...two of my best friends went to a school with a 24% 5A*-C pass rate. Both of them attended Cambridge, and the one has just graduated with a 1st in history. If you're good enough and motivated enough you can make it anywhere. Grammar schools just provide an excellent environment for those who show early talent and motivation.
    Everyone has a story of SOMEONE who went to a terrible comprehensive school and did fabulously well, and someone who went to a private school and ended up working in a mcdonalds - but, the unfortunate reality is that these people are anomalies.

    On average, grammar schools and private schools outperform comprehensives. This may partly be because grammar schools and private schools get the best kids, but there'll be a lot of people who 'ended up' in a comp and didn't do as well as they could have if they had access to the sort of resources, teachers, and atmosphere of a grammar/private school.

    A tiered state system allows students who did badly at age 11 to fall by the wayside, on the assumption that they're not 'as academic' because of the result of one sodding test. The unfortunate thing about, "make sure you get it next time" is because when you have ONE exam which decides where you'll spend your entire secondary career, there is no next time, that's it. You've been put in a difficult, or poor-achieving school and that's your lot. That's unfair, and results in a lot of wasted potential.

    It is INCREDIBLY easy, and somewhat obnoxious, to call that a "life lesson".

    (Original post by DeeDub)
    I agree. As I said in the previous post the 11+ is an arbitary measure. It only takes a snapshot of a child at a particular time and not all the children are the same age when they take it which has a big effect. I went to a mixed selective grammar school and the people in my year had they birthdays concentrated towards the start of the academic year. However just because not everyone can go to them, doesn't mean that they should cease to exist. I don't think grammar schools are the problem with our education system, they just highlight problems elsewhere in the system. There doesn't seem to be any golden solution to school structuring, all systems have their flaws.

    I think to a certain extent operating an open sixth form acts as a good leveler. At my schools sixth form people would join with reasonable GCSEs from a comprehensive and get excellent A-level results to go onto top unis.
    Yeah, I live in an area with quite a lot of grammar schools, and I can see the detrimental effect on other comps. The LEA thinks it's providing for the best students, and it's just a case of getting the rest through. We have brilliant grammar schools, and almost exclusively rubbish comprehensives. Grammar schools seem like an excuse to leave the majority behind.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I could honestly laugh when I hear people paying £25,000+ a year for school when you can get it for free.

    Why pay all that money to go to a school full of posh, snobbish *******? On wait, it's probably because you're a posh, snobbish ****** too.

    Go state - meet people from all backgrounds and develop social and conversation skills beyond politics and money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    A tiered state system allows students who did badly at age 11 to fall by the wayside, on the assumption that they're not 'as academic' because of the result of one sodding test.
    They have to be separated at some point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    State. In my experience, most privately educated people have absolutely no idea about the real world, having been insulated from hardship. Their idea of someone from a poor background is when daddy's Mercedes is 3 years old instead of brand new.

    This is obviously a generalisation, but it truly irritates me when posh kids start dictating their views on the unwashed poor having never been there themselves.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 300mg)
    They have to be separated at some point.
    Is it right that point should be BEFORE they've had the chance to show their academic potential?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This thread somes up why Im glad I've gone to a state school, so many snobbish comments from people who have clearly been to one.

    Results are only so much anyway, I wouldn't trade my GCSE grades for straight A*s if it meant going to a Private school. Education is much more than grades and as mentioned previously in state schools you meet people from all walks of life and interact with them on a day to day basis. To people who say, you don't meet people who have money as they are in private schools don't be so arrogant to believe that everyone with money sends their children to private schools.

    Furthermore, people from disadvantaged backgrounds i predict will then do better at university providing they get into a top university. I dont have a statistic to prove this nationally but i do know someone from Bristol's history department said those from disadvantaged backgrounds were 3 times more likely to get a first class degree. This to me proves that private school students are spoon fed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 300mg)
    They have to be separated at some point.
    Personally, I dont see why they do have to be separated at some point
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackthomas1990)
    This thread somes up why Im glad I've gone to a state school, so many snobbish comments from people who have clearly been to one.
    I'm not sure you said what you meant there.

    in state schools you meet people from all walks of life and interact with them on a day to day basis.
    Why is this important? (P.S. I went to a state school and I didn't.)

    i do know someone from Bristol's history department said those from disadvantaged backgrounds were 3 times more likely to get a first class degree.
    As quoted, this is meaningless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackthomas1990)
    Personally, I dont see why they do have to be separated at some point
    Well, imagine an Oxford potential maths student being taught alongside someone struggling to maintain a low D. The class has to be tailored to the students and if the students are poles apart it makes teaching near impossible.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Everyone has a story of SOMEONE who went to a terrible comprehensive school and did fabulously well, and someone who went to a private school and ended up working in a mcdonalds - but, the unfortunate reality is that these people are anomalies.

    On average, grammar schools and private schools outperform comprehensives. This may partly be because grammar schools and private schools get the best kids, but there'll be a lot of people who 'ended up' in a comp and didn't do as well as they could have if they had access to the sort of resources, teachers, and atmosphere of a grammar/private school.

    A tiered state system allows students who did badly at age 11 to fall by the wayside, on the assumption that they're not 'as academic' because of the result of one sodding test. The unfortunate thing about, "make sure you get it next time" is because when you have ONE exam which decides where you'll spend your entire secondary career, there is no next time, that's it. You've been put in a difficult, or poor-achieving school and that's your lot. That's unfair, and results in a lot of wasted potential.

    It is INCREDIBLY easy, and somewhat obnoxious, to call that a "life lesson".



    Yeah, I live in an area with quite a lot of grammar schools, and I can see the detrimental effect on other comps. The LEA thinks it's providing for the best students, and it's just a case of getting the rest through. We have brilliant grammar schools, and almost exclusively rubbish comprehensives. Grammar schools seem like an excuse to leave the majority behind.
    You make really good points but the real issue isn't with grammar schools. Its with the other four fifths of Schools that under perform. As has been said before I don't think grammar schools are a problem. All kids get separated at some point or other by some form of arbitrary test. The 11+ is an example of such a test. Grammar schools just highlight the failings in Comprehensives.

    I failed my 11+ but managed to get into my grammar school but i appealed and got in. I'm very grateful I go to the school I do because the environment there is excellent at stimulating you and making you work to your very best. If such an environment could be emulated in comprehensives we wouldn't have such a problem.

    If we abolished Grammar schools then what you would find over a number of years is schools higher up in league tables or with better reputations would receive more applications and hence be able to pick and choose pupils they feel will further enhance such a reputation. After all if you were given a choice between the pupil who did really well in their year 6 SAT's and is no trouble, or a pupil with behavioural issues and low scores you'd want what's best for the school.

    Basically what I'm saying is eventually you will have one local *it* comprehensive in the area that every parent wants to send their kids to. It will become the new grammar school and the system will start again. We need to focus not on lowering everyone (including private and grammars) to the level of comprehensives and hope that things will improve. Instead we need to raise the standards of behaviour teaching and general environment in comprehensives so that it can match and compete with grammar and private schools.

    A bit rambly sorry.
    Offline

    15
    Private
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rich_183)
    Private
    Do you have anything to add to your incisive comment? Any particular reason for favouring private schools?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I went to a state school. it was rubbish and awful but damn it was such a great experience! Doing homework on the way to classes, falling asleep at the back of Spanish nearly all the time, asking my set 1 maths teacher if she could explain 1+1=2 WHY? when I was predicted an A*. I would never trade this in for a military style education.

    Anyway, my French tutor said the reason for PS doing better than SS is because teachers try and work at PS because they know that the kids would behave because then Daddy will send them to the scary, monster SS. it's nothing to do with the fact, PS students have high expectations while SS students like to get drunk every night under that dirty bridge in town.
    PS=Private School
    SS= State School
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paniking_and_not_revising)
    I went to a state school. it was rubbish and awful but damn it was such a great experience! Doing homework on the way to classes, falling asleep at the back of Spanish nearly all the time, asking my set 1 maths teacher if she could explain 1+1=2 WHY? when I was predicted an A*. I would never trade this in for a military style education.
    Yes, because things like that never happened at my private school :rolleyes:

    Anyway, my French tutor said the reason for PS doing better than SS is because teachers try and work at PS because they know that the kids would behave because then Daddy will send them to the scary, monster SS. it's nothing to do with the fact, PS students have high expectations while SS students like to get drunk every night under that dirty bridge in town.
    PS=Private School
    SS= State School
    Your french tutor is talking out of his/her arse.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.