Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Grammar Schools

MrOneLungMrOneLung
in Not Sports Related
Should new Grammar Schools be allowed?

Are they elitist and for middle classes or are they a chance for the brightest kids to not be held back?

Does failing the entrance exam write off a child's chances in future?

In the words of the much missed Nolly- discuss.
«13456

Comments

  • iainmentiainment
    They don't answer the right questions.
  • jamsjams
    I have mixed feelings on this, can see both sides of the argument.

    I went to a grammar school and it helped me do well. Obviously I can't compare to what would have happened if I didn't but it definitely benefited me.

    I do feel they are on less shaky ground than private schools though
  • soapy_jonessoapy_jones
    Passed my 11 plus went to Grammar School and look(listen to) at me!

    Everyone should have the same crap education in my opinion, it is an essential pillar of my socialist doctrine...

  • Sponsored links:


  • colthe3rdcolthe3rd
    I went to a grammar school and I'm definitely not from a middle class background so I'd dispute with anyone about them being elitist. I'll admit I am biased but I think they are good and definitely a benefit to a child's education and their future prospects. I have other friends from where I grew up who didn't attend grammar schools but who are doing very well for themselves now, so I also don't think not getting in to one is necessarily a hindrance either.

    I know this is just based on my experience but to me they seem like a good thing.
  • bobmunrobobmunro
    In principle I'm against the savagery of such a monumental fork in the road being taken at such a young age (11+). In terms of ideology I'm probably against them as well for social mobility reasons - there is clearly a correlation between socio-economic grouping and success at 11+.

    But I am also a hypocrite in that both my sons went to Maidstone Grammar and had an amazing education.
  • RothkoRothko
    Fiiish said:

    I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

    It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

    All the numbers from Kent point to the richer you are, the more likely you are to get in, as your parents can pay for the private tuition to get you through the test, you might have the aspiration from lower income groups, but can't game the system, or afford the houses. Should the state fund an effective private education, for those who don't want to pay but could afford a private education?

    The idea that poor people don't care about their kids education, is either funny or just odd, if they don't why are schools in some of the poorest areas in London improving at a rapid rate of knots?
  • AddicktedAddickted
    Fiiish said:

    I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

    It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

    your seven years at Judd were wasted then.

  • LenGloverLenGlover
    edited September 2016
    What's good enough for Harriet Harman's child is good enough for the rest of us.

    As a socialist she would surely agree.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/why-my-son-will-go-to-grammar-school-by-harriet-harman-1324835.html
  • killerandflashkillerandflash
    Rothko said:

    Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

    Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

    Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

    Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

    1) selective
    2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
    3) in very good areas
  • killerandflashkillerandflash
    I went to a grammar school. In Kent there wasn't a single 11+ exam, but instead there were annual Kent tests and assessment from teachers, so a fairer system

    The difference between now and then - Dartford Grammar back in my time had pupils from poor homes as well as rich homes - is private tutoring. It's private tutoring which is enabling the richer parents to push their children into better schools and universities
  • RothkoRothko
    killerandflash said:

    Rothko said:

    Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

    Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

    Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

    Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

    1) selective
    2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
    3) in very good areas
    and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

  • ScratchingvalleycatScratchingvalleycat
    If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.

    Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith

  • Sponsored links:


  • lolwraylolwray
    its almost plausible to say that a kids educational future is determined by their "socio-economic" grouping before they start school ,parents have more influence over a kids education than what you might think

    however to answer the question yes but criteria for entering grammar schools nationwide should be consistent and there should be more of them (schools not criteria)
  • RothkoRothko
    Scratchingvalleycat said:

    If they were to start by putting the new grammar schools into the poorer areas first, I think it would undermine many of the elitist arguments against them. I have to declare as an interest the fact that I went to a state grammar school which was subsequently merged into a comp and then failed the working class community it was deemed to serve. When I was there both "middle class" and working class kids were part of the mix and the system did not differentiate other than on ability. From our sixth form a number went to Oxbridge and a the majority went on to University, something the merged school has failed to achieve since.

    Yes I am in favour of evening up the opportunity for working class kids by doing this but not if it only gets the go ahead in aspiring rural Kent and Essex rather than Woolwich, Plumstead, Abbey Wood and Erith

    I would bet my mortgage, that within 5 years those grammars in poorer areas would become grammars is richer areas, as those who could afford it would come in buy the cheaper housing, and use those middle class sharp elbows to get the places.
  • rananegrarananegra
    killerandflash said:

    Rothko said:

    Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

    Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

    Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

    Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

    1) selective
    2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
    3) in very good areas
    I think the point was made somewhere that the selective areas in London massively underperfom relative to the rest of London and it is the secondary moderns that drive that (although the grammars can coast as well - my sister worked at Townley a couple of years ago and said that). The grammar schools take hardly any poor kids in Bexley for example. There are what, 2 fully selective and 2 partially selective boroughs out of 32?

    My son is in year 6 and I'm glad he's not got to do this.
  • killerandflashkillerandflash
    Rothko said:

    killerandflash said:

    Rothko said:

    Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

    Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

    Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

    Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

    1) selective
    2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
    3) in very good areas
    and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

    Their well run schools. That's a separate question as to whether grammar schools are a good or bad thing

    There's also the question as to whether Comprehensives should have streaming or not. Personally I think an element of streaming is necessary, after all if the school football teams are streamed by ability, why shouldn't Maths or French?
  • LuckyRedsLuckyReds
    Rothko said:

    killerandflash said:

    Rothko said:

    Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

    Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

    Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

    Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

    1) selective
    2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
    3) in very good areas
    and the best improving school in London aren't any of those 3, Woolwich Poly in Thamesmead and St Pauls have over 70% A-C GCSE grades, without selection and being in some of the toughest areas in the borough.

    Without the facts and figures, surely it's difficult to assess the quality of anything simply by the rate at which it's improving?

    It perhaps indicates a brighter future, but it doesn't compare very well to schools that have traditionally done well - as they have less room to improve after all.
  • killerandflashkillerandflash
    rananegra said:

    killerandflash said:

    Rothko said:

    Look at Kent, its a mess, helps middle class families disportionately who can and will continue to game the system, and the comps in Kent are no better then sink secondary moderns. If you're from the richest areas of Kent you have a 50% chance of going to a grammar, compared to 10% to the poorest areas.

    Look at London, proper investment in the comps with good leadership and teaching, attainment levels as good and if not better then the Grammars in Kent, and available to all, not just the pushy middle classes.

    Chris Cook of the BBC has done the numbers

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965

    Not sure of the logic of his comparison, as London boroughs have Grammars too (Bexleyheath and Barnet for example) and many of London's best schools are

    1) selective
    2) selective through religion (e.g. the Catholic schools)
    3) in very good areas
    I think the point was made somewhere that the selective areas in London massively underperfom relative to the rest of London and it is the secondary moderns that drive that (although the grammars can coast as well - my sister worked at Townley a couple of years ago and said that). The grammar schools take hardly any poor kids in Bexley for example. There are what, 2 fully selective and 2 partially selective boroughs out of 32?

    My son is in year 6 and I'm glad he's not got to do this.
    Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Enfield, Kingston, Redbridge and Sutton all have grammar schools

    Many other schools in London are effectively selective as they are in rich areas of London, hence no poor children are in their local areas, or being oversubscribed effectively are able to choose their pupils
  • FiiishFiiish
    Rothko said:

    Fiiish said:

    I'm not in favour of them but the argument that only kids with affluent/successful parents get into them is not a real argument: intelligence correlates with success and wealth; intelligence is hereditary; intelligence and wealthy parents are more likely to take an interest in their child's education.

    It's a fallacious argument. The problem is not grammar schools but that there are not enough of them, leading to this absurd catchment area policy.

    All the numbers from Kent point to the richer you are, the more likely you are to get in, as your parents can pay for the private tuition to get you through the test, you might have the aspiration from lower income groups, but can't game the system, or afford the houses. Should the state fund an effective private education, for those who don't want to pay but could afford a private education?

    The idea that poor people don't care about their kids education, is either funny or just odd, if they don't why are schools in some of the poorest areas in London improving at a rapid rate of knots?
    1) Yes, because wealth correlates to intelligence and intelligence is hereditary. The issue of private tuition is a fallacy too - should we scrap GCSEs because rich parents can get private tuition for them too?

    2) No one ever said poor people don't care about their kids.

    The problem is, as your post demonstrates, there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding selective education, both from those who want to abolish it and those who send their kids to them.
  • SaladSalad
    I am against grammar schools, but one of my children went to one and the other went in sixth form. You deal with the current situation but it is undeniable that most of the secondary moderns in Kent are dire.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!