If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Teachers union calls for reintroduction of grammar schools
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Teachers vote to re-open grammars
Thoughts?
I think they may have a point. I read somewhere that since grammar schools been largely phased out the number of parents sending their children to private schools increased. I would much rather more people went to state grammar schools rather than private schools.
Religious schools popularity is also increasing and a lot of parents opt for them as they generally get better results than comprehensives. I know plenty of people at religious schools who don’t have religious parents making that all seem slightly unnecessary. Religious schools claim to be ‘non-selective’ but they are. For instance the London Oratory where Blair’s kids select on more than just religion. They have interviews for prospective pupils which basically involves finding out all about their academic abilities. I’m at a grammar school but know a few people at religious schools and the good religious schools sound no less selective than grammar schools.
So if those who are religious are allowed selective schools shouldn't the less religious be with grammar schools? On the other hand I can see that here where we have grammar schools the secondary modern schools seem to fall behind the grammar schools a lot with worse facilities, etc. Be interested to hear what other people think.
Thoughts?
I think they may have a point. I read somewhere that since grammar schools been largely phased out the number of parents sending their children to private schools increased. I would much rather more people went to state grammar schools rather than private schools.
Religious schools popularity is also increasing and a lot of parents opt for them as they generally get better results than comprehensives. I know plenty of people at religious schools who don’t have religious parents making that all seem slightly unnecessary. Religious schools claim to be ‘non-selective’ but they are. For instance the London Oratory where Blair’s kids select on more than just religion. They have interviews for prospective pupils which basically involves finding out all about their academic abilities. I’m at a grammar school but know a few people at religious schools and the good religious schools sound no less selective than grammar schools.
So if those who are religious are allowed selective schools shouldn't the less religious be with grammar schools? On the other hand I can see that here where we have grammar schools the secondary modern schools seem to fall behind the grammar schools a lot with worse facilities, etc. Be interested to hear what other people think.
0
Comments
I have mixed feelings about them TBH, I'm the product of a grammar school but I'm not convinced that they are the best option. However, I also worry that Comps teach to the lowest common denominator and so the more intelligent children suffer... and struggle to reach their potential...
I passed the 11 plus and almost went to all boys Bishop Wordsworth's school in Salisbury. Thankfully my old dear changed her mind and sent me to good comp where most of my mates were going.
I didnt pass the 11+ and ended up at the comp for a year. Thankfully the Grammar School accepted me into the school the next year. And i held my own just fine which the test said i wouldnt do.
I dont like the elitism really and the fact that someone like me could be stuck in a comp and not forfil potential.
It was quite an accomplishment however, when you consider there was only two classrooms in the whole school and I was being taught the same stuff, and was in the same class as my sister 3 years below me.
There are still some grammar schools here. I went to one. I'm not sure it was the best option for me, but I believe there are many positive things about them: they encourage a good work ethic and competition, anyone can go to them no matter their background or income (so long as they score highly enough), if you are struggling there is a lot of assistance available from teachers as opposed to a school with more mixed abilities.
I would rather that this was decided according to ability than finance, however. I don't like it, but it's the lesser of two evils. And I don't think an arbitrary test aged 11 is a marker of ability, which is what concerns me more than anything- some children peak early and can't cope later, some children peak late.
I fully believe in streaming for all subjects, but within a single school. Therefore children learn with their intellectual peers, but if circumstances change they can be quickly and easily moved to another ability group. The prospect of "promotion" or "relegation" acts as an incentive for people, I believe, or it does for those of medium talent and medium dedication.
:yes:
Absolutley. I don't agree with grammar schools and I don't think you can determine somones's intelectual ability from one test when they're what? 11?
There's already far to much emphasis on examination based education in this country ... last thing we want to do is start dividing kids based on exam results at even earlier age.
Other than the fact the people's ability develops at different rates hanging so much (and to an 11 year old kid it is a lot) on one test result simply isn't fair. They'll be having nervous breakdowns in the lunch ques!
Wouldn't you just know I was a South Wilts girl?
Don't think grammar schools are necessarily the best solution but in true Miffy on-the-fence style, I'm not really sure what would be.
Thats what I had in my comp albeit from year 9 onwards. Works well IMHO. Pain in the arse if you change set months even weeks before exams and that did happen.
in my school strangely in the streamed classes were exactly the same students
Where I live, I didn't take an 11+ test and thus didn't go to a grammar school. It hasn't hurt me at all, still getting As and lots of my mates are. There are weaker students, but then again there always are. I think they'd be even worse off if they went to a school exclusively for weak students. Though I'm sure it happens in grammar schools, at my school not only does the teacher teach the students, but the students teach each other two. Like, we work on problems together (i.e. maths) and make sure we're going through it in the same way. Physics, explaining concepts to each other etc. etc.
I think it's productive for all the students, because by actively 'teaching' it to others it is fixing it in their memory, and giving dedicated teaching to a student means that their needs are concentrated on more.
But I guess you could be in different bands for different subjects.
Although I went to a grammar school, we did have sets for Maths.
A comp is not a school exclusively for weak students. Many schools specialise in certain areas now.
Ireland has a good system, they have no equivalent to the 11+, instead teachers and pupils pick their own schools, they look at the facilities and subjects on offer and choose themselves, grammer schools were worried they'd have more "stupid" people in their schools at the start but overall everyone is happy now there
when there are smarter kids out there stuck in comps because their parents cant afford to give them better education, i mean they probably still do well but get held back. It's a bit of a waste i think.
At one of the schools in Shropshire that I know a couple of guys at, you do not have to pay school fees as it is a grammar school, but you can make "regular donations", so you get some people paying a couple of grand a term, and some people who pay nothing at all. I don't think it affects whether you get in in the first place, though.
Incidentally, I just worked out who was in the top sets in both Maths and English for GCSE, and there wasn't that much of a difference, I just never noticed before. At my school, streaming works for the top and the middle ability students, but the bottom set pupils tend to stay in the bottom sets, and from what i hear, not a lot of work gets done but a lot of breaking stuff and pissing off teachers does. One of the less arseholey pupils who just didn't have the ability to move suggested that people didn't like being at the bottom of the top but I don't know. The option was there and the majority chose not to take it, and the same thing could well occur at grammar schools, where they bottom pupils can't sink any lower so don't try and the pupils and the top pupils at comprehensive schools aren't able to develop, if they really are as disadvantaged as some suggest.
can write all sorts of history essays and scientific reports though
it's a bit stupid but you pay for a year of boarding in the school (which anyone can do) then say you want to be removed from boarding, just say you don't like it, then you're in, i know a guy who got a C2 and did this
what has boarding got to do with anything?
In England, as far as I know, a grammar school is non fee paying, open to everyone who gets a high enough score in the 11+
ETA: grammer schools are free here too, the money given to the school by these people are for food and accomodation. but you can see how it could be seen as a bribe for others to take advantage of the situation
...and as for paying for grammar school entry?! It didn't happen in my area, you had to pass your 11+...or when it came to 6th form you just needed the standard 5 GCSE passes :chin:
its not really about that, its that they nick the best teachers in that area thus ruining the kids who didnt make it edcuation
Lovely green uniform. My sister went to South Wilts.