Do you agree with grammar schools?

Question

Just interested to know what others thought- I know that, for me, grammar school saved me from (and I'm not saying all comprehensives are like this, I know some very nice ones with a high standard of teaching- this is just the one near me) the drugs-drink-smoking school down the road which was the only other school I had a chance of getting in to

Answer 1

I went to grammar school myself and I completely agree with you. Although I think that in an ideal world they would not be necessary, the fact is that state schools at present are often awful and so parents do not have much choice but to send their children to a public school.

I also think it is a terrible shame that New Labour revoked all scholarships for children from poorer families who went to grammar / public schools. This is how I ended-up going and I could never have done so otherwise. In my opinion this means that gifted children from poorer families suffer now as they cannot get scholarships to good schools and so have to attend state schools where the onus is always to push the less intelligent kids in order to improve their league table statistics.

On a different note, I also think that public / grammar schools offer a far better range of subjects. I got to study Latin and Ancient Greek, which have benefited me no-end when learning modern languages. Other pupils got to learn Russian or German as well as French if they so chose. State schools simply don't have the facilities or the funding to do this.

Like I said before, in an ideal world they wouldn't exist, as in a way they do promote a class inequality. (Ironically, this is more the case under New Labour as the removal of scholarships means that only the children of well-off families can attend), but since we don't live in an ideal world, I totally agree with you. If I hadn't have gone to a public school then I would probably never have gone to university and may well have ended-up living off benefits like so many of the people who grew up where I did and went to the local comprehensive.

Answer 2

I don't know that I disagree with grammar schools but I do definately disagree with the 11+ form of testing. I know a couple of kids going to secondary school this September who the Junior school were certain would pass. They had a bad day during the exam and failed. How can we judge a child's aptitude on one day's testing when their work over the year is of a very very high standard and they would obviously do well in Grammer. On the other hand, my daughter did not take the 11+ as I didn't think Grammer was right for her. She is in the top streams of the secondary modern and doing fantastically. If she had got into Grammer she would probably have been in the lower groups and would not have the confidence she has now. Locally, it is said that if a child wants to achieve, they can do it there and in many more ways than they ever thought possible. I think it is more unfair that had she taken the 11+, she would have had the choice of 5 grammar schools to choose from but as it was, the only real choice was the local school which has improved in leaps and bounds over the last few years or a really crummy secondary modern in the next town. So, the 30% have 5 times the choice of the 70% - where is the fairness in that? Also, most of the kids that got into Grammer schools from the state primaries were middle class kids whose parent's could afford private tutors. Those that couldn't got a couple of lessons after school in preparation for the 11+. This makes me question whether the brightest get in or those that have been taught how to pass the exam. Another reason to get rid of the 11+ and use another means of selection. Secondary moderns are changing alot now. My daughter is definately encouraged to try new things, work hard and accomplish well. But they also have things that those who are not accademic can do so all feel they have achieved something - with the exception of the few who would not achieve if they went to the best school in the country due to lack of decent parenting and any sort of moral guidance at all!

Answer 3

Grammar schools are immoral and a waste.

When people take about Grammar schools they conveniently forget that for every Grammar school there has to be 2 to 4 Secondary Moderns. These schools are where the 80% rejects go. They are usually under funded and those who go there have little chance of any future.

I went to a Secondary Modern and left with one O Level and almost illiterate. Back then we had factories and other low educational need jobs, they are not there now. I went from factory job to factory job. It took me until I was 39 to get a degree. Am I alone in this experience... NO!

I have taught A Levels in both Grammars and Comprehensives. It is not the students core ability that is different in is their background. Most of the Grammar students were from a higher income and usually professional family.

The way forward is not to run to the past, it is to embrace modern education or we can kiss goodbye.

Answer 4

It's an interesting topic. Next year I will be moving to a grammar school from my comprehensive. The constant interruption, distraction and crowd control issues are incredibly annoying. However, it's a personal choice. I'm not sure I like the idea of the 11-plus. I think it puts pressure on children to achieve, and 'failing' has a distinct air of despondancy to it. Someone I know, however, started his secondary school in Essex, where they had the 11+. He got into the local grammar school because his brother passed, and I'm not sure he was right for it.
So...I think they should be an option.

Answer 5

Yes, I went to a grammar school, and I firmly believe that I received a far higher standard of education than I would have done had I attended my local comprehensive school. I was in a class full of above average children like myself who were motivated to learn and had parents who were sufficiently interested in their education to make the effort to get them into that school. Their parents therefore supported and encouraged their education, and mainly supported the discipline imposed in the school. This is not often the case in comprehensives, where some parents do not care about their child's education, and the child does not try hard as a result.

Answer 6

Yes, very much so. I experienced both the town grammar school and, when that was closed by the Labour government, the local comprehensive. The difference was significant in all areas - quality of teaching; discipline; quality of equipment; sport and size of class. I much preferred the grammar school.

Answer 7

Totally, I went to a comprehensive school and it sucked. Those people get high grades in playing pranks on other people and do drugs and low grades in their studies. I am pretty sure that if I went to a grammar school, I would have got much better grades.

Answer 8

If I had gone to the local comp as my brothers did, I would not have been put forward for as many exams and achieved as much academically.

Though I have to say that I was obviously a borderline case as I struggled at grammar school.

If I had had the choice for my kids I would have chosen grammar school every time.

Answer 9

Absolutely, old chap, and it'll stand you in good stead on the old CV too. Employers are always impressed by a good school, it shows you are orderly and capable of making the grade. I went to a Comprehensive (it was actually very good ) but in the end I was too embaressed to admit it. shame really.

Answer 10

i think home schooling is better especially in the first 3 grades.. children can take dance or piano or art lessons from other teachers as well and joining at least one group like the scouts to make a social balance.