What is so bad about grammar schools?

Question

I live in Buckinghamshire where we still have grammar schools. My own children, ( I am an older parent), all have degrees. What is wrong with working hard. That is the only way you can advance in life.

Answer 1

Personally, I think grammar schools are a good way of developing high achieving students, and I speak as someone who did not go to one. Segregation will always need to be made between high and low achievers otherwise it is difficult for learning levels to be raised much above the lowest ability in a class. Low achievers will always be aware of their deficiencies if they are in a class with high achievers which is why there must be divisions.
The 'examinations' which are taken at 11 years are SELECTION tests, ie. they indicate which type of school a child would be able to operate successfully in to meet their full potential. It is not a pass/fail situation.
What needs attention is to operate all schools for the benefit of the children.

Answer 2

I went to grammer school as a result of passing the good old 11+. I had more choices as a reward for the hard work I put in. There is nothing wrong with rewarding children who can, and want to work hard at School, with a greater range of educational choices than their peers who cannot or do not want to. Grammer School was a good system it's only wooly ponces like Tony Blur who find them offensive. Nowadays it seems you only have to put up a couple of poems and an arty poster in a bus shelter and you can call it a University!

Answer 3

Well I'm biased because I went to a grammar school and it stood me in good stead - I'm a doctor. I think I worked harder than I might have done at a comp because all the other kids were getting good grades and so that helped motivate me to work because there was no fear of getting called a swot. I probably wouldn't be a doctor now if I hadn't been to one, because I am naturally lazy and need a good kick up the rear end in order to work hard.

Answer 4

I agree. But opponants of Grammer Schools aregued for their abolition on two grounds:

1. That they are socially divisive
2. That the 11+ exam defined the futures of children too harshly and at too young an age.

Both arguments can be countered, and should be, but I doubt that the political will exists to do so.

This is because Comprehensive schools base their intake on house location, and the Tories would alienate the wealthy parents of stupid children by re-introducing Grammer schools.

And Labour votors most likely would be unlikely to afford the extra tuition, and besides lack the drive to educate their children sufficiently to pass a school entrance exam.

The children who are most damaged by all this are the bright children of poor but ambitious families (often these are immigrants of Asian origin).

But we don´t want them getting out of place do we?

Answer 5

a blend of both, i imagine. that's straightforward to make blunders of change into lazy even as typing yet i understand colleges are not paying adequate interest to grammar. in regular we under no circumstances get taught words and grammar regulations, we are envisioned to study from examples and journey. because of this i grew up without understanding what a previous participle, preposition or chop up infinitive were. in view that grammar change into no longer even brushed upon in intense college i nonetheless do not understand what a million and three are. texting is likewise a situation. both spelling and grammar get thrown out the window.

Answer 6

I disagree with your point about hard work being the only way to advance in life, I am on the look out to adopt parents so rich I will never need to work again. If anyone reading this can assist me then please get in touch, thanks

Answer 7

hard working is not only way we cn advance in life.in that case luck also plays 50% part in advancing in life.