Talk:Grammar schools debate

Argument in support
The article said that grammar schools give the best education to the best pupils. This is very perjorative, and inaccurately describes the aim of the system. It is intended by the tripartite system, which includes the grammar school, that the grammar school gives an appropriate  education to the most academically able pupils, but that the system also gives an appropriate and good education to pupils with other abilities. 'Best education' is an issue of how this aim is carried out (in practice, unfairly), but that is a resource failing, not a system one. Sandpiper
 * "The article said that grammar schools give the best education to the best pupils. This is very perjorative, and inaccurately describes the aim of the system". I'm afraid this is the truth though! The Grammar School system worked and Harold Wilson, hypocritically a Grammar School student himself, got shot of them! 193.113.57.161 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Name me a Labour party leader that came from a Comprehensive and I'll back down. The fact is, now that the Grammar-School generation has left the Labour party, they now rely on Public-school students (ie Blair). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2191023.html --Albert 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the comprehensives didn't really start appearing until about 1970, that would mean that in order to attend one, a Labour leader would have to have been born from 1959 onwards. This basically means that the first Labour leader who could possibly have come from a comprehensive would have been Blair, the others would have all been too old. But this is a facile argument anyway. The fact that Tony Blair went to a private school was a decision of his parents. Do you really think an 11 year old Tony Blair should be criticised for not saying "I cant go to a private school dad, because when I'm 18 I might become a socialist and be in favour of comprehensives"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.116.180 (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * well I have read some more about the tripartite system since commenting above, so it would appear my own experience was really a bipartite educational system. Anyway, the system seems to have been criticised for teaching students attending grammar schools, chosen for their existing academic ability, to exhibit further good academic ability. To be blunt, stick someone dim in my class at school and he would have been playing up all the time because the education would have been wholly inapporpriate and in no way the best for him. Although I suspect it is correct that grammar schools enjoyed a disproportionate share of the cash, the actual syllabus would not have been well designed for those that 'failed' the entrance exams. So I come back to this issue of criticising grammar schools for providing the 'best' education for those attending, and the meaning of best in context. Sandpiper 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This last para seems to think that children are either "dim", or not. I live in an area where Grammar Schools are still the norm. My three children have attended them, some having started in a Comp. To say that a child who fails the Kent Test would "play up" as it couldn't cope really shows no understanding of children or education. Take the majority of an average Comp, place them in a Grammar and they will do very well indeed. The fact remains, Grammar Schools supply an excellent education for the children lucky enough to attend them. But does Great Britain want a handful of well educated adults, or does it require something more ? Selecting at age eleven means a very raw deal for many naturally bright children. Milo 193.113.57.161 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not selecting means a very raw deal for any bright people! Dewarw (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the current reality of non-selective education in the UK is that it provides a raw deal for everyone. This is perhaps a little unfair on the system, because some good schools exist, but they seem pretty randomly placed around the country. The system has changed from one of selection to 'good' schools by academic ability to one of selection to 'good' schools by parental income, as represented by their ability to pay to live near enough to qualify to go to that school. Perhaps the most important difference between the current and previous system is that previously there existed a class of schools which produced good results, in comparison to which others were seen to be second class. Having abolished those good schools (on the whole), the remaining schools are no longer second class despite being no better. Instead of 'levelling up', the change has tended to 'level down'.

I find it better that we had a handfull of well educated adults rather than none. Anyone doubting this has only to look at all the shouts of 'unfair' levelled at pupils attending private schools, which produce markedly better results from entirely average students. Comprehensivisation is not the only reason this has happened: the more educational targets have been introduced, the more schools have aimed for those targets. The targets are average attainments. If schools aim to be average (or even, above average), it is unsurprising if they fail to be excellent. Or, in the area I went to school there was one good (grammar) school. Now, officially according to those league tables, there are no good schools. A relative of mine is currently considering the prospect of travelling 25 miles each day to attend a good school. Sandpiper (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very unfair judgement of the current system, Sandpiper. The current system certainly doesn't give a raw deal to those who can afford to go to private schools or live in an area with a good comprehensive school. As a system of social mobility, of course, the current system is a failure. However, as a system of keeping the lower classes low and the upper classes up (thus fostering social stability and preventing the dangers of a meritocratic society) the current system is excellent. Frankly, I'm amazed that the proponents of the comprehensive system haven't put this argument in the article yet. 188.74.111.222 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

General standard
My term report for this article would be, 'tries hard, could do better'. This is a big big subject and I am not convinced the article currently is either as well organised as it could be, nor does the arguments justice. Sandpiper


 * It's crap. There is a point by point debate, which seems to have longer points against grammar schools, and then a 'wider implications' section. Which doesn't discuss any wider implications, simply makes some points again, but from a pro-tripartite point of view.


 * It is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It is mass of WP:original research from start to finish. I have tagged the obvious claims but it seems to me that it is inescapabably biased.  Two opposing biases don't make a neutral article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An excellent article, in my opinion. Richardpd (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wider implications of the debate
Would anyone object to the deleting the section Wider implications of the debate - its little more than an essay. Francium12 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering no one has objected to this proposal in a month I will remove the section. I am planning to improve this article at some point in the future. Both for and against need many more references Francium12 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grammar schools debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308070545/http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx to http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603120956/http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/nationalchallenge/downloads/DataSheet.pdf to http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/nationalchallenge/downloads/DataSheet.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428022243/http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/33-education-and-training-ukip-policy to http://ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/33-education-and-training-ukip-policy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Parking a reference
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/mar/23/selective-schools-make-no-difference-to-gcse-results-study-says New research.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Debate: This article's structure is heavily loaded towards favoring one direction.
If we look at how people choose to read works with selective structures built into them, such as encyclopedia articles and especially those on the internet, my assumption (based on education in technical communication and a career in technical writing, editing and training) is that people will skim the beginning before deciding to continue reading or to move on, will skim the table of contents (TOC) before deciding which section to read or to move on, or some combination of the two.

These reading habits are heavily weighted towards reading the article from the top down, no matter what percent of the article is read in the end. In this article, since the its central structure places all the arguments in support before those in opposition, readers are much more likely to have read the purported positive aspects of the subject and more likely not to have read the purported negative ones, and thus more likely to leave the article thinking the subject is absolutely a good idea all around.

I noticed this issue while reading the article, having skipped the TOC and skimming the more general headers, when I became aware that everything I was reading was pro the subject of the article and did not have a balancing con appearing nearby each pro point. Since I did not expect to spend much time reading this article before returning to learning about Thatcher and milk, I would not have run into any of the con points if my subconscious hadn't wondered why everything was sounding so perfect and then kicked me in the brain-butt.

Please discuss.

Okay, you don't need to discuss my brain-butt. Heh. As is usual for me on Talk pages, my real-life limitations forced this data-dump to be how I communicate (though this time is less dumpy than others) and will most likely get in the way of my coming back to this page no matter how much I try to be reliable. So, I thought before writing (gasp!) and tried to set up my introduction of the problem in a way that is fair and hopefully can encourage reasonable debate and an equitable conclusion in my forgetful absence.

I suggest a restructuring based on a goal or problem to be addressed, one side's action/solution, the other side's action/solution, and then a general wrangling of pros and cons around that central theme. I'm sure some folks out there can do better with more time to think and discuss matters. Enjoy! Thanks! In advance, Geekdiva (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that 25% of kids 'selected' means 75% of kids rejected, it would indeed be more balanced to reverse the order. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Dated material
It is very dated- statistics are being quoted from 2005. Views reported form defunct political parties- and politicians well past their sell by date. Major ommissions in neglecting to discuss creamed comprehensives. We need to visit the Brampton Manor Academy and possibly Fitzalan High School.ClemRutter (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

"Undermining privilege"
Surely this this be renamed to Social Mobility; the current heading presupposes that the undermining of "privilege" is a good thing, and is hardly the most neutral of terms. 82.12.143.173 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)