New Grammar Schools: good or bad?

The trouble with grammars is they only allow for the clever kids who bloom early and are good at maths and creative writing. Yes indeed, these clever kids do go on to achieve well but so do later bloomers and kids who excel at say, science and languages, which they don't get the chance to demonstrate as a ten year old in primary school when the exams are sat.

As a parent of a grammar school child, I think grammar schools are not a good idea. We would be better off as a society with comprehensives that would up their game and have an even mix of high,medium, low ability children.

Grammars promote Uber competitiveness causing low self esteem and MH issues in teenagers. They all cause comprehensives in the area to under achieve due to taking away all the bright kids.

Would prefer more vocational options as @BookwormButNoTime suggests

Too divisive.

As posters have already said grammar schools are full of kids who have benefited from tuition. There will be an early separation of the middle classes from the working classes which limits both sets of children's social vision. Children not getting into the grammar school will receive an education with an assumption they are not capable of top grades.

Additionally you may have high achieving working class kids who do not want to go to the 'posh' school and be separated from their friends and perhaps be subject to bullying because of background or lack of wealth.

People who support them always assume that their kids will get in.

What did for grammar schools originally was parents finding out that most kids don't get into them.

Theresa May had more grammar schools in her manifesto for the election where she lost her majority. It clearly wasn't a vote-winner then, parents don't want an expansion of the secondary modern system.

It's also shit for social mobility. If anyone brings up the German system (which inevitably happens on a grammar school thread), this system was condemned by the UN for increasing social inequity.

However, there are currently way too few special needs schools in the U.K. Parents are fighting for places at schools which are already full to capacity where it has been proven that a mainstream education is not appropriate for their child. And what about schools that meet the needs of those that fall somewhere between mainstream and special needs - those who are capable of doing one or two GCSEs, but need significant extra support? There’s just a handful in the U.K. I would prefer that any funding available for grammars went to fixing this first perfectly put!!!! After fully.

Id also like to see apprenticeships supported, training schemes etc- not everyone is academic and there’s plenty of practical roles which we need the next generation to fill.

Good for those who get in, bad for everyone else. If you don’t believe in equality of opportunity then they are great.

I agree with the concept of grammar schools but not the method of selection, and let’s not ignore that attention also needs to be paid to other types of schools..

A grammar test on one day on material that requires “training” on how to answer it (verbal and non verbal reasoning), seriously biases the results towards to the better off with motivated parents. I really wish there was a method of continuous assessment throughout Y5 on dates not shared with parents. If you could work towards the tests being untutorable then I see no problem.

However, there are currently way too few special needs schools in the U.K. Parents are fighting for places at schools which are already full to capacity where it has been proven that a mainstream education is not appropriate for their child. And what about schools that meet the needs of those that fall somewhere between mainstream and special needs - those who are capable of doing one or two GCSEs, but need significant extra support? There’s just a handful in the U.K. I would prefer that any funding available for grammars went to fixing this first.

For those children stuck in the middle. We need to ensure that no doors are closed to them and just because they aren’t at a grammar doesn’t mean that they are written off and receive a second class education or can’t achieve 9 A*s at GCSE. Many children would benefit from a wider choice of qualifications outside the traditional GCSE route - BTecs and vocational qualifications alongside GCSEs. With current funding levels it is impossible for a comprehensive (or secondary modern) to offer something for everyone.

All children are different and it is impossible to have a one size fits all education. We should look for a system that better fits a whole spectrum of needs, not just the very brightest.

Can we also discuss whether people think it's a good idea to create more secondary modern schools? Because that's what is also implicitly included in this proposal.
I think new grammar schools will tend to mostly benefit those from well off middle class families who know how to jump through the hoops to get their children into them. And are likely to do better than other children anyway. Money would be much better spent improving the education for all children.

Not a teacher but a parent. I think it's a terrible idea.
We don't live in a grammar area but there are some selective/grammar options not so far away. The pushy middle class parents pay for tutors for their kids to be trained for the exam. It doesn't exactly say "levelling up" does it?
I don't agree with any selection in state schools whether it's grammar or religion.