The UK should keep Grammar schools

"I understand that the grammar school entrance system may be seen as unfair in which many working class families cannot afford 11+ tuition for their child/children. So because of this, only those of the middle and upper classes will afford tuition for this. I understand that there are many people who are grammar school teachers who have offered their time and knowledge to help 11-12 year old with their 11+ exam studies. This has recently occurred over a range of areas in England and Scotland despite many these tuition groups not being funded by the government. I have noticed that it is not just teachers, who are offering this 'help', it is many different members of many different communities. I and my family were fortunate to receive minimum fee 11+ tuition yet this tuition being of reasonable quality. The people running this were two women of the local Muslim community. Yet despite this, they would accept any child of any culture or religion for free. I wish that more people could have these wonderful qualities. In retrospect of this, I would like to say that is possible for underprivileged children to be able to take the 11+ exam and pass with the help of these tuition groups. Now because of this, I would strongly believe that the grammar school system can give the lower and the middle classes as well as the upper classes a chance to higher education and then more financially stable jobs and futures. Please note that naturally, not every child would pass the exam, which is the purpose of the 11+. " Refer to this chart Niam. The first half of that paragraph was literally conceding and accepting that I am right, before explaining how people can be tutored for free. Well they can, but refer to the chart above. If what you are saying was true then this wouldn't happen. There are less working class people and more middle class people attending grammar school's. Considering that 60% of people state they are working class[1], this inequality is only detrimental to the masses. Of course people can offer tuition, and grammar school's could be fair, but it doesn't happen. That paragraph was not an argument, it was a fanciful wish. If you take a look at the map you will see that the distribution is so clustred to specific areas that those in the west and north are at a massive disadvantage, no matter how little tuition costs. So the only way to allow these areas to grow educationally is to abolish grammar schools and to promote educational prosperity nationwide, and not have a system which is good for some, so they come out stigmatised and bigoted so those who were at a disadvantage in the first place feel worse and have been placed on a lower threshold in terms of their social standards, which is why so many people think they're lower class. Stigma and the likes of grammar and private schools set social standards which lowers the rest of the country. We need to abolish this."To help justify my point that the Grammar School entrance system is becoming fairer. I shall use the point that many grammar schools are creating programs services which are aimed at challenging the ‘unfairness of the grammar school selection system’ by helping to encourage, motivate and inspire children who have overlooked Grammar School education to understand the benefits of grammar school education and how Grammar School education works. An example of this is the Westcliff High School for boy’s WESTCLIFF CENTRE FOR GIFTED CHILDREN. Please note that I am not entirely comfortable with providing such names, but who cares?" Again, no matter how much schools try to improve the level of people who know about them, it firstly does not work as shown by the graph and secondly does not affect the people who live in areas which are sparse of grammar schools, and that system is reliant on grammar schools doing this, on schools being near grammar schools, and on so many variables that it won't work on a scale which would help all the issues I have stated and you have agreed with."The purpose of education is about the individual needs of the children. Education is about identifying and cultivating individual talent. If a school levels down on this and helps all the students on the same basis and needs, the majority of the students would most likely under perform and would not reach their academic potential. Now we can see, how it would be good to have both Comprehensive and Grammar schools alike, because the comprehensive could use their resources to tailor to the needs of the perhaps less gifted children and the grammar school could conserve what would have gone to that if that school had a wider mixed ability range. We can see from this that everyone would benefit."Specific and broad academic potential can all be met without special schools. Special classes, sets, etc can do this just as well, without whole scools to indoctrinate children as I have said before. It also promotes extra learning and allows the talented to feel more comfortable about themselves. And pupils won't under perform, that is just pure speculation. There can be gifted children who live in areas where grammar schools aren't rampant, or haven't heard of them, or simply do not want to atttend a grammar school. And if we follow your method, then we will focus on 164 schools rather than thousands more, definitely not benefiting the majority. We need to work on the education of everyone, and getting rid of grammar schools is a start to educational equality. So in the end, Pro has not fulfilled any BOP he might have had, has argued that a system now works even though I have proven it doesn't, and he has conceded most of my arguments, so I urge the floor to side with me, thank you.