The UK should keep Grammar schools

I would not like to start of with some rebuttal. Rebuttal"I have been doing recent research on many comprehensive and I have found that these comprehensive schools have included many other less academically important subjects in the Gsce syllabus such as child development (Home economics), Film Studies ( absolutely irrelevant to someone's learning, unless aspiring to be a film critic etc), catering, dance and drama. I feel that because of these schools are exerting their energy into these subjects instead of using that possible money and resources to focus on the more important subjects. " There are many things incorrect about this statement. First of all you challenged the importance of subjects such as Home Economics, Film Studies, Catering, Dance and Drama. Firstly, GCSE subjects in relation to these are optional. Due to the addition of the English Baccalaureate, 47% percent of pupils in 2013 are doing subjects which help towards the English Baccalaureate[1]. This is English, Maths, the Sciences, a language and History/Geography. All are viewed as either core, or facilitating[2]. Factor in those who aren't doing all of them, and there is a considerable amount of the population taking an important subject, so schools do factor this in. There is not a lack of focus on these, as shown in the fact that 81.1% of pupils in England received A*-C grades, a pass[4]. Now that we've established that there isn't a problem, the importance of these subjects are relative. Saying this is a important as this is relative for the person. If someone aspires in film, catering, dance or drama, which are very broad fields, then those subjects are important for he or she. If that person even feels like what they might learn will be useful. This is completely relative and to state that some subjects are more important will be leading on to my first point. Grammar school's promote stigma and indoctrination, leading to lower grades in other fields. In a grammar school, there is a lot of focus on doing well academically, especially in the core subjects. I hope you do not mind, but we can take the example of our grammar school, Westcliff High School for Boys (WHSB). We have 76 A* in Physics, 75 in Mathematics, 91 in English Language, 41 in English Literature, 65 in Chemistry, 72 in Biology and 35 in Statistics, very high in relation to the amount of people taking it. But take the likes of Product Design, Religious Studies, Economics, Computing and Electronics, and you have 14, 14, 9, 4 and 9 respectively[3]. This happens for two reasons; the lack of people taking them and the lack of effort and money put into them, which again Niam, you know is true. But product designers are needed, artists, bakers and those working in DT are all needed to make society function, and our school does the exact opposite. There are 32 periods a fortnight out of 6 reserved for English, Maths and Science alone and this then attaches a stigma that working in "softer" fields is not a good thing, as you have proven. We are indoctrinated into being lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. This creates the massive demand for law and medicine as other schools take our stigma in attempt to grow. The country accept the fact that we indoctrinate our children to believe that "professional" fields are more important than other. That the banker is more important than the game designer, but both are vital to keep our society running as it is. This will over time create a massive imbalance of work and we will simply not have enough space for all these lawyers and politicians and bankers, and have space left in art and in bakers. Even worse, the aim-for-the-prestigious-jobs mentality is extremely negative on small businesses if we are teaching our children that they are wrong. This mentality can only be stopped by abolishing grammar schools and keeping comprehensive schools which promote educational expertise as well as free choice, which is why they offer those, whereas our school has a limited option, spreading as far as citizenship. Not including drama, dance or home economics, promoting further stigma. Grammar schools are unfair. Take a good look at this map, and see the distribution of grammar school's. I don't need to say much, as a 1000 words a brought here. The areas grammar school's aren't in are poorer, with less infrastructure and communications, with less convenient travel and the places which do not have grammar schools. there are quite a lot of them. This is unfair on all our citizens. Grammar school's themselves completely mock the working class in poorer areas, who cannot afford the necessary tuition, which for me was £1700 (approx). And tuition is a must as the 11+ as you know features completely different topics than any school would teach at 11. They only benefit the rich and give them better education, which in turn increases the gap. By abolishing them we get rid of this and can allow everyone to have an equal education, whilst imposing other measures for the intelligent. Because some people have never heard of grammar schools. This is a chart to show how although the richer are better off anyways, it is a steeper line for grammar schools. Grammar schools are unfair on the working class, but those who do not know about them, those in certain areas, and they are still government funded. The government funds a system of stigmatisation and producing educational standards which can easily be replicated as money is not an issue. You know without quotation that our school is the lowest paid in Southend. In summary, I have reached my conclusion for this round. They are unfair, promote stigmatisation and are anti pure freedom with jobs, in return for standards which with the right attitude, we can reach as a nation, but only if as a nation we try and don't just help those who were lucky enough to receive tuition. Sources: [1]. https://www.gov.uk...[2]http://www.clare.cam.ac.uk...[3]http://www.whsb.essex.sch.uk...[4]http://www.bstubbs.co.uk...