Re: Grammar Schools : Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:04 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I think that you've answered your own question right at the start of your post with the word "pro".
Any professional sport is by it's very nature selective and rightly so but, a decent education should be there for everyone and not given by selection.
The 11 plus system looked after the few, whilst consigning the majority to mediocrity, which is just elitist rubbish.

Everyone should at least start out in life with a decent chance to succeed and not be written off at 11 years old.

As for comparing something as fundamental as a good education with professional sport, you need to give your head a shake.

Hang on. Pro sport survives because less able kids are thrown on the scrap heap at an early age and progress is based on elitism. Are you going to ban pro-sport? If not, why ban elite education which enables the academic elite to go onto to suitable professions (which I would have thought a Communist ideal as much as a Tory one - for each according to his ability....?). If you agree with selection in sport at what age should it start? Is 11 far too early?

Re: Grammar Schools : Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:19 am  

Dally wrote:

Hang on. Pro sport survives because less able kids are thrown on the scrap heap at an early age and progress is based on elitism. Are you going to ban pro-sport? If not, why ban elite education which enables the academic elite to go onto to suitable professions (which I would have thought a Communist ideal as much as a Tory one - for each according to his ability....?). If you agree with selection in sport at what age should it start? Is 11 far too early?

Eho said anything about banning "elite education", after all people who have plenty of brass will always be willing to spend it to gain advantage for themselves or their kids.
My issue is with having a state run system that makes a fundamental decision on their futures at the age of 11.

As far as sport goes, it's up to the pro clubs to decide the best way forward for themselves.

Kids go into sport and usually participate as long as they wish and if they wish can continue at some level until their body says no.
Not Very few make it to any professional level but, this is the only way it can be.

Re: Grammar Schools : Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:28 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Eho said anything about banning "elite education", after all people who have plenty of brass will always be willing to spend it to gain advantage for themselves or their kids.
My issue is with having a state run system that makes a fundamental decision on their futures at the age of 11.

As far as sport goes, it's up to the pro clubs to decide the best way forward for themselves.

Kids go into sport and usually participate as long as they wish and if they wish can continue at some level until their body says no.
Not Very few make it to any professional level but, this is the only way it can be.

Very muddled thinking there. Presumably deliberate to obscure overt hypocrisy?

Re: Grammar Schools : Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:53 pm  

Pro sports consistently misses people with potential because they select so young and because of their methods of selection.

But even so, the aims of pro sport and education are entirely different.

Everyone who wasn't born with some kind of disorder/special need etc has potential.

The kind of education system we have determines which kids succeed and which don't hence why we have a system which assists the children of the rich and influential.

Grammar schools would merely assist the current system in going further down that path.

Re: Grammar Schools : Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:26 am  

Him wrote:

Pro sports consistently misses people with potential because they select so young and because of their methods of selection.

But even so, the aims of pro sport and education are entirely different.

Everyone who wasn't born with some kind of disorder/special need etc has potential.

The kind of education system we have determines which kids succeed and which don't hence why we have a system which assists the children of the rich and influential.

Grammar schools would merely assist the current system in going further down that path.

For someone like Dally who cracks one out over the thought of an elitist utopia based on the archaic British class system of the 1800's, this is music to his ears. Ensuring that those poor, underprivileged kids stay at the bottom and the drawbridge is pulled up when they're just 11.

Re: Grammar Schools : Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:15 pm  

Meanwhile in another attempt by the government to divert responsibility for failing schools they think handing control to Universities is the answer. Fortunately the VC of Oxford Uni is a bit wiser “There are many wonderful teachers and head teachers throughout the country and I think it’s frankly insulting to them to suggest that a university can come in and do what they are working very hard to do and in many cases doing it exceptionally well.”

Re: Grammar Schools : Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:56 pm  

Dally wrote:

Very muddled thinking there. Presumably deliberate to obscure overt hypocrisy?

Not muddled at all.

Do you think that "the state" should be deciding very early in a persons development, whether they are worthy of a "privileged" place in the education system or, should the "state" provide a decent education for all young people ?

It's quite ridiculous to talk about children failing within the education system and then say that we should remove the "top" and give them something better.

Surely this is to completely admit defeat and consign an element of society to a second rate existence.

Ironically, the same people that want to do this are the very same people who then complain about poorly educated people not being well enough trained to improve their employ-ability.

For me it's simple.

The state should provide a decent education for ALL and if people want something better/different then, they should go down a different route, either pay and go private or maybe home educate but, let's not lose all of the best teachers into grammar schools and further reduce the quality of education for the masses.

I realise that you may be trying to be deliberately provocative and if so, that's your prerogative but, it really is time that politicians stopped pi$$ing about with the education system and just made sure that it is adequately funded and of a decent standard for ALL.

Re: Grammar Schools : Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:39 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Not muddled at all.

Do you think that "the state" should be deciding very early in a persons development, whether they are worthy of a "privileged" place in the education system or, should the "state" provide a decent education for all young people ?

It's quite ridiculous to talk about children failing within the education system and then say that we should remove the "top" and give them something better.

Surely this is to completely admit defeat and consign an element of society to a second rate existence.

Ironically, the same people that want to do this are the very same people who then complain about poorly educated people not being well enough trained to improve their employ-ability.

For me it's simple.

The state should provide a decent education for ALL and if people want something better/different then, they should go down a different route, either pay and go private or maybe home educate but, let's not lose all of the best teachers into grammar schools and further reduce the quality of education for the masses.

I realise that you may be trying to be deliberately provocative and if so, that's your prerogative but, it really is time that politicians stopped pi$$ing about with the education system and just made sure that it is adequately funded and of a decent standard for ALL.

This is crazy. Surely the state should give people with an academic leaning the opportunity to pursue excellence, which will benefit all of society in many cases? The less academic youngsters can still be given good education but with less emphasis on rapid academic advancement.

In comprehensive schools kids are still streamed,so it's no secret which are the best at particular things and which are not. Much better in my opinion to be honest and allow all the mist able from a particular area to be able to reach their potentials. Other kids can reach there's in equally good schools with different emphases.

Really cannot understand any objection.

Re: Grammar Schools : Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:03 pm  

I always thought " separate development " was something practiced in South Africa.
Seems that some want the same here with little chance of progress.
Just an observation.

Re: Grammar Schools : Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:16 pm  

Dally wrote:

This is crazy. Surely the state should give people with an academic leaning the opportunity to pursue excellence, which will benefit all of society in many cases? The less academic youngsters can still be given good education but with less emphasis on rapid academic advancement.

In comprehensive schools kids are still streamed,so it's no secret which are the best at particular things and which are not. Much better in my opinion to be honest and allow all the mist able from a particular area to be able to reach their potentials. Other kids can reach there's in equally good schools with different emphases.

Really cannot understand any objection.

Under the old Grammar School system, the kids that weren't lucky enough to pass their 11+ left school without any qualifications.
Is this a fair system ?

There is no need for a return to the 11+ or for state funded Grammar Schools

A properly funded state education SHOULD provide a decent education for ALL and not just a fortunate few.