Re: Grammar Schools : Sat Oct 01, 2016 10:18 am  

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

Why can't that include an outlet for the brighter kids such as Grammar schools, as well as secondary type education to allow kids with less academic skills to fulfil there potential?

Re: Grammar Schools : Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:08 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

And 11 is the best age to decide this?

If there was an argument against Grammar schools you're it.

I would suggest aged 7 assessments to form the basis of post 11 transfer, subject to chances to move for later developers.

Re: Grammar Schools : Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:05 pm  

wire-quin wrote:

Why can't that include an outlet for the brighter kids such as Grammar schools, as well as secondary type education to allow kids with less academic skills to fulfil there potential?

Why do we need separate schools. We have streamed sets to put those better at different subjects together.

What Grammar schools are are picking the best at certain subjects at a certain age and saying you, and only you, are worth educating properly.

Everyone should get the same attention from the system, not just some. As such, there is no need whatsoever for separate schools. All that does is segregate people.

Should the comprehensive system be teaching different things and in a different manner? Absolutely. But the principle of comprehensive education has to be maintained.

Re: Grammar Schools : Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:32 pm  

bren2k wrote:

All absolutely true - but set against the full knowledge that improving the life opportunities of larger numbers of pupils is not in any way the aim of a Tory government.

Well said, sir

Re: Grammar Schools : Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:14 pm  

Dally wrote:

I would suggest aged 7 assessments to form the basis of post 11 transfer, subject to chances to move for later developers.

Re: Grammar Schools : Sat Oct 01, 2016 4:31 pm  

What Grammar schools are are picking the best at certain subjects at a certain age and saying you, and only you, are worth educating properly.

No what it's saying is that this group have the most academic potential so we will focus on fulfilling their potential whilst 'the rest' go to good schools which offer a mix of academic and skill based education based upon each child's individual potential

Re: Grammar Schools : Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:51 am  

wire-quin wrote:

No what it's saying is that this group have the most academic potential so we will focus on fulfilling their potential whilst 'the rest' go to good schools which offer a mix of academic and skill based education based upon each child's individual potential

No - it isn't saying that at all; a combination of Tory bias for the middle classes and successive governments meddling with an education system they are ill-qualified to understand, means that what it's actually saying is, let's select at 11 based on a flawed and exploitable system, and consign everyone who doesn't have the resources to exploit it, or develops at a later age, to an educational scrapheap. And while we're at it, let's allow the selective schools to fraudulently claim charitable status, so that the additional resources they already have go even further.

It's a divisive, class-based system designed to appease the traditional Tory supporter base; thankfully, the House of Lords will boot it out, so the whole argument is most likely moot.

Re: Grammar Schools : Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:45 am  

The repeated testing & judging of children is repugnant. My daughter is at University & has been annually tested in some way since before high school. The pressure it places on growing children is disgusting. We should be concentrating on developing mature, rounded, moral young people, not turning them into robots at schools whose sole purpose is to get exam passes.

Re: Grammar Schools : Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:20 pm  

wire-quin wrote:
No what it's saying is that this group have the most academic potential so we will focus on fulfilling their potential whilst 'the rest' go to good schools which offer a mix of academic and skill based education based upon each child's individual potential


No - it isn't saying that at all; a combination of Tory bias for the middle classes and successive governments meddling with an education system they are ill-qualified to understand, means that what it's actually saying is, let's select at 11 based on a flawed and exploitable system, and consign everyone who doesn't have the resources to exploit it, or develops at a later age, to an educational scrapheap. And while we're at it, let's allow the selective schools to fraudulently claim charitable status, so that the additional resources they already have go even further.

It's a divisive, class-based system designed to appease the traditional Tory supporter base; thankfully, the House of Lords will boot it out, so the whole argument is most likely moot.

No that's what you are saying. They have said(accepted) what we had in the 60/70s wasn't correct but the principal is a good one. based on that they will introduce a modernised approach. Why not give it a chance.

Re: Grammar Schools : Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:34 pm  

Can someone explain exactly how the introduction will improve the level of education across the spectrum which is the nonsense being spouted by Mrs May.
The best that can happen is that a lucky few obtain a/b grades instead of b/c grades (paid for by the tax payer) but, there is a fair chance that, a likely "brain drain" of teachers will leave their posts at the local comp/academy to take up positions at these new schools, leaving the existing academies with fewer bright children and fewer decent teachers.
A competent opposition would rip them to pieces over this but, Labour, are politically impotent at present, leaving the Tories (even with a small majority) to do just as the please, it's depressing.