Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sven, Feb 7, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
From the Telegraph
Well done Mr Cameron.
I was educated at Porterhouse College - So Offski Oiky.
Perhaps someone could explain something to a septic observer. I don't live there but I follow the news and from what I have read the Grammar Schools in general do far better that the Comprehensives on the "League Tables" of student scores and do better than Comprehensives on admissions to the most selective universities. My understanding is that Grammar Schools, like Comprehensives, are government funded schools and open to all, the primary difference is that one must meet admission standards.
If Grammar schools are doing a better job of educating kids why is the government trying to abolish the schools that perform well. It does not make a lot of sense looking at this from a distance but perhaps someone closer to the situation could explain it to me.
Naturally, because Grammar school pupils do better, it's unfair to the children who lack the advantages of a Grammar school education. They could either bring the comprehensives up to the level of the Grammars, or they could destroy the Grammars and level down, and say it's because of fairness. Now, see if you can guess whoch option they prefer.
To put it simplistically (there are many sub arguements that will come out as the thread progresses).
The reason that grammar schools do better than their surrounding schools is due to selection. The brightest pupils are cherry picked and therefore the schools get better exam results. Because of these better results parents aspire to send their children to the grammar school, the better teachers want to work at the supposedly better schools and so the grammar schools win both ways.
Meanwhile the surrounding comprehensives do not have the choices of their grammar school neighbours.
Bring back the 11+, pass it and you can go to a grammer school. level playing field for everyone, what's the drama?
Which diesn't fit the socialist-paradise idea of 'equality of outcome', but is quite good at producing tens of thousands of well-educated people of the sort every country needs if it is to be successful. On the other hand, level down to the comprehensive standard and you get a nation of illiterate middle-managers at best, but it is supposedly fairer.
Quite how fair it is to the brightest pupils, who get put into poor schools, is another matter, but as they're bright they must be an elite so it doesn't matter about their rights. To the Great British Leftie, 'elite' means not 'the best' but 'unfalr.'
Not a level playing field, Blobby. Whilst some can pay to coach their children then children from poor backgrounds will not be able to compete.
And that's exactly how it should be. The brightest children should be taught at a higher level than the average student. There's nothing worse than a class being taught to the lowest common denominator as so often happens.
Why do lefties always equate 'poor' with 'thick' and 'idle'? What a revoltingly superior attitude. Just because people are poor it doesn't make them have less intelligent children. But take away the chance of bright children to a decent education, and however intelligent they are, they'll still be at the bottom of the heap.
But then, the left don't want the poor to succeed, they want to look after the poor, boss them around, devise schemes for them, write reports about them, make speeches about their plight, generally strip them of dignity and treat them like children. And then write more reports about 'lack of self-esteem' among the poor.
First. We have a pair of grammar schools in Skipton which only takes 25% of children from the catchment area. Do all those failed children go to another grammar school to try and get in there. Nope, they try and get into a comprehensive just down the road.
Second. Comprehensives do not automatically mean poorer. There are only 164 grammar schools in the UK, how many comrehensives?
Third. Margaret Thatcher turned more grammar schools into comprehensives than any other Education Secretary - bloody lefty.
I'd suggest that most people who can pay to coach their children probably have the means to send them to private schools in the first place. Unless of course it doesn't reflect well on them, as in politicians of all parties sending their kids to grammer school because it "looks better" to the electorate than sending them to a private school.
You are joking, Blobby.
A friend of mine has a business coaching children through SATs, the grammar school test and GCSEs/AS/A levels. She and the teachers she employs are run off their feet.
I suppose I'm looking back to when I went through school, where coaching your children to pass exams was a luxury only affordable by a few. Not a necessity needed by the many.
Separate names with a comma.