Grammar Schools

[foxy boxing]

It should be up to the parents do decide where they want their children schooled but money and status should not be the deciding factor on what children these schools accept

[Carl the Llama]

Personally I'd send my kids to a school which also teaches other subjects like maths and the sciences.  Good sentence structure is a useful skill but it'll only take you so far.

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, Fox92 said:

What did May say when she became PM. Something along the lines of "a good education regardless of background". Hmm...

 

I wouldn't fancy sitting an entrance exam for some school at age 10 or whatever it is. Nobody even knows what they want at that age. That said, I didn't enjoy school anyway and left at the earliest opportunity. 

You've touched on a core problem - young people's differing attitudes to being at school at all. 

You say that youngsters of 10 don't have any idea what they want - but some have a very good idea and many youngsters start focusing on various goals at even younger ages. 

 

Others, as with you, can't wait to leave school and this is one of the massive problems I noticed in trying to help a couple of underprivileged families -  school was a requirement rather than the means to a future. Of the two families I was involved with, the kids of one never read or did any homework as I ever saw and couldn't concentrate if they were offered the chance for various reasons.         .

 

At least one parent couldn't properly read or write, supposedly couldn't afford extras such as school trips (due, I believe, to outside factors rather than their benefits being insufficient) and wasn't well enough, often enough, to cope with the responsibility of getting several kids to school on time.

 

Does a school spend endless hours trying to improve a seemingly hopeless situation or concentrate on the kids who will and do want to learn and who do take their seats in class consistently and on time? 

 

Truth is I'm nt sure mainstream education is the right way forward for these families at all, although one of the kids I'm referring to did seem to like school, did try his hardest and did seem to have a chance sustained and effective guidance. 

 

We can all talk for ever but answers aren't easy and are not likely to be the same for everyone. But no-one can really help without co-operation and, sometimes, I don't know how full-time teachers cope or stay motivated.

 

I taught youngsters as a squash professional and football coach but they were all kids who wanted to be there. 

 

The school situation is different. It's as much a social service as a means to a future for some families and that really can't help the people who are motivated and that's no fairer than failing to help those who are less committed because, so often, the less committed are kids who are being failed at home first and again, for various reasons and , to me, it's vital such people are taught some skills that will at least help them cope and hold their head up in life rather than necessarily going through mainstream schooling.

 

   

     .         

[Finnegan]

Pretty simple, isn't it?

 

Schools to further push the academically gifted based on their ability? Great idea. Good for them and, frankly, good for the kids left in the "normal" schools where the focus can be on their development.

 

Schools you can pay to send your privileged, lazy, thick fvck kids* to because you have the means? Awful idea. Saturates the classes and ends up holding back the smarter kids anyway just as they would be at comp, only difference being the rich kids pay the best teachers and the poor schools miss out.

 

Genuine meritocracy? No problem at. But mommy and daddy's money/success =/= merit.

 

The whole education system should be less uniform and better tailored to the abilities of kids. While we're building more "grammar" schools for those with intellectual smarts, let's just make sure we're building schools to teach practical skills for those better with their hands.

 

 

*not all children of people with wealth, I know.

[Thracian]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Pretty simple, isn't it?

 

Schools to further push the academically gifted based on their ability? Great idea. Good for them and, frankly, good for the kids left in the "normal" schools where the focus can be on their development.

 

Schools you can pay to send your privileged, lazy, thick fvck kids* to because you have the means? Awful idea. Saturates the classes and ends up holding back the smarter kids anyway just as they would be at comp, only difference being the rich kids pay the best teachers and the poor schools miss out.

 

Genuine meritocracy? No problem at. But mommy and daddy's money/success =/= merit.

 

The whole education system should be less uniform and better tailored to the abilities of kids. While we're building more "grammar" schools for those with intellectual smarts, let's just make sure we're building schools to teach practical skills for those better with their hands.

 

 

*not all children of people with wealth, I know.

Couldn't agree more - when I was a kid they had the Gateway School in Leicester doing just that with regard to technical skills, and a pretty good school it seemed as well. Nowadays workmanship seems in short supply. Everything's done with machine tools for the fastest outcome but with very little time and attention given to a quality finish. Or have I just been unlucky?   

[The Railway Man]

May got a standing ovation from the media at the end of the press conference, not seen that for years. I'm delighted, I'm a firm believer in a meritocracy and making sure people can make the best of their abilities, providing we also make sure that people don't get left behind either then it's a fantastic idea.

 

She's a smart cookie, a policy hugely popular with Conservative voters and one even supported by a large number of Labour ones.

[Wymsey]

I walked around the Cathedral earlier and noticed the Leicester Grammar had moved. Shame as it made the area more compact.

[The Railway Man]

Liz Kendall " Govt is wrong: grammar schools are not worth it, they don't work" That's Liz Kendall, former head girl at Watford Grammar school for ladies.

 

This debate is going to see rich successful people pulling up the drawbridge like no other.

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

The whole education system should be less uniform and better tailored to the abilities of kids. While we're building more "grammar" schools for those with intellectual smarts, let's just make sure we're building schools to teach practical skills for those better with their hands.

Jesus Christ, I didn't think anyone would be so dense as to hark back for the return of secondary moderns. I don't think even UKIP or Jacob Rees-Mogg has dared to come out with that peach.

[The Railway Man]

3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Jesus Christ, I didn't think anyone would be so dense as to hark back for the return of secondary moderns. I don't think even UKIP or Jacob Rees-Mogg has dared to come out with that peach.

He didn't say he wanted to bring back secondary moderns, he said people who aren't academically gifted should also be taught other things to help them, I don't think there is any point trying to teach a person who can't add up to be a rocket scientist.

 

You know, to try and make sure they don't spend their whole life on the dole, though the more I hear on this from Labour types I almost get the impression the actual intention is to keep as many people poor as possible as that means votes for them, which is something quite terrible, what a way to be if so.

[Darkon84]

39 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

I walked around the Cathedral earlier and noticed the Leicester Grammar had moved. Shame as it made the area more compact.

 

It moved in 2008. As a former leaver, I got invited to go around the new setup in Great Glen, and I'll tell you what, that's one hell of a setup they've got there now!

[Sharpe's Fox]

7 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

He didn't say he wanted to bring back secondary moderns, he said people who aren't academically gifted should also be taught other things to help them, I don't think there is any point trying to teach a person who can't add up to be a rocket scientist.

That was the point of secondary moderns, genius. Frankly if a child can't do the basics of arithmetic and literacy by age 11 that's a failure of the school and his or her parents and not the child, who shouldn't be punished by being given a second class education for the remainder of his or her life.

[The Railway Man]

23 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

That was the point of secondary moderns, genius. Frankly if a child can't do the basics of arithmetic and literacy by age 11 that's a failure of the school and his or her parents and not the child, who shouldn't be punished by being given a second class education for the remainder of his or her life.

Why are you assuming they wil get a second class education?

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

Why are you assuming they wil get a second class education?

Well the creation of a top tier of anything insinuates the creation of a bottom tier, doesn't it? If there is a first class travel then there is a second class travel, if there is gold membership there is a silver and so on. Unfortunately we're not talking about anything so dismissive of a train ticket, we're talking about human beings and whether we should categorise 11 year olds in the same way.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Well the creation of a top tier of anything insinuates the creation of a bottom tier, doesn't it? If there is a first class travel then there is a second class travel, if there is gold membership there is a silver and so on. Unfortunately we're not talking about anything so dismissive of a train ticket, we're talking about human beings and whether we should categorise 11 year olds in the same way.

What we have now is everybody getting second class education unless you can afford to pay.

[The Railway Man]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Well the creation of a top tier of anything insinuates the creation of a bottom tier, doesn't it? If there is a first class travel then there is a second class travel, if there is gold membership there is a silver and so on. Unfortunately we're not talking about anything so dismissive of a train ticket, we're talking about human beings and whether we should categorise 11 year olds in the same way.

If you follow that logic you wouldn't have a Premier League because you'll upset the supporters of Lincoln, whether you like it or not, people are not equal, some are brighter than others, that's the real World. Our plight in edcuation standards as shown in any World league table over the last 30 years should be a huge cause for concern for any parent, it certainly is for me.

Would you even ban things like "top sets" in school? Do you completely oppose selection by ability in everything?

[The Railway Man]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What we have now is everybody getting second class education unless you can afford to pay.

That's the crux of it for me.

 

We have a chance here to at worst change the education system from being one that benefits the rich to one that also benefits the brightest.

 

It's completely baffling Labour are opposing this, even more so when they had 13 years to sort it out and never came close. Every year they seem to move away from the electorate more and more in every decision.

[The Railway Man]

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

If you follow that logic you wouldn't have a Premier League because you'll upset the supporters of Lincoln, whether you like it or not, people are not equal, some are brighter than others, that's the real World. Our plight in edcuation standards as shown in any World league table over the last 30 years should be a huge cause for concern for any parent, it certainly is for me.

Would you even ban things like "top sets" in school? Do you completely oppose selection by ability in everything?

As someone who has a little experience working in one of those countries who top the league tables on a regular basis, I think looking to emulate them in the style of education they use might not really be the best idea.

 

Unless studying specifically for the exam with no kind of creativity and a few kids topping themselves every year when they fail appeals.

[Sharpe's Fox]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What we have now is everybody getting second class education unless you can afford to pay.

Completely false. Everyone has the capacity to succeed if they work hard enough in a comprehensive system. It isn't a taxing process to get an A in A-Level Maths or Sciences which people see as the optimum. It takes a lot of work (more than myself or many others are willing to give, I admit) by practising what you are being tested on in an exam format but it very easily done, you don't even have to be especially bright. 

[The Railway Man]

3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Completely false. Everyone has the capacity to succeed if they work hard enough in a comprehensive system. It isn't a taxing process to get an A in A-Level Maths or Sciences which people see as the optimum. It takes a lot of work (more than myself or many others are willing to give, I admit) by practising what you are being tested on in an exam format but it very easily done, you don't even have to be especially bright. 

Ever had your kid come come home being bullied because they want to learn?

[Strokes]

Anyone failing in the current system gets tarred with the learning difficulties tag.....they then receive a second class education anyway, the only difference is the stigma.

[Webbo]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

Completely false. Everyone has the capacity to succeed if they work hard enough in a comprehensive system. It isn't a taxing process to get an A in A-Level Maths or Sciences which people see as the optimum. It takes a lot of work (more than myself or many others are willing to give, I admit) by practising what you are being tested on in an exam format but it very easily done, you don't even have to be especially bright. 

Exactly, it's not taxing to get an A level. They've had to dumb them down because standards have fallen.

 

My school wasn't a bad school but they were quite happy to let me coast. I underachieved at school, I was lazy, I needed pushing. Partly my fault but I was a kid.

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 minutes ago, The Railway Man said:

Ever had your kid come come home being bullied because they want to learn?

Think you're misjudging my age a bit there, it's on my profile if you're interested. Bullying is a completely separate matter, however, and trying to emotionally guilt trip me into not making my argument is disingenous to say the least. I stand by my point that the opportunities of young people directly corresponds to the practice they put in. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Think you're misjudging my age a bit there, it's on my profile if you're interested. Bullying is a completely separate matter, however, and trying to emotionally guilt trip me into not making my argument is disingenous to say the least. I stand by my point that

the opportunities of young people directly corresponds to the practice they put in. 

No need for the guilt trip but can you answer his questions from earlier.

 

Quote

Would you even ban things like "top sets" in school? Do you completely oppose selection by ability in everything?

I, like a few others, are baffled by the Labour opposition to something that will benefit bright kids from poor areas, we appear to heading into an era of just opposing the government for the sake of it.