Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Annie Bynnol]

Testing children at the age of 10 on their abilities is inaccurate and wrong when deciding schooling for the next 8 years.

What safeguards will be in place to ensure children who are late developers, who have been ill, have language or communication difficulties, have had family problems, have been uprooted because of work, or have learning disabilities have equal opportunity?

 

How many schools can you be examined for?

 

Will the examination be based on ability or the number of places available?

 

Who will set the exam?

 

How will examination be set, assessed, weighted, monitored, appealed etc.?

It is very easy to set an examination which would select a certain social group.

 

Who is the customer?

 

Who will decide on the future?

Politicians?

Business?

OfSTED?

Governors?

Commercial owners of schools?

Non-parents

Parents whose children will have left before the changes take place?

Parents of children at school?

16 year olds who will become parents of children who will be affected?

Grumpy oldies to whom nothing did them any harm.

[tpgoose]

What's wrong with Grammar school? Children who willing to learn should be given opportunities to do so. Nothing's fair in life, all those kids who do not want to learn, shouldn't be mixed with some chav kids with no life and future. Grammar school will give kids from disadvantaged financial background a bright future. Some people really need to get a grip, instead of protesting against grammar school, they need to go home to educate their children, encourage them to learn to be competitive, some short sighted individual really puzzles me.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 09:46 ----------

 

We cant expect everyone to be the same with no future, no education, no money and all be plumbers. Some people are real short sighted jokes.

[Robin-H]

So they will have to travel even further. Not all schools will be selective.

 

But I can theorise the opposite scenario. Without selection, all the local schools are full, and so my children have to travel 10 miles. A school 1 mile from me becomes a selective school, it therefore is no longer over capacity, my child passes the 11+ and so attend that school..

 

See, that same argument can be used as an argument for selection.

[El Cid]

What's wrong with Grammar school?

 

At the moment some schools integrate special needs children into mainstream schools, parental choice, and a good thing in my opinion.

We will be turning our schooling system on its head if we are bringing more selection.

It would be barking mad to turn away those that fail the 11+, but still let in special needs children that may never pass any exams.

[poppet2]

The solution is to Stream ALL comprehensive schools.

That way schools that are called comprehensive really will be comprehensive, instead of having the cream of the crop taken from them. You really will see ALL abilities catered for then, including those that are deemed failures or late developers. More funding will go to the comprehensive schools in general, rather than to the intellectually gifted at grammar schools.

[tpgoose]

The solution is to Stream ALL comprehensive schools.

That way schools that are called comprehensive really will be comprehensive, instead of having the cream of the crop taken from them. You really will see ALL abilities catered for then, including those that are deemed failures or late developers. More funding will go to the comprehensive schools in general, rather than to the intellectually gifted at grammar schools.

 

Kids not willing to do well, should be left to comprehensive and not wasting funding on hopeless ones and not to let them disturb kids who willing to do well for themselves. That's the reason grammar school is important, it's fair for kids from all background who willing to do well for themselves.

[Robin-H]

I must say I am pretty impressed by May's proposals so far.

 

I'm personally on the fence about grammars as I can see both sides of the argument, but the proposals seem to have alleviated most the negative aspects. (i.e no return to secondary moderns, schools being able to take pupils at 11, 14 and 16 so your educational future isn't set at 11)

 

(Although of course there was always the ability to move to a grammar school at 13 anyway by taking the 13+, something that I don't think everyone posting here realises).

Edited September 9, 2016 by Robin-H

[poppet2]

Kids not willing to do well, should be left to comprehensive and not wasting funding on hopeless ones and not to let them disturb kids who willing to do well for themselves. That's the reason grammar school is important, it's fair for kids from all background who willing to do well for themselves.

 

So you didn't go to grammar school then?

[Santo]

Kids not willing to do well, should be left to comprehensive and not wasting funding on hopeless ones and not to let them disturb kids who willing to do well for themselves. That's the reason grammar school is important, it's fair for kids from all background who willing to do well for themselves.

 

Not willing to do well for themselves is an absurd statement. Failing the 11+ is no indication of a lack of drive.

[Staunton]

The assault on the interests of ordinary people has begun.