Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[Santo]

The assault on the interests of ordinary people has begun.

 

I know some ordinary people that went to grammar school.

[LeMaquis]

Some people are real short sighted jokes.

 

I read the rest of your post and couldn't agree more.

[Staunton]

Those who were tricked by the popular media and by the lies of Johnson and Gove into voting leave now face scathing consequences as the tory right further consolidated the attack on the poor begun by Cameron and Osborne.

[poppet2]

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

 

I agree, but this is what Theresa May said in her very first speech in July, when she became PM.

 

‘When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.’

 

So that's gone down the pan then.

[Robin-H]

I agree, but this is what Theresa May said in her very first speech in July, when she became PM.

 

‘When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.’

 

So that's gone down the pan then.

 

Why has it? Why do you think the proposals entrench the advantages of the fortunate few?

[Santo]

I agree, but this is what Theresa May said in her very first speech in July, when she became PM.

 

‘When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.’

 

So that's gone down the pan then.

 

That's only true if those that don't go to grammar schools are left to rot.

 

If grammar schools are able to stetch the academic children and non-grammars stretch the non-academic in other ways then I don't see the problem.

[tinfoilhat]

I agree, but this is what Theresa May said in her very first speech in July, when she became PM.

 

‘When it comes to opportunity we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few, we will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.’

 

So that's gone down the pan then.

 

What? You don't think it's better that children go to better schools if they're bright, rather children go to better schools because their parents are wealthy and can afford a house near a good school?

 

You'll have to explain this one to me I'm afraid.

 

I know we all want this social utopia of all schools having small classes, great facilities and awesome teachers but life isn't like that - it's never been like that. Whether it needs a specific entrance exam I'm not sure but putting bright kids together regardless of background sounds like a good idea to me.

[Santo]

What? You don't think it's better that children go to better schools if they're bright, rather children go to better schools because their parents are wealthy and can afford a house near a good school?

 

You'll have to explain this one to me I'm afraid.

 

I know we all want this social utopia of all schools having small classes, great facilities and awesome teachers but life isn't like that - it's never been like that. Whether it needs a specific entrance exam I'm not sure but putting bright kids together regardless of background sounds like a good idea to me.

 

Exactly. My school split science, maths, languages, geography and history classes into foundation, intermediate and higher groups. For some reason not English.

 

In higher groups the aim was for pupils to get As and Bs. In foundation it was for them to pass the exam.

[poppet2]

Why has it? Why do you think the proposals entrench the advantages of the fortunate few?

 

Because more money is being spent on grammar schools when this money could be better spent on advancing ALL comprehensive education, as a whole, rather than spend more money on those privileged to go to grammar schools at the expense of ALL tax payers.

 

People wonder why comprehensives don't do as well as grammar schools, well there are many reasons for this. However, of course grammar school exam results are going to be better, if you cream off the top 20% of students every year. Under such conditions, how do you expect to have a proper comprehensive system?

[Robin-H]

Because more money is being spent on grammar schools when this money could be better spent on advancing ALL comprehensive education, as a whole, rather than spend more money on those privileged to go to grammar schools at the expense of ALL tax payers.

 

People wonder why comprehensives don't do as well as grammar schools, well there are many reasons for this. However, of course grammar school exam results are going to be better, if you cream off the top 20% of students every year. Under such conditions, how do you expect to have a proper comprehensive system?

 

Under the proposals it say..

 

'Every new grammar school will be required to establish a "new, high quality non-selective school". They will be required to sponsor an under-performing academy school.'

 

Surely this will improve education across the board. Why are you opposed to that?