Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[unbeliever]

By collecting the many £billions owed to HMRC by Vodafone, Apple, Starbucks, Boots, Topshop, Amazon, Amey, ITN, Barclays, HSBC, etc., etc., etc...

 

I don't believe you. I've heard that from every government I can remember and it never happens. If it were practical, Gordon Brown would have done it. He liked nothing more than spending other peoples' money.

I think you'll end up taking it from ordinary people, many of whom can't afford to pay any more.

Edited September 9, 2016 by unbeliever

[Staunton]

I don't believe you. I've heard that from every government I can remember and it never happens. If it were practical, Gordon Brown would have done it. He liked nothing more than spending other peoples' money.

I think you'll end up taking it from ordinary people, many of whom can't afford to pay any more.

 

I don't believe that such a thing will happen either. And, just as unbeliever points out, it will be ordinary people (as ever) who shall end up paying for the privilege of the few, whilst their own interests are quietly forgotten.

[unbeliever]

I don't believe that such a thing will happen either. And, just as unbeliever points out, it will be ordinary people (as ever) who shall end up paying for the privilege of the few, whilst their own interests are quietly forgotten.

 

Okay. I'm not on your side.

 

Spending taxpayers money on education, including grammar schools, is something I very much support. Grammar schools enhance the opportunities for academically gifted children of parents of moderate means to excel and this is a good thing. We're supposed to aim for meritocracy are we not?

 

You seem to have commented in support of the idea of handing out more money to parents which I don't support. In fact I would be inclined to take money from various benefits specific to parents and spend it on schools and/or directly on the children. Breeding is not a valid career option.

 

Or maybe you just wanted to raise the matter of tax avoidance apropos of nothing.

[Staunton]

And where would you get the money?

 

unbeliever asked where the money should come from, and I stated that it should come from taxation, from robust taxation that collected revenue from the corporations and the wealthy. Note how those who champion policies that favour the few at the expense of the many always seek to confuse arguments in order to distract from the scandal being discussed - the scandal in this instance being the misuse of public money to create an even more divisive education system than that currently available to ordinary people.

[Robin-H]

unbeliever asked where the money should come from, and I stated that it should come from taxation, from robust taxation that collected revenue from the corporations and the wealthy. Note how those who champion policies that favour the few at the expense of the many always seek to confuse arguments in order to distract from the scandal being discussed - the scandal in this instance being the misuse of public money to create an even more divisive education system than that currently available to ordinary people.

 

What makes you think that new grammar schools would not be available to ordinary people? Surely the biggest problem at the moment is that increased house prices in the catchment area of outstanding schools does make them unavailable to poorer people.

[syne]

Grammar schools enhance the opportunities for academically gifted children of parents of moderate means to excel and this is a good thing. We're supposed to aim for meritocracy are we not.

 

This is often trotted out, with the unspoken message that it's the saviour of poor children of feckless parents, but in most grammar cohorts the level of coaching for the exam is a massive influence on the intake.

It won't Hoover up acedemically gifted children who aren't prepped to a standard or who aren't presented with the opportunity.

 

It's a good way of sifting the mildly educated from the less educated but it's not exactly needed these days as most secondary's are more than sufficient for educating even the vaguely able to the required standards.

 

I have the feeling it's more about moving the able away from the less so than about giving opportunity to the deserving.

The issue is it leaves the the real problem children, the children with mild Sen, and the not quite 11+achievers! the 'remainder' if you will, all lumped together in off-stead monitored hell.

If you keep skimming the best of the crop off eventually you'll have to come up with a plan for the 'chaff' that isn't on the cards is it?

[tpgoose]

How would you ensure that parents spend that extra support on their children?

 

Force them into a class, make sure it's compulsory for other benefits.

 

---------- Post added 09-09-2016 at 17:13 ----------

 

And where would you get the money?

Government will find money for sure, reduce some benefits for lazy people.

[Staunton]

Thanks to Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who served alongside Teresa May as a Home Office minister, we can see what motivates the new prime minister. In his resignation letter he revealed that there was little support for “rational evidence-based policy” in May's Home Office. What we now have is an ideologically motivated right-wing government, for which no one has voted, scornful of evidence, driving policies carefully calibrated to enrich the wealthy at the expense of ordinary people.

 

If anyone believes they have evidence of how grammar schools will benefit the large majority of children not selected for such privilege, then please present it here on this thread.

[tpgoose]

Thanks to Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who served alongside Teresa May as a Home Office minister, we can see what motivates the new prime minister. In his resignation letter he revealed that there was little support for “rational evidence-based policy” in May's Home Office. What we now have is an ideologically motivated right-wing government, for which no one has voted, scornful of evidence, driving policies carefully calibrated to enrich the wealthy at the expense of ordinary people.

 

If anyone believes they have evidence of how grammar schools will benefit the large majority of children not selected for such privilege, then please present it here on this thread.

 

This is the stupidest comment I've ever read. If all kids are bright enough, they can all go for an entry exam. The entry test is not biased toward anyone, unless not suitable. Get a grip, stop giving yourself excuses. If you leave kids with different learning attitude in a same class, you discriminating against bright kids. Then your comment is unfair. What you suggesting is to bury future talents of some kids with some other kids who may never make any good contribution to society. Get a grip

[El Cid]

Okay. I'm not on your side.

 

Grammar schools enhance the opportunities for academically gifted children of parents of moderate means to excel and this is a good thing.

 

Have you got some evidence that this is true?

 

Was David Cameron wrong to promote non-selection, academies and free schools?