Tories to bring back Grammar schools

[El Cid]

Would you be against such a system? I know this isn't whats being offered by the Tories at the moment.

 

As a principle, I do not think selection by schools is good for society.

 

We already have schools which specialise in certain things. I am not aware if they exclude anyone from going to their school.

 

I believe schools should offer education to their local community. At the moment parents of special needs children have the choice of mainstream schools, or special schools that only cater for SEN children.

 

Children benefit from mixing with people from all walks of life. We should not have schools for different 'types'.

Selection happens as children get older. A grammar school local to me aims for class sizes of 20 pupils; how can state funded school be so different?

Schools should not select on the grounds of faith.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/oct/10/fee-paying-versus-free-schools

[Justin Smith]

Other people believe differently [that selection does not increase educational attainment].

 

Is that for those selected to go to Grammar, or for those selected to go to Secondary Modern ?

 

---------- Post added 16-09-2016 at 10:55 ----------

 

 

Reintroducing grammar schools won't stop the problem of wealthier parents moving near to better schools go away. They'll just move closer to the better grammar school in an area.

 

The way to stop people moving closer to the better schools is to improve the poorer schools. This was done successfully with inner London schools, it should be done everywhere.

 

Unlike now where they just buy expensive houses that guarantee entry to the school of their choice.

 

This is a fair point. But there are other approaches to mitigate it.

 

1 - Put more money into schools in deprived areas, isn`t that more or less what the LibDem pupil premium did ?

 

2 - Have a robust strategy to deal with troublesome kids who disrupt the learning of others, I made this point earlier :

 

I wouldn`t describe moving problem kids into an environment that`s better for them and also better for the studious they leave behind as anything negative at all. In fact it would be far more expensive, initially, but the long term benefits* for the miscreants, the studious and society as a whole could be great. How much does it cost to lock up an offender ? How much misery does the average burglar cause ?

 

* This is assuming sufficient money was actually spent on the special classes. As I said before, I almost don`t care how much it costs if it works, give them a pupil teacher ratio as low as 2 to 1 if that`s what it takes.

 

3 - Compensate for the fact the kids are at a school of lower attainment by lowering their grade to get into Uni, again, I said this earlier :

 

On the subject of giving kids a chance who go to a sink Comprehensive there`s an easier way to help achieve fair access to Uni for those with the same academic ability. We all know that a pupil with a given academic ability who goes to Eton will get much higher grades then one who goes to Chaucer. Thus I firmly believe that offers at Uni should reflect the average exam grades at the school the applicant attended. If I had my way someone who went to Eton or Harrow (with a very high number of average A level points) would get a higher offer than someone who went to a top comp, like Tapton. In turn someone who went to a low achieving Comp (like Chaucer, if that had a 6th form, has it ? ) would get a lower offer still.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Justin Smith

[altus]

1 - Put more money into schools in deprived areas, isn`t that more or less what the LibDem pupil premium did ?

The problem needs more than just throwing money at it. See post #560.

[Justin Smith]

The problem needs more than just throwing money at it. See post #560.

 

I would agree, but, whatever Governments trying to save money might tell you, it`s going to help. Provided it`s used efficiently obviously.

[Justin Smith]

Oh dear, according to the BBC this morning she (Theresa May*) is not let this Grammar school populist nonsense just quietly disappear. Still, hopefully, parliament will kill it off, send it back to the 50s where it belongs.

 

* you`d have thought she`d got more than enough on at the moment, what is wrong with the stupid woman.

[alchresearch]

* you`d have thought she`d got more than enough on at the moment, what is wrong with the stupid woman.

 

Easy, there's no credible opposition, so she can do what she wants, without fear of losing out in the polls.

[El Cid]

Easy, there's no credible opposition, so she can do what she wants, without fear of losing out in the polls.

 

There is lots of opposition, but they are all vote for different parties, the Conservative were only elected on 37% of the vote.

 

Most voters cast their votes for defeated candidates, so most are “represented” by an MP they did not support.

[unbeliever]

There is lots of opposition, but they are all vote for different parties, the Conservative were only elected on 37% of the vote.

 

Most voters cast their votes for defeated candidates, so most are “represented” by an MP they did not support.

 

 

The Conservative now enjoy the support of 44% of the people.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

 

We lost the referendum on the voting system. The people were given a choice and chose the existing system. Therefore the democratic legitimacy of results attained through FPTP is affirmed.

[Justin Smith]

The Conservative now enjoy the support of 44% of the people.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/voting-intention

 

We lost the referendum on the voting system. The people were given a choice and chose the existing system. Therefore the democratic legitimacy of results attained through FPTP is affirmed.

 

The problem being that was for some esoteric alternative vote system (it`s so arcane I`m not even sure I`ve got the name right) which Cameron foisted on Clegg and the Liberals. And they, rather unwisely, accepted. I`m pretty sure straight proportional representation would have got a higher vote, and probably even won.

 

44% is still way short of a majority.

[unbeliever]

The problem being that was for some esoteric alternative vote system (it`s so arcane I`m not even sure I`ve got the name right) which Cameron foisted on Clegg and the Liberals. And they, rather unwisely, accepted. I`m pretty sure straight proportional representation would have got a higher vote, and probably even won.

 

44% is still way short of a majority.

 

 

AV, also known as single transferrable vote, is mathematically identical to run off voting. Between them, these systems dominate the worlds democracies.

All of the polling I've ever seen indicates that PR would have been demolished in a referendum.

 

Look I understand. I wanted AV, and if it was something like the german model (top up lists), I would have supported PR. But we lost. The people have chosen, democratically, to stick with a system that you and I judge less democratic.

We have to respect this result and let it stand at least for a generation, otherwise we can hardly claim to be supporters of democracy.