altus   540 #25 Posted December 3, 2013 Well, they could excel at arithmetic irrespective, surely?  If the low performers are going to excel at it anyway why would the high performers need to go to grammar schools? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Happ Hazzard   10 #26 Posted December 3, 2013 What purpose does it serve to lump all kids together in mixed ability classes? Who does it help? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #27 Posted December 3, 2013 altus: No, not all will excel. But at least Grammar schools gave excellent education to all who excel, no matter whether from wealthy or poor backgrounds. It's called "social mobility" and we're all a lot poorer for its removal on the NewLabour "none shall prosper" basis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #28 Posted December 3, 2013 What purpose does it serve to lump all kids together in mixed ability classes? Who does it help?  No-one.......the present comparison test proves that.... I really don't see a problem with letting kids with ability,no matter what their background,reach their full potential... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #29 Posted December 3, 2013 I really don't see a problem with letting kids with ability,no matter what their background,reach their full potential... But left-wing ideologues do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   540 #30 Posted December 3, 2013 What purpose does it serve to lump all kids together in mixed ability classes? Who does it help?  I'm not a fan of mixed ability classes. I think streaming provides the benefits of teaching those of different capabilities without the disadvantages of splitting into separate schools - it's a lot easier to move pupils to appropriate classes within schools than to different schools, particularly if you have league tables which would make schools reluctant/keen to move their best/poorest performing pupils. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
pandorra   10 #31 Posted December 3, 2013 Do parents actually spend any time with their kids, educating them etc. When I was a boy, my mother used to spend hours helping me with my reading. I benefitted from this experience and so did many of my peers. I know schools shoulder the blame, often than not, but shouldn't we be looking closer to home as well?  Parents don't educate their children. They give them a games console and let them get on with it. Korean kids might be far better academically but on average they are 5 seconds a lap slower than British kids round the Nurburgring in a virtual McLaren C12 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   540 #32 Posted December 3, 2013 altus: No, not all will excel. But at least Grammar schools gave excellent education to all who excel, no matter whether from wealthy or poor backgrounds. It's called "social mobility" and we're all a lot poorer for its removal on the NewLabour "none shall prosper" basis.  So you don't believe they could excel irrespective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #33 Posted December 3, 2013 So you don't believe they could excel irrespective.  I'm not sure what you mean? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   90 #34 Posted December 3, 2013 So you don't believe they could excel irrespective. Most children could- if given the scope/choice/leadership- excel at something or other. So why deprive them of the scope/choice/leadership? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
altus   540 #35 Posted December 3, 2013 I'm not sure what you mean?  I was echoing Jeffrey's comment in this post.  ---------- Post added 03-12-2013 at 21:59 ----------  Most children could- if given the scope/choice/leadership- excel at something or other. You specifically mentioned arithmetic. So why deprive them of the scope/choice/leadership?  Why deny the others the scope/choice/leadership? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LeMaquis   10 #36 Posted December 3, 2013 altus: No, not all will excel. But at least Grammar schools gave excellent education to all who excel, no matter whether from wealthy or poor backgrounds.  No they didn't. They gave a higher standard of education to 25% of kids, which is not the same as all who excel. The other 75% got a 2nd rate education and even within grammar schools there were different tiers of education as kids were streamed.  By concentrating on the 25% you're ignoring the 75%. The 75% are not going to vote for their own 2nd rate system.  ---------- Post added 03-12-2013 at 21:16 ----------  But left-wing ideologues do.  You've always said UKIP is neither right-wing nor left-wing. So have you been lying? And are you ignoring the fact that the Tories haven't brought back grammar schools. Or are they left-wing ideologues too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...