The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

In the 1950's the 11plus exam was mandatory and all children took it at the end of Primary school. Those that passed went on to Grammar schools, and went on to sit exams that qualified them for University or a 'good job. 

 

Those that didn't pass went to the local Secondary Moderns, with the emphasis on  practical training for trade and industry.They left school at 15 or 16, and couldn't take  the necessary exams that qualified them for University.

Thus their course was pretty much set at age 11.

(I know this is an over simplification, but it was a simple system which relied only on passing the 11plus.)

 

Local Comprehensive schools changed all that, in that they provided equal opportunity to cater for all types of children, and they could ostensibly reach for a University education should they so wish, and take the exams.

But of course that depended not just on ability, but things like availability of facilities, quality of the teaching,  aspiration, support and encouragement from home etc, and that was not always equal.

 

Education has been tweaked and messed around with ever since, trying to level the playing field, but disadvantaged children still seem to miss out.  

But the point El Cid made is that grammar schools do well because of the parents.  I don't think it can be denied that they do well because children that pass the entrance exam are generally good at exams.

 

I don't think El Cid's point was fair to the parents of less academically gifted children who fail grammar school entrance exams.

[Anna B 1,401]

Just now, Arnold_Lane said:

But the point El Cid made is that grammar schools do well because of the parents.  I don't think it can be denied that they do well because children that pass the entrance exam are generally good at exams.

 

I don't think El Cid's point was fair to the parents of less academically gifted children who fail grammar school entrance exams.

Yes, being good at exams certainly makes a difference, (which is why IMO I think course work should also be taken into consideration.) 

Having supportive, encouraging parents is also absolutely vital for children across the board. Sadly, not all children are so blessed.

Maybe those parents who have children at Grammar school are more motivated and inclined in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

Just now, Anna B said:

Yes, being good at exams certainly makes a difference, (which is why IMO I think course work should also be taken into consideration.) 

Having supportive, encouraging parents is also absolutely vital for children across the board. Sadly, not all children are so blessed.

Maybe those parents who have children at Grammar school are more motivated and inclined in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is as bad as what El Cid wrote.

 

Kids a grammar school?  Good parents.

Kids at comp?  Bad parents.

 

Garbage.  Absolute garbage.  Several families had and have kids in both type of schools.

[budapest 10]

I am not originally from Sheffield but went to a gramnar school in another part of Yorkshire in the 1980s.  I also now teach.  When I was at school, there were people from all walks of life, from the council estates to the posher areas of town at the school.  I don't know anyone who had private tuition to get into the school. 

I don't know what the answer is but we seem to have the worst of both worlds now.  It seems that only parents that can afford private tuition get their children in to a grammar where they are available.  Unlike when I went,  students travel from many mikes away,  not just the local town ( my home town still has two grammars left).  In the comprehensive system, to get into the best schools you need to  afford a house in the  catchment area.  Both systems are heavily biased against the poor.  I was lucky.  My dad was a builder, I passed my 11+ and got to university at a time when far fewer school leavers went than go now.  What the solution to the problem is goes far deeper than just the school system,  and I admit I don't have a clue.

 

 

[Anna B 1,401]

On 19/06/2020 at 17:40, Arnold_Lane said:

That is as bad as what El Cid wrote.

 

Kids a grammar school?  Good parents.

Kids at comp?  Bad parents.

 

Garbage.  Absolute garbage.  Several families had and have kids in both type of schools.

No, that's not what I meant at all.

But there is no doubt that kids with supportive parents do better than kids without, no matter what class they are. And indeed, kids at Comp can have just as supportive parents as those at grammar school, and do just as well. 

 

However, some parents cannot be as supportive as they would like for all sorts of reasons, and disadvantaged parents can have extra problems. For instance they may have had problems at school themselves which has left them with hangups about education and educators, or may not be well educated themselves and be unable to help with homework, they may have all sorts of other difficulties to worry about like money, poor housing, poor peer groups, joblessness etc. or work long, irregular hours which have to take priority.

 

It may never occur to them that it might be possible to get their child into grammar school, and not know how to go about it or know the right contacts to ask. Nor are Grammar schools distributed evenly across the country anyway; the south doing considerably better than the north of England.

There is no doubt that some kids' life chances are stacked against them, in spite of well-meaning but often futile attempts to even things up. I repeat that it is not a level playing field for all kids. Life is not fair, and never has been.

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Anna B

[Arnold_Lane 0]

Rebecca Long Bailey has been sacked.

 

Will anyone notice a difference?

[melthebell 862]

20 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

Rebecca Long Bailey has been sacked.

 

Will anyone notice a difference?

Tbf does it mean Starmer means business and wont pussyfoot about?

[geared 302]

He needs to get rid of all the hard left if he wants to make progress, clearly the nation is not impressed with their nonsense so things have to change.

[apelike 10]

8 hours ago, melthebell said:

Tbf does it mean Starmer means business and wont pussyfoot about?

If he did mean business he should have had her whip withdrawn so she would be deselected from running as a labour candidate in the future. At the moment all that has happened is she has been sacked from the front bench and still remains as a Labour politician.

Edited June 26, 2020 by apelike

[Fudbeer 12]

Impressed by his quick action here.Saw an interview Long Bailey did in the election campaign and she was beyond poor.

[steved32 55]

Starmer is showing strong leadership...unlike the buffoon Johnson, and his cronyish backing of Cummings and Jenrick.

[Fudbeer 12]

This reminds me of Kinnock a few decades ago when he stared to take on the left wing of the party, could be a long process.

 

However I suspect the  torries will be much more fearful of him than Corbyn, bit like night and day infact!  

Edited June 26, 2020 by Fudbeer