Jump to content

Tories to bring back Grammar schools

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Now, now let's show some respect for Our Elected Leader.

If you want to be familiar maybe Terrific Theresa may be acceptable.

I fully agree with a return to the grammar school system.

I may be one of the few on this forum who can speak from experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, now let's show some respect for Our Elected Leader.

If you want to be familiar maybe Terrific Theresa may be acceptable.

I fully agree with a return to the grammar school system.

I may be one of the few on this forum who can speak from experience.

 

Even if Grammar schools give a better academic education (which is debatable) they`re arguably rather socially divisive. What is definitely not arguable or debatable is that most kids (is it 75 or 80% ? ) don`t go to Grammar schools anyway. They go to Secondary Moderns. If you ask people whether they like Secondary Moderns very few will say yes. But you can`t have one without the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I went to grammar school, which was a long time ago now, pupils came from all sorts of backgrounds.

The pupils were of different abilities and the brightest pupils needed the brightest and most able teachers.

We mixed with our friends who went to secondary modern schools and never felt superior or different.

I have recently spoken to friends who went to a secondary modern school and they have never felt a failure or inferior because they did not pass the 11plus examination.

Edited by harvey19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, now let's show some respect for Our Elected Leader.

If you want to be familiar maybe Terrific Theresa may be acceptable.

I fully agree with a return to the grammar school system.

I may be one of the few on this forum who can speak from experience.

 

I went to a grammar too...but I'm not sure my experience is all that useful in designing education policy.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 21:46 ----------

 

Even if Grammar schools give a better academic education (which is debatable) they`re arguably rather socially divisive. What is definitely not arguable or debatable is that most kids (is it 75 or 80% ? ) don`t go to Grammar schools anyway. They go to Secondary Moderns. If you ask people whether they like Secondary Moderns very few will say yes. But you can`t have one without the other.

 

At the risk of repeating what I posted months ago, the overall system of grammar/secondary appears to be equivalent/marginally better than comprehensive in areas of comparable indices of deprivation. It is unarguable that grammar schools get better results than comprehensives, but then they ought to.

 

Schooling is socially divisive in any case. I am not convinced that the grammar system is more so. Is social integration desirable, in and of itself, in education? I'd so for what purpose?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2017 at 22:05 ----------

 

A long time ago it seems biotech mentioned the shortcomings of graduates, my initial thoughts were that the fee system for uni and the softening of entry requirements has led to people in effect buying degrees that xamount of years ago would have not even passed Alevels.

Now after a pp mentioned the difference between himself and wife, is the shortcoming a product of the educational foundation before degrees are even reached?

If you've got a record number of students getting into uni but a similar number coming from grammar which equals a proportionally smaller number is it easier to notice the divide?

 

Would the return of grammars slim down the numbers going to uni or produce a lot of disheartened grads when the job market starts to select by whole of education pedigree.

I mean that currently both grammars and comps teach to the same qualification, but arguably grammars are more effective(due to the obvious) and you'd expect more thorough teaching in a selective school, could this lead to a contraction of the uni intake from outside grammars or would a uni expand to meet demand, gather more fees whilst possibly creating a second uni tier of sorts.

 

My comment was actually not so much a short coming of graduates but of schools. There ought to be a trickle down effect where as knowledge expands it moves from degree to a-level . For instance A-level biology ought now to include a great deal more about genetics and genomics than it did. The problem is that when Labour introduced AS levels, they stripped the 'hard' bits out of the a level syllabuses. Hence a gap is created to what is taught/can be fitted into a degree course. Consequently, we are teaching decades old subject matter to degree level students (at least in areas like genetics) which means their knowledge is not altogether useful for tech businesses developing the latest gene sequencers. In my subject there is a physical knowledge gap, between what graduates learn, and what actually happens. My experience is that other nationalities of students and graduates Have a higher level of basic knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schooling is socially divisive in any case. I am not convinced that the grammar system is more so. Is social integration desirable, in and of itself, in education? I'd [if] so for what purpose?.

 

I would say yes.

Where else are kids going to socially integrate ?

I wouldn`t take this too far though. I think disruptive pupils should be excluded from main stream schooling and placed in schools specially set up for them. Those schools should have exceptionally low pupil /teacher ratios, and they should spend as much money on them as is needed to educate the disruptive kids, and, more importantly, try to prevent then falling into crime.

 

At the risk of repeating what I posted months ago, the overall system of grammar/secondary appears to be equivalent/marginally better than comprehensive in areas of comparable indices of deprivation. It is unarguable that grammar schools get better results than comprehensives, but then they ought to.

 

It may be unarguable that Grammar schools produce better results for those who attend them than the average comprehensive.

But there are two points here.

 

The best comprehensives are as good as Grammar schools.

 

The other point, and a far more important one, is that the Grammar / Sec Modern system produce worse results for the majority of kids who attend the secondary moderns.

Edited by Justin Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say yes.

Where else are kids going to socially integrate ?

I wouldn`t take this too far though. I think disruptive pupils should be excluded from main stream schooling and placed in schools specially set up for them. Those schools should have exceptionally low pupil /teacher ratios, and they should spend as much money on them as is needed to educate the disruptive kids, and, more importantly, try to prevent then falling into crime.

 

What is the purpose of social integration? And does the comprehensive system achieve this in anything other than an ideological aspiration? In my view the key here is that aspirational parents want their children to mix with children of other aspirational parents. This leads to defacto social exclusion from the best comprehensives by wealth (ability to buy a house in the catchment). Mind you this also occurs in the case of secondary modern schools, but not to the same extent. This is because everyone knows, it doesn't help their children to 'integrate' with children whose parents don't give a damn about their education ie social integration limits educational attainment.

 

The other aspect of this is that I don't accept that the least able and most disruptive pupils should receive much more resource than the most able, who are being equally disadvantaged by an integrated educational model, save for the cost benefit of crime prevention.

 

It may be unarguable that Grammar schools produce better results for those who attend them than the average comprehensive.

But there are two points here.

 

The best comprehensives are as good as Grammar schools.

 

The other point, and a far more important one, is that the Grammar / Sec Modern system produce worse results for the majority of kids who attend the secondary moderns.

 

 

I guess it depends how you define 'as good as' but results wise, no they are not. Grammar schools gets 99% A-C passes at GCSE, the best comprehensives don't get near that.

 

The second point is that no they do not. Many sec modern schools out perform comprehensives, and as I posted earlier in the thread, in comparable local authorities in terms of deprivation, the combined results of grammars/sec moderns are as good as, and in fact marginally better than comprehensives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said something similar before in this thread that I'm half in favour of Grammar schools, i.e. selective state schools, however, I'm only half in favour because the other half of the problem hasn't been fixed...not all children are going to be academically gifted, and not all children are going to vocationally gifted. If we view these 2 skills as of equal merit (and we should because they really are) then splitting groups into those who are good at traditional academic subjects and those who are good at vocational subjects surely allows every single child the *best* chance of achieving in an area they are good at and hopefully enjoy.

 

So much of this issue is with people who somehow think a Maths A-level is more worthy than an HND in building. Why do people think that? Because I'd wager that the problem is with them rather than with the idea of having the correct style of education for the child over some misguided classist ideology that only the 3Rs are valuable.

 

So by all means carry on with the Grammar school rollout, but for each Grammar school create a world-class vocational school too that focusses more on hands on learning for those who excel in that rather than trying to shoehorn every child into a tiny box...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said something similar before in this thread that I'm half in favour of Grammar schools, i.e. selective state schools, however, I'm only half in favour because the other half of the problem hasn't been fixed...not all children are going to be academically gifted, and not all children are going to vocationally gifted. If we view these 2 skills as of equal merit (and we should because they really are) then splitting groups into those who are good at traditional academic subjects and those who are good at vocational subjects surely allows every single child the *best* chance of achieving in an area they are good at and hopefully enjoy.

 

So much of this issue is with people who somehow think a Maths A-level is more worthy than an HND in building. Why do people think that? Because I'd wager that the problem is with them rather than with the idea of having the correct style of education for the child over some misguided classist ideology that only the 3Rs are valuable.

 

So by all means carry on with the Grammar school rollout, but for each Grammar school create a world-class vocational school too that focusses more on hands on learning for those who excel in that rather than trying to shoehorn every child into a tiny box...

 

I couldn't agree more. I actually cannot see the point in grammar schools, given that the education/exam system is the same in all schools. I guess the ideal thing is to have 'personalised education', but that would be prohibitively expensive. The classist ideology is writ large on both sides of the debate, but educationally it is clear that mixed ability classes are less desirable than similar ability classes. The best comprehensives stream their pupils for this exact reason.

 

The only question in my mind is whether delivering different kinds of education; vocational, technical, creative, academic/traditional (for want of a better description) requires different schools. It seems to be a more efficient way to organise it at least. Labour created a whole load of 'specialist' schools, but that doesn't seem to have achieved a good balance in terms of mixed model schooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.