Why do the Left hate Grammar schools so much..

OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said 'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future.
 
Farmergeddon said:
OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said 'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future.
Click to expand...

How do you get that statement from what foxholer said?
 
Farmergeddon said:
OK Foxholer we allow the teachers to teach, but what about teachers who have another agenda, Aristotle said 'give me a child at seven and I will give you the man', so giving children to a teaching profession with a left wing agenda is storing up a problem for the future.
Click to expand...

You will need to explain what sort of 'problems' are being stored!

Oh.. And you misquoted Aristotle! :whistle:
 
Hacker Khan said:
Yea right, You do know that the majority of pupils that get into the existing grammars, especially in places like Kent, are offspring of parents who can afford to privately tutor their kids but can't afford private education. Absolutely nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kid, but kids being pushed constantly by parents to the determent of their right to basically be a kid and also their mental health, which is an increasing issue in schools catering to pupils of all ages, is not a good thing really IMHO. Yes challenge them, but lets not get into a dog eat dog competition to basically define their life chances at the age of 11.
Click to expand...

I went to a grammar school in Kent, was I privately tutored by my parents? No! Did my parents put any pressure on me? No! Did I do better because I went to the grammar, yes I did.

My daughter is in year 8 at her school (no grammars where we currently live). They have been put in sets according to their performance in year 7. She is moaning to me that in the top science set she has been put in a group of four, where she was graded 4- and the others are all 2+. She is so far ahead of them that they don't get some of the basic concepts, so she feels that she is being held back. I feel for her as she is not getting the same opportunity that I did. Before you ask, she has not been given any private tuition or any extra tuition from me.
 
GG26 - speak to your daughter's teacher. Ask them to push her more. My daughter is a smart cookie and her teachers identified that in her early days and gave her extra and more advanced work to stretch her. If your daughter's teacher has not picked up on this then you need to intervene. If they don't up the work then see the head.
 
The suggestion seems to be that most children have extra, home funded, tuition to get to grammar school - I've never seen any stats to prove that this is true
 
GG26 said:
I went to a grammar school in Kent, was I privately tutored by my parents? No! Did my parents put any pressure on me? No! Did I do better because I went to the grammar, yes I did.

My daughter is in year 8 at her school (no grammars where we currently live). They have been put in sets according to their performance in year 7. She is moaning to me that in the top science set she has been put in a group of four, where she was graded 4- and the others are all 2+. She is so far ahead of them that they don't get some of the basic concepts, so she feels that she is being held back. I feel for her as she is not getting the same opportunity that I did. Before you ask, she has not been given any private tuition or any extra tuition from me.
Click to expand...

Yes but that was then and nowadays there are many private primary schools that have sprung up in Kent and many private tutors specifically there to ensure that the kids whose parents can afford such things get into the grammars. Yes it would be great of these extra grammars would give opportunities to all, but in reality they will not. In todays educational society people can mostly but their way to a good education, it is bad enough as it is, no need to introduce yet another way of doing it. Why not concentrate on getting all schools better? If I was being cynical I would say it is a ploy to get their forced academy program through. Before this grammar nonsense this it was very controversial, now when people rightly say this grammar is will just lead to a more divided educational landscape then they will go back to forcing through academisation instead.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
GG26 - speak to your daughter's teacher. Ask them to push her more. My daughter is a smart cookie and her teachers identified that in her early days and gave her extra and more advanced work to stretch her. If your daughter's teacher has not picked up on this then you need to intervene. If they don't up the work then see the head.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!!!

And if the Head doesn't do something about it - Physics is actually a 'difficult' subject to resource - then (threaten to) complain to the Local Authority - who pay his salary!

While I have every sympathy for the teacher/Head, stretching, within reason, talented kids is something that needs to be done!
 
chrisd said:
The suggestion seems to be that most children have extra, home funded, tuition to get to grammar school - I've never seen any stats to prove that this is true
Click to expand...

Because it is not an official stat that any grammar will collect. But plenty of anecdotal evidence.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/516066/Parents-pay-private-tutor-thousands-kids-into-grammar-school

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/18/children-extra-lessons-grammar-schools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...mmar-school-tests-to-be-made-tutor-proof.html
 
Last edited:
I honestly can't understand why we can't have more grammars!

More grammars means more places for more children. It means more children who won't get to Etonian or Harrow at least get something better than they might currently get.

We already have streaming in schools. What's wrong with having different schools based on ability? Or are people too brainwashed by the Corbynites, many of which had the very education they now decry.

I agree with Labour of the 90's/00's. It's about time bad teachers were sacked. It's about time Heads took ownership of their schools and bit the bullet of driving teaching abilities up. Buildings don't teach children, although a leaking roof doesn't help, teachers do, or should.

At least the Tories are doing what Labour didn't have the balls to do, even though it was often discussed. They are intent on driving up standards for more children, and it means putting some of the in grammar schools.
 
Hobbit said:
I honestly can't understand why we can't have more grammars!

More grammars means more places for more children. It means more children who won't get to Etonian or Harrow at least get something better than they might currently get.

We already have streaming in schools. What's wrong with having different schools based on ability? Or are people too brainwashed by the Corbynites, many of which had the very education they now decry.

I agree with Labour of the 90's/00's. It's about time bad teachers were sacked. It's about time Heads took ownership of their schools and bit the bullet of driving teaching abilities up. Buildings don't teach children, although a leaking roof doesn't help, teachers do, or should.

At least the Tories are doing what Labour didn't have the balls to do, even though it was often discussed. They are intent on driving up standards for more children, and it means putting some of the in grammar schools.
Click to expand...
TBH it may be simply what they're called which causes the issue, calling them Grammar Schools gives rise to hopes and fears to different people, some see it as a future and some as a backward step, divisions in society and gaps between the haves and the have nots, whether any of this is right is again open to interpretation.
But I would hope that all would want what's best for all children in an equal and fair education system
 
pauldj42 said:
TBH it may be simply what they're called which causes the issue, calling them Grammar Schools gives rise to hopes and fears to different people, some see it as a future and some as a backward step, divisions in society and gaps between the haves and the have nots, whether any of this is right is again open to interpretation.
But I would hope that all would want what's best for all children in an equal and fair education system
Click to expand...

I think you've nailed it Paul. Too many people hung up on what the grammar schools of the 60's were, that led to their downfall.

I'm in the middle of a book on UK politics from 1990 to 2010. Interesting to read of Labour's problems with the NUT during the late 90's and early 00's. Labour had some fantastic ideas, some of which could be argued that they were grammar under another name. Education stalled under David Blunkett because of the NUT, and Labour eventually resurrected Tory policies.
 
Hobbit said:
I honestly can't understand why we can't have more grammars!

More grammars means more places for more children. It means more children who won't get to Etonian or Harrow at least get something better than they might currently get.

We already have streaming in schools. What's wrong with having different schools based on ability? Or are people too brainwashed by the Corbynites, many of which had the very education they now decry.

I agree with Labour of the 90's/00's. It's about time bad teachers were sacked. It's about time Heads took ownership of their schools and bit the bullet of driving teaching abilities up. Buildings don't teach children, although a leaking roof doesn't help, teachers do, or should.

At least the Tories are doing what Labour didn't have the balls to do, even though it was often discussed. They are intent on driving up standards for more children, and it means putting some of the in grammar schools.
Click to expand...

Obviously we could have more Grammars. But we shouldn't.

It will cost fortunes to set up each Grammar - money which cannot be spend on the majority of pupils stuck on the lower tier of education.

Unfair elitist education.

Forget all this "Life isn't fair" argument. There's no way I could ever support a system set up to benefit one child to the detriment of 3 or 4 less privileged kids just because they pass an exam at 11.
 
Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:
Obviously we could have more Grammars. But we shouldn't.

It will cost fortunes to set up each Grammar - money which cannot be spend on the majority of pupils stuck on the lower tier of education.

Unfair elitist education.

Forget all this "Life isn't fair" argument. There's no way I could ever support a system set up to benefit one child to the detriment of 3 or 4 less privileged kids just because they pass an exam at 11.
Click to expand...

Although, as Theresa May says, you've already got it now in that the richer middle classes can afford, and do, just buy a house nearer the best schools to ensure their children get into the school of their choice. That choice is not open to the poor!
 
chrisd said:
Although, as Theresa May says, you've already got it now in that the richer middle classes can afford, and do, just buy a house nearer the best schools to ensure their children get into the school of their choice. That choice is not open to the poor!
Click to expand...

But at least money isn't being taken away from the poorer schools in a deliberate scheme to stop them improving.

At the moment my job is putting me in touch with several of the underperforming local schools and the one thing they have in common is a desire and plan to get better.

In fact, one of the considerations when looking at the lesser achieving schools' results is the proportion of "lower" quality (for the terms of this discussion only) students.

The "top" students are still doing as well as those in independent schools. The difference is the "better" schools only take students they know will pass so their numbers obviously look better.
 
Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:
But at least money isn't being taken away from the poorer schools in a deliberate scheme to stop them improving.

At the moment my job is putting me in touch with several of the underperforming local schools and the one thing they have in common is a desire and plan to get better.

In fact, one of the considerations when looking at the lesser achieving schools' results is the proportion of "lower" quality (for the terms of this discussion only) students.

The "top" students are still doing as well as those in independent schools. The difference is the "better" schools only take students they know will pass so their numbers obviously look better.
Click to expand...

I've said several times here that ALL schools should be improving and that standards of teaching should mean that there are NO bad teachers but it is indisputable for me that grammar schools work and the best kids should be given the best chance to excel. If comprehensive schools graded and streamed their kids so that the best didn't have to be educated alongside the worst in school, maybe I'd feel different. However, life during, and after school, is about selection and social standing does play a part.

Build the Grammar school in socially poor areas and pick the intake on an 11+ and add teachers knowledge of the child's underlying ability to recommend placement which could level the playing field where parents can't afford extra tuition for bright children
 
I've have no issue with grammar schools in theory, though the thought of pigeon holing a child @ 11 doesn't really sit well.

Some kids are academic, some vocational this should be recognised. I just don't have any confidence in the vocational options. Apprenticeships need to become a viable educational choice vs university again & I suppose the difference between now & 40 years ago is that the manufacturing industry that supported this isn't as large.
If my kids showed more application vocationally I would rather this was recognised and developed rather than them being pushed towards unsuitable academic programmes.

So grammar schools could be OK, if the alternative is funded, resourced and not just a dumping ground for 11+ failures.
 
Oohmeoldbacksknackered said:
Obviously we could have more Grammars. But we shouldn't.

It will cost fortunes to set up each Grammar - money which cannot be spend on the majority of pupils stuck on the lower tier of education.

Unfair elitist education.

Forget all this "Life isn't fair" argument. There's no way I could ever support a system set up to benefit one child to the detriment of 3 or 4 less privileged kids just because they pass an exam at 11.
Click to expand...

You appear to be mixing intelligence with privilege. Streaming already exists, and on so many levels. Rich parents pay for private schools, middle class families move catchment areas or employ private tutors. And comps already stream based on intelligence.

Even working class children pass their 11+. "Unfair elitist..." I seem to remember that there was no elitism in the area I grew up in but there was grammar schools.

Do you really want to hold back intelligent children? Is it really intelligent to not stretch bright children, but to have them in a class that runs at half their speed, doing stuff they picked up weeks before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top