Oohmeoldbacksknackered
Assistant Pro
Are you comparing the desire to provide an extra tier of education which is, at best, desirable to some with the needs (yes needs) of disadvantaged children?
Why do the Left hate Grammar schools so much..
- Thread starter Farmergeddon
- Start date
Are you comparing the desire to provide an extra tier of education which is, at best, desirable to some with the needs (yes needs) of disadvantaged children?
Oohmeoldbacksknackered
Assistant Pro
Good man, I see where you're coming from.
I'm going to need to give this some Deep Thought.
It may take a while.....
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
Your comment would seem to suggest that you are quite happy to cap the resources made available to the "gifted" child but conversely not for the "disadavantaged",
This would seem as unfair as if the roles were reversed since surely it is just as great a social injustice to not fully develop the brightest children as it is to condemn the disadvantaged by not trying to bring them to an attainable level.
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxholer
Blackballed
My point exactly! :thup:
Along with the (perhaps even more important concept in this discussion) that he seems to have a strange (illogical!) concept of 'peers'! And that is with no consideration as to why/how they happen to score differently in the 11+ exam!
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Not just the Left. Cunning plan by our new PM - first new policy under her watch and she creates an almighty stushie and division within her own party - maybe as a diversion and smokescreen to hide the confusion her party is in over working our what Brexit actually means.
Brilliant! In PMQs our PM reminds us all how much children's secondary school performance has improved over the period of coalition and Tory gov - in support of a policy that will negatively impact the performance of 75% of children. Brilliant!
Brilliant! In PMQs our PM reminds us all how much children's secondary school performance has improved over the period of coalition and Tory gov - in support of a policy that will negatively impact the performance of 75% of children. Brilliant!
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
As per usual rhetoric rather than substance.
At this stage we none of us know if this policy will negatively impact upon the performance of the majority of children, and you certainly don't know that it will be 75%.
So far this has been a sensible debate please try not to spoil it with your usual one-eyed views.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Did you listen to PMQs just finished? Any debate with the PM that JC wins - when the debate is on the PMs first new policy initiative - suggests that the policy is very flawed.
And you cream 25% off each school when setting up a local grammar school and the 75% will suffer - that does not meran that all 75% will do less well - but even the best that are 'left behind' will have issues to overcome to do as well as they otherwise would have.
I speak from experience of being through a Scottish system where the 'top' pupils (aged 13) at the end of 2nd year in four 'feeder' secondary schools 'went up' to a senior secondary school that had only 3rd to 5th years (or 6th year if you stayed on for 6th Yr Studies).
I 'went up' - my younger brother did not. I recall the upset that that caused with my brother and parents as it implied my brother was not as bright as me and he would be in with the less able, the trouble-makers and those from families whose parents didn't care - and he knew he would lose touch with a lot of friends he had made in 1st and 2nd year.
As I 'went up' I was deemed the clever of the two of us (though not by our parents) when in fact he is just as bright as me - if not brighter - and he went on to get a good degree and successful career. But his success was down to the support my parent gave him. Without that support who knows. The system back then worked for me - the senior secondary was great. It was not so great for those who didn't.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
Sounds as though the system also worked for your brother which is rather counter intuitive to your argument.
I have previously stated that I remain unconvinced by the argument for grammar schools and feel that we need far more detail. However, I am convinced that the current system is not working as it should and that is not entirely due to resources.
The difference between you and I is that I do not make my judgement of policies purely based upon which political party presents it.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
It didn't really work for my brother - he did well in the end despite the system. His Highers should have been better than they were so he didn't get into Glasgow or Strathclyde Uni as he had hoped. And he did not have a great time in his 3rd-5th years at school - and certainly at the outset it was very unsettling and upsetting. He only did OK through school through the support he got from my parents.
But he got a good degree and has built a good career.
In fact on reflection it didn't really work that well for me - as by 'going up' (note the language suggests 'staying down' for those who didn't) I thought I was the bees-knees and as a result I didn't work as hard as I might have had there not been this division at 13. Certainly the secondary schools in my home area today at the top of the tree in Scotland - the division to get the best out of the best - was never necessary
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
How convenient to your theory.
Success was due solely to your parents and, no doubt, if he had failed it would be entirely attributable to the school.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I added
In fact on reflection it didn't really work that well for me - as by 'going up' (note the language suggests 'staying down' for those who didn't) I thought I was the bees-knees and as a result I didn't work as hard as I might have had there not been this division at 13. Certainly the secondary schools in my home area today at the top of the tree in Scotland - the division to get the best out of the best was never necessary
hors limite
Assistant Pro
Must say that i am pulled in all sorts of directons with this one.
I went to a Grammar School in industrial South Yorkshire in the 60's and a lot of the pupils came from very working class households, some the sons and daughters of miners and steelworkers. I was one of them. My father was determined that I would get a good education and made his own investment of time and effort in helping me learn to read at a young age. He himself was an inspiration - he started his working life as a labourer in a blast furnace operation and finished as a shift manager. When I was doing O levels, he was studying for a City and Guilds "steel" qualification with a class of much younger students and he came out on top.
I suppose that I am in favour of the re- introduction of Grammar Schools. However, I think it is probably even more important to"rescue" the children who are being brought up by parents who are incapable, inadequate or unwilling to help and support. It surely makes sense to make an extra investment at a young age with the long term saving that must accrue from the avoidance of the problems that inevitably will mar the adult lives of such children.
I have always been attracted by the idea of paying the best teachers more in exchange for working in the most difficult environments - don't think the teaching unions would buy it.
I went to a Grammar School in industrial South Yorkshire in the 60's and a lot of the pupils came from very working class households, some the sons and daughters of miners and steelworkers. I was one of them. My father was determined that I would get a good education and made his own investment of time and effort in helping me learn to read at a young age. He himself was an inspiration - he started his working life as a labourer in a blast furnace operation and finished as a shift manager. When I was doing O levels, he was studying for a City and Guilds "steel" qualification with a class of much younger students and he came out on top.
I suppose that I am in favour of the re- introduction of Grammar Schools. However, I think it is probably even more important to"rescue" the children who are being brought up by parents who are incapable, inadequate or unwilling to help and support. It surely makes sense to make an extra investment at a young age with the long term saving that must accrue from the avoidance of the problems that inevitably will mar the adult lives of such children.
I have always been attracted by the idea of paying the best teachers more in exchange for working in the most difficult environments - don't think the teaching unions would buy it.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
You are still not addressing your difficulties in basing your judgements on something other than pre-conceived political prejudice.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I am basing it on my own experience, and a belief that we should, in all things, look beyond what might simply appear to be the best for me and my family. Blinkered political prejudice does not come into it - such accusations are easy one for those who do not care to admit that they are only really bothered about themselves and their own. You may or may not be that bothered about wider society - that I do not know. I would hope that you - and all here as we are amongst the more fortunate in society - would be.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
Whilst I would agree with the vast majority of what you say I am still concerned by the idea of emphasising resources at either end of the scale of educational needs.
Failure to fully develop the talents of the "gifted" will, in the long term, only be as costly to society as failing to support the "disadvantaged" as the former can possibly be disproportionate in their ultimate contribution to the economy and the latter (through no fault of their own) may be a cost.
D
Deleted member 18588
Guest
I most certainly am concerned but I fear that society's ills will not be helped by maintaining the current system which, far too often, seems to be geared towards catering for the needs of the LCD.
The danger of "own experiences" is its anecdotal and not evidenced based.
For my part, as my parents moved around the UK, I had grammar first, then comprehensive, then Higher(Leaving cert).
The grammar was a typical grammar. Well structured and staffed. A great place to Learn. The comp was a brand new complex, including squash courts, language labs etc, but lacked discipline. The last one was very similar to the first.
There were two major differences between the three. Quality of the staff and the discipline.
The comp, for all its facilities and forward thinking Head was an unmitigated disaster on so many levels. No streaming till 13 meant the bright children were held back by kids that just wanted to party. The nerdy kids and wimpy teachers had no place in that environment, where learning came second to survival.
Its the staff that make the difference.
bluewolf
Money List Winner
Foxholer
Blackballed
I don't believe this is the case!
Streaming (almost equivalent) works to the benefit of all streams! Though that doesn't mean there's not 'issues' with it.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
My observation is based upon my clear recollections about how 'going up' to the selective secondary school was viewed by pupils and parents in general of the 'feeder' secondary schools. If you didn't 'go up' implied that you were at best a bit of a failure and would be 'missing out' on everything that the selective school had to offer - and that included an almost guaranteed place at any of Scotland's universities (there were only 7 or 8 back then) - other than maybe St Andrews - which tended to have a lot of 'foreign' (i.e. English 
) students.
And those of us who 'went up' did tend to 'look down' on those who didn't. We thought we were superior in all things - the only thing the other schools could occasionally 'best' us at was football.
) students.And those of us who 'went up' did tend to 'look down' on those who didn't. We thought we were superior in all things - the only thing the other schools could occasionally 'best' us at was football.
Last edited: