Diane Abbott in fine form this morning...

[Hampster Gull]

I go away for a day and this thread has decended into a political debate.

The whoe point of the thread was to remind everyone that Abbott is a tit

 

[Weststander]

Got to agree. I'm a comprehensive school boy from a poor background and I'm pretty sure that I would not have got much better from having gone to a grammar school. I don't really get this new found evangelism for grammar schools.

You don't know that, ifs and maybes. Grammars still churn out amazing results, often on a par with good independent schools.

But I do agree and in principle I'm against them too. Simply because in authorities with Grammars such as Kent, it is a fact that well off and switched on parents have their children specifically privately tutored for the 11+ from a young age. Giving them a massive advantage over more relaxed or less affluent families. Many of these pushy wealthier parents, have a backup up plan of independent schooling should their child fail the 11+. The Grammars in the Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge area for example have great facilities, fantastic results at age 16 and 18, with a virtuous circle of highly academic or specialist staff wanting to work there.

Statistically the kid on the local council estate has far lower odds of passing the 11+ and having the aforementioned advantages.

 

[Hastings gull]

Because that can't be achieved in a comprehensive!? Its just absolute nonsense. May wants our children to be divided into categories at 10/11. She wants religious schools to have more freedom to only select on faith, allow grammars to select on results, and this is state education for all. Even her own party is rebelling against it, and its the real reason she has called this election, not Brexit. It is an ideology Tory Party modernisers are against, most of whom she dismissed to the backbenches.

While I could post dozens of articles from Sir Micheal Wilshaw, to the Education Policy Institute, the NAHT, all universally and passionately against Grammar Schools, Justine Greening cannot even name a respected educational figure or institution that supports moving to Grammar schools and selection based upon a test at 10 years old.

What really has changed that renders the the 1959 Crowther Report now obsolete - because basically it is returning to a system we knew wasn't serving society properly back in 1959.

Who said it couldn't? I have never claimed that. Of course it can. But you need a good comprehensive where an academic atmosphere reigns or at least regular celebration of progress.

Did we know that? how? What evidence have you got that society wasn't served, or is this just a quick throw-away line to lend some credence?

 

[Buzzer]

You don't know that, ifs and maybes. Grammars still churn out amazing results, often on a par with good independent schools.

But I do agree and in principle I'm against them too. Simply because in authorities with Grammars such as Kent, it is a fact that well off and switched on parents have their children specifically privately tutored for the 11+ from a young age. Giving them a massive advantage over more relaxed or less affluent families. Many of these pushy wealthier parents, have a backup up plan of independent schooling should their child fail the 11+. The Grammars in the Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge area for example have great facilities, fantastic results at age 16 and 18, with a virtuous circle of highly academic or specialist staff wanting to work there.

Statistically the kid on the local council estate has far lower odds of passing the 11+ and having the aforementioned advantages.

I went to Uni (first ever in my family) and I'm a chartered accountant. I'm not particularly ambitious so I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have done all that much better but I take the point about kids from disadvantaged areas rather than home backgrounds- I went to Durrington High in Worthing so it was my own home circumstances rather than a deprived area and I did pretty well out of going to a comp.

 

[Bold Seagull]

[/B]Did we know that? how? What evidence have you got that society wasn't served, or is this just a quick throw-away line to lend some credence?

I'm clearly referring to the 1959 Crowther Report which concluded that. Not sure you can consider it throw away...

 

[Soulman]

I go away for a day and this thread has decended into a political debate.

The whoe point of the thread was to remind everyone that Abbott is a tit

Back in the room.........

 

[Hastings gull]

I went to Uni (first ever in my family) and I'm a chartered accountant. I'm not particularly ambitious so I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have done all that much better but I take the point about kids from disadvantaged areas rather than home backgrounds- I went to Durrington High in Worthing so it was my own home circumstances rather than a deprived area and I did pretty well out of going to a comp.

Good for you, mate. You have clearly done well. What sort of school was Durrington High? Would I be right if I stated that it probably serves a wealthier than average area, and thus it is easier to progress in a school where most pupils and their parents value educational success. That is NOT meant to be condescending in any way, or dismissive of your achievement, by the way.

 

[Buzzer]

I'm clearly referring to the 1959 Crowther Report which concluded that. Not sure you can consider it throw away...

I've no doubt that if you creamed off the brightest from UK comprehensives, spent a fortune building new grammar schools and employing teachers for them that universally, every single kid there would do at least as well and almost certainly better than left in a comprehensive school.

I'm with you though when I would argue that there's no need to even consider this. Just improve conditions for these kids within their own schools. It's certainly cheaper because there are no extra capital costs and most importantly, mobility for kids who are late bloomers is greatly increased if they go to a school which can cater for all educational needs.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm clearly referring to the 1959 Crowther Report which concluded that. Not sure you can consider it throw away...

OK, thanks. Fair enough.

 

[Buzzer]

Good for you, mate. You have clearly done well. What sort of school was Durrington High? Would I be right if I stated that it probably serves a wealthier than average area, and thus it is easier to progress in a school where most pupils and their parents value educational success. That is NOT meant to be condescending in any way, or dismissive of your achievement, by the way.

No, I wouldn't say it was wealthy. It was about average. We had some pupils from big houses up at Offington but a huge percentage came from some of West Worthing's biggest council estates including Maybridge which, back in the 70s and 80s was quite a tough area.

 

[Hastings gull]

I've no doubt that if you creamed off the brightest from UK comprehensives, spent a fortune building new grammar schools and employing teachers for them that universally, every single kid there would do at least as well and almost certainly better than left in a comprehensive school.

I'm with you though when I would argue that there's no need to even consider this. Just improve conditions for these kids within their own schools. It's certainly cheaper because there are no extra capital costs and most importantly, mobility for kids who are late bloomers is greatly increased if they go to a school which can cater for all educational needs.

Ideally yes, but it really is never going to be that simple. If this were now the case, then previous governments would not have been edging away from LEA comprehensives for all, with moves to academies.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Yes labour are a shambles, but the willingness on here to just bend over and take what ever the tories give you is quite depressing.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[The Birdman]

 

[Soulman]

Yes labour are a shambles, but the willingness on here to just bend over and take what ever the tories give you is quite depressing.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

So what do you suggest?.........Liberals

 

[Hampster Gull]

Back in the room.........

Planet Earth responding...

The consequence would be Abbott as one of our leading brains of the country, one of our leading and most critical decision makers

 

[Wrong-Direction]

So what do you suggest?.........Liberals [emoji23]

I have no suggestions. I believe we're heading towards an inevitable collapse and all this voting bollocks just determines how quickly it will come.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Hastings gull]

I have no suggestions. I believe we're heading towards an inevitable collapse and all this voting bollocks just determines how quickly it will come.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Collapse? What are you talking about?

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Collapse? What are you talking about?

Recession? Depression? The end of civilisation?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Soulman]

I have no suggestions. I believe we're heading towards an inevitable collapse and all this voting bollocks just determines how quickly it will come.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Fair enough, til then we have to make the best of a bad job.

 

[Chicken Run]

What I find laughable was when NF suggested the Labour Party had already committed the savings from reversing the capital gains tax on other areas, she replies that they were just examples of what could be done with the money, sounds awfully similar to the message on the side of the bus then?