Grammar schools to return

Whether the dictatorship of the proletariat lasts or is destroyed from within does not matter. It is satisfaction enough to know that in a permanent cycle of revolutions the bourgeoisie will not sleep peacefully. You know what they say: some people just want to watch the world burn. And the future is red.

Whether the thousand year Reich lasts or is destroyed from within does not matter. It is satisfaction enough to know that in a permanent cycle of revolutions the Bolsheviks will not sleep peacefully. You know what they say: some people just want to watch the world burn. And the future is brown.

Maybe we're talking past each other. I am saying that grammar schools mainly benefit the wealthy for approximately the same reason that healthcare mainly benefits sick people.

Catchment areas do not matter in a grammar system.

In the comprehensive system, all schools are supposedly just as good but in reality high IQ areas fill local schools with high IQ students who do much better than low IQ students. If you want your children to hang out with high IQ students, you need to be in a high IQ catchment area.

In a grammar system, high IQ kids in low IQ areas are sent to high IQ schools anyway. Catchment area determines which grammar school they go to but not whether or not they will go to a grammar school.

You are assuming all grammars are the same when they can't be, just like comprehensives.

You are assuming grammars have no catchment area when of course they would have to. All schools unless they are private would need to limit where their students come from.

Err, Ok. So how about:



Seems to be pretty much the same argument.

Except for the fact that I'm not racist, nationalist, anti-semitic, etc. and that I disagree with pretty much all of their policies. Not to mention that the purpose of the revolution is not to perform eugenics but to stop you people from performing 'soft' eugenics. But don't let the facts of my position sway you from the need to call me a Nazi.

And just like private schools. There are always gradations. But grammar school gives you a large slice of the benefit of sending your children to Eton without any price tag attached.

The position with catchment areas is complex.

Nowhere in England has a true catchment area as Scotland does. There is no parental choice in Scotland. You go to the school in whose catchment area you lie. You can game this by applying to a Catholic school that also has a, usually wider, catchment area. You can ask to be admitted out of catchment area but only once all the kids in the catchment area are accommodated.

In England you make several choices of school regardless of local authority boundaries. What are called catchment areas are aspects of over-subscription criteria.

In the case of grammar schools, in most parts of the country they are vastly oversubscribed and so achieving the pass mark that divides sheep from goats is by no means enough to gain admission.

Grammar schools could take all the sheep and apply the same sorts of over-subscription criteria as non-selective schools use to decide who gains admission to the pen. I am not aware of any grammar that does so.

Rather, they don't only distinguish between sheep and goats, but only admit the sheep with the finest wool. Only the highest marks gain admission. There are weekly borders at some grammar schools which have no boarding houses. Parents pay another family for the pupil to lodge with them because the pupil lives too far to commute.

Where there are under-subscribed grammar schools; where there are not enough sheep, places are left vacant. Goats are not admitted.

You said you wanted the world to burn, not to support specific policies. If you just want to blow up the world the Nazis did a pretty good job. Not that I was calling you a Nazi, I was calling you a nihilist.

As a social democrat, I believe bringing back grammar schools will really give those less well off in our society the opportunities that their wealthier counterparts have without facing the costs of being privately educated. Yes, I do acknowledge the argument that pupils can do well regardless of what school they go to if they put their mind into it but I think the common problem is on social mobility and specifically what grammar schools offer. I think the whole issue of social mobility is quite frankly ridiculous as all children are given the opportunities to get in to either a comprehensive school or a grammar school if they work hard to meet the criteria;to those who think I'm talking rubbish because grammar schools have a selective entrance criteria, I pity you as the same thing happens in state schools via sets in core subjects. In terms of delivering a tougher, more vigorous curriculum to stretch those with a higher ability I believe grammar schools offers that (even though I don't attend one myself) as they stretch their pupils more compared to state schools and I'm sure my friend @MrMackyTv can tell you about his experiences. In terms of what the Government is planning to do, I agree with the idea of allowing all existing schools to opt into a selective entrance criteria should they wish and the fact that schools are allowed this flexibility shows that this is not a return to the 60s where you have the 11+ exams etc. This is an education reform that gives all people from all backgrounds the opportunities to succeed in life and although I have some disagreements on how May's Government will implement this, I'm very supportive of the idea.

How old are you?

So why can't you do the same at a comprehensive?

Sounds like a system that people with money can easily game and I am sure that happens a lot right now.

As a social democrat, I believe bringing back grammar schools will really give those less well off in our society the opportunities that their wealthier counterparts have without facing the costs of being privately educated.

Why as if that matters to you?

Comprehensives are only sorted by house price. Grammar schools are sorted mostly by the 11+, secondly by house price.