Why are (new) Grammar Schools banned, when Private, Faith Schools aren&#x27;t?

Original post by Johann von Gauss

Apparently, academic selection is wrong, but selection based on parental income, beliefs, residence, are fine.

I don't understand how a meritocratic education system is worse than plutocratic and theocratic systems

Someone please explain why it is the left that is so against academic selection? To them, does social mobility actually mean going down to the lowest common denominator, rather than the cream floating to the top?

People who oppose grammar schools are just jealous that they didn't get into one. :wink:

Reply 2

OP

Original post by littlenorthernlass

People who oppose grammar schools are just jealous that they didn't get into one. :wink:

What about those from a privately educated background? They have nothing to be jealous of - or do they fear us getting ideas above our station?

Reply 3

ben.anderson

11

I would of never been able to go to a Grammer school, as I was to thick. However I completely agree with Grammer schools, they gave talented academic youngsters a chance on low-income to have a fantastic education. I think its ridiculous that the labour party banned them in 1997 because of "creating class barriers". Well if they think sending 99% of the county to Uni and getting them into debt, with then
degrees becoming less important because everyone's got one. They might aswell say lets get everyone in 35k of debt to work in McDonalds. Its the harsh truth but Uni should only be for the most talented.

You need competition, grammer schools were a lot better way of giving talented people a good education than sending the world to Uni.

Reply 4

the bear

what was really needed was thousands of technical schools where children of modest ability could learn a useful trade, instead of thousands of comprehensives where they learn nothing in particular except how to be bitter and resentful.

Reply 5

dontargue

3

Original post by Johann von Gauss

What about those from a privately educated background? They have nothing to be jealous of - or do they fear us getting ideas above our station?

I think you will find that very few privately educated people oppose grammar schools; I have never met one who did. It is generally left wing, very privileged people who went to grammar schools themselves, who form the major opposition. I think it's called pulling up the ladder after yourself.

Reply 6

ben.anderson

11

Original post by the bear

what was really needed was thousands of technical schools where children of modest ability could learn a useful trade, instead of thousands of comprehensives where they learn nothing in particular except how to be bitter and resentful.

Exactly! I completely agree. Education needs to be more personalized, if someones going to become a builder or something whats the point of them doing 5 hours of science and music lessons every week. We are sending everyone to Uni, but what benefit?! I'm not slagging everyone off who goes but whats going to happen if we continue like this, people might laugh when I say you will need a degree to work in McDonald's but thats the truth if you continue to make Uni like going to school (the done thing in society)

Reply 7

ben.anderson

11

Original post by dontargue

I think you will find that very few privately educated people oppose grammar schools; I have never met one who did. It is generally left wing, very privileged people who went to grammar schools themselves, who form the major opposition. I think it's called pulling up the ladder after yourself.

You have a point. A suspect the loony leftie Jeremy Corbyn fan club will soon chase after me after the comments I'm making!

Reply 8

dontargue

3

Original post by Johann von Gauss

Apparently, academic selection is wrong, but selection based on parental income, beliefs, residence, are fine.

I don't understand how a meritocratic education system is worse than plutocratic and theocratic systems

Someone please explain why it is the left that is so against academic selection? To them, does social mobility actually mean going down to the lowest common denominator, rather than the cream floating to the top?

Tony Crosland (privately educated, sent his own son to Eton) said "I am going to shut down every f****** grammar school in England. And Wales..." Why? Some say he wanted to keep the working classes in their place & not get ideas above their station. Shirley Williams carried on his policy - Baroness Williams, that is, herself educated at a selective school & sent her own daughter to one (possibly also fee paying one, not sure). I do not often agree with or quote Margaret Thatcher approvingly, but she once said that grammar schools were needed because they allowed people like her (that is, middle class / grocer's daughter) to compete with people like Williams (from hugely privileged, noble, wealthy background.)

Reply 9

username457532

17

I'm against religious state schools, academies and free schools. I'm also against Grammar schools. I don't believe we should be telling children at 11 that they are a failure. They also disregard the fact that people peak at different points.

Also, I believe the 11+ is often based around things that are not taught in Primary schools which means that children whose parents/carers can pay for tutoring do better than those who don't have the opportunity. ALL schools should be teaching children to their ability, whatever that ability is (other than children with special educational needs who could not cope in a mainstream school - NOT that the school doesn't want to make the adjustments for them).

Reply 10

OP

Original post by SmallTownGirl

I'm against religious state schools, academies and free schools. I'm also against Grammar schools. I don't believe we should be telling children at 11 that they are a failure. They also disregard the fact that people peak at different points.

At 11, we tell children that they are less important than the children of wealthy people. Labour banned Grammar schools, but not Private schools, many of which use selection anyway, with the additional (unfair) barrier of fees, which selects against lower 'class' children.

Reply 11

llys

17

I think the only new schools allowed must be free schools. That's why Local Authorities now have to increase school places at existing schools to ridiculous numbers, they aren't allowed to open any kind of new school themselves.

The expansion of grammar schools was banned before, but I don't know why. Perhaps to keep private schools in business.

Original post by the bear

what was really needed was thousands of technical schools where children of modest ability could learn a useful trade, instead of thousands of comprehensives where they learn nothing in particular except how to be bitter and resentful.

They now exist for age 14+, not in the thousands though, and they have a truly awful name too - "University Technical Colleges". Still, it's a start.

Reply 12

Original post by dontargue

Tony Crosland (privately educated, sent his own son to Eton) said "I am going to shut down every f****** grammar school in England. And Wales..." Why? Some say he wanted to keep the working classes in their place & not get ideas above their station. Shirley Williams carried on his policy - Baroness Williams, that is, herself educated at a selective school & sent her own daughter to one (possibly also fee paying one, not sure). I do not often agree with or quote Margaret Thatcher approvingly, but she once said that grammar schools were needed because they allowed people like her (that is, middle class / grocer's daughter) to compete with people like Williams (from hugely privileged, noble, wealthy background.)

Thatcher closed more grammars than any other politician.

Reply 13

Original post by Johann von Gauss

At 11, we tell children that they are less important than the children of wealthy people. Labour banned Grammar schools, but not Private schools, many of which use selection anyway, with the additional (unfair) barrier of fees, which selects against lower 'class' children.

Both Labour and Conservative governments closed grammar schools. Why should Labour ban private schools, they are not supported by the taxpayer.

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Maker

Both Labour and Conservative governments closed grammar schools. Why should Labour ban private schools, they are not supported by the taxpayer.

Because they reduce social mobility, something Labour supposedly stands for

Reply 15

Original post by Johann von Gauss

Because they reduce social mobility, something Labour supposedly stands for

Whats the point in banning private schools? If you did try to ban them, the very rich will send their kids to private schools overseas and those that can afford it will get tutors.

Reply 16

username1500433

3

Original post by Johann von Gauss

Because they reduce social mobility, something Labour supposedly stands for

Labour wouldn't get rid of private schools. Many of them went to one - Tony Blair went to Fettes. And plenty of Labour ministers/MPs have children at private schools, Diane Abbott for example, who criticised Blair for sending his children to a selective state school, yet sent her son to private school.

Not to mention private schools take weight off the state education system, educating 7% of the population, yet people still pay taxes for their state school places. Plus, if you abolished them, people would just send their children to private schools overseas - Switzerland has plenty of super prestigious boarding schools.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by Maker

Whats the point in banning private schools? If you did try to ban them, the very rich will send their kids to private schools overseas and those that can afford it will get tutors.

Whats the point in banning Grammar schools? Those who could afford it moved to private schools. I'm not advocating banning private schools, but I can't understand Labour's stance

Reply 18

mojojojo101

17

Original post by dontargue

I think you will find that very few privately educated people oppose grammar schools; I have never met one who did. It is generally left wing, very privileged people who went to grammar schools themselves, who form the major opposition. I think it's called pulling up the ladder after yourself.

I went to private school (on a 90% bursary) and I oppose grammar schools for the simple reason that they don't really work. While some at the top will do better many at the bottom will do even worse. I also disagree that people should, at 11 years old, have their entire future decided upon he back of 1 test.

I also oppose faith schools, religion should not be involved in the education of children.

Reply 19