Grammar schools to return

Statistics don't lie; children from poorer backgrounds are hail from parents who aren't as smart and the child is less likely to be smart considering that intelligence hails from both nature and nurture.

As a response to your post as a whole; you seem to think that bright students from poor families have no chance of getting into a decent grammar, however unless you provide some sort of evidence to further that claim then all I can do is disagree with that idea.

It very much does. The real world is horrifyingly segregated.

Which is a good thing.

Well if that's how you live enjoy the societal regression to tribalism. Technological progress and the corresponding class relations are changing. You people are the frogs in the boiling water and I can't honestly say I care what till happen to you.

Here's the data.

http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/poorgrammarreport-2.pdf

On average 22,000 pupils a year were admitted to grammar schools in 2008/11. 600 were eligible for free school meals.

Here's the data.

http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/poorgrammarreport-2.pdf

On average 22,000 pupils a year were admitted to grammar schools in 2008/11. 600 were eligible for free school meals.

His claim may not very carefully formulated but it is closer to the truth than yours.

Intelligence is highly heritable and probably mostly genetic. Most above average earners are of above average intelligence.

Although grammar schools would be brilliant for high IQ children born to low IQ parents, these people will be very rare. But the main benefit of grammar schools is not helping out the rare geniuses from humble origins, the main benefit of grammar schools is making it cheaper for above average parents to have above average children.

I'm not sure if you are a serious poster but I will say that segregation by ability is useful and is a mark - in practice even if rarely admitted - of civilisation, not primitivism.

The difference it would make is that high IQ wealthy parents could have their high IQ children somewhere else that is cheaper and still get to send their children to the school for high IQ kids.

More money could be spent on raising children rather than on buying land.

This is a distortion of statistics.

People with very low intelligence almost universally have very low earning potential so it is hardly a surprise people earning over 27K a year (ie average earnings) on average have an IQ of greater than 100 (average IQ)

Even if you find a highly statistically significant correlation of intelligence and income and that contention is deeply controversial and disputed we are still talking about about many tens of thousands of poor children with who intelligence will take them into the upper quartile of intelligence.

The influence of intelligence on financial advantage has been poor over centuries. For almost a millennium the most intelligent male members of society, regardless of social position, took vows of celibacy

Anywhere that is in the catchment area of a grammar will rise in cost unless the government puts a cap on property prices around grammars which seems unlikely.

Statistics don't lie; children from poorer backgrounds are hail from parents who aren't as smart and the child is less likely to be smart considering that intelligence hails from both nature and nurture.

As a response to your post as a whole; you seem to think that bright students from poor families have no chance of getting into a decent grammar, however unless you provide some sort of evidence to further that claim then all I can do is disagree with that idea. Rich people would choose private schools, and the grammar exists so the common man can give their child a decent education considering this nations attitude towards education in which a B is seen as a successful grade.

You don't have this problem in Japan or Korea in which all the good middle and high schools have entrance exams because the culture realises that hard work pays and everyone is encouraged to work hard. Whereas here we just accept C's as a pass somehow when it's hard to get less than a C.

You have this delusion where everyone should have the same education as if that's better. That doesn't help anything, potentially grammar tier students would go to trash comprehensive schools where they don't get pushed at all and they fail. Those same students who wouldn't be in a grammar won't be pushed anyway.

I'd rather give my money to students that I know will be pushed and will achieve greater things.

inb4 every student should be pushed amirite haha

I am a serious poster. You know it is possible for people to have different opinions to you. I'm sure your education should have told you that.

But in fact I appreciate what you are doing. I am pro-science and like statistics: I am not one of those liberals who denies facts. I have an understanding of genetic determinism, race realism and class IQ differences, and this may surprise you but the theories are more beneficial to the authoritarian left than the right. If it is proved that segregation is found in nature then extreme violence from the lower classes is not only justified but inevitable. So you are doing great work: continue promoting this information into the public sphere.

This document says that 3% of grammar pupils received free school meals compared to 17% of other state pupils in selective local authorities.

No it won't, because the segregation value of a good neighbourhood is much less in a selective system. It doesn't matter if your neighbours' kids are in the top 25%; if your kids are, they will only have to interact at school with other top 25% kids. In a comprehensive system, they will interact with your neighbours' kids, whoever they are.

The data is in the report but perhaps shown more clearly in the press release

http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/sutton-trust-prep-schools-provide-four-times-grammar-school-entrants-fsm-pupils/

The point is 3% to 17%, a factor of almost 6, for the same geographic area is highly significant.

It wouldn't be tolerated in say healthcare

If you take this stuff seriously you can see that violence from the lower classes is irrelevant. Even with a large numerical advantage the lower classes would lose any conflict for same reason that Iraq would lose any conflict with the UK. Socialism is an upper class movement aimed at taking power from other upper class people. This is a pretty dangerous strategy. Generally when communist parties take power in revolutions they end up killing most of their senior members. Just enjoying an upper class lifestyle in peace makes more sense than upper class civil war.

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.

I'm sorry but is it really surprising that people from single parent mum's who will probably be eligible for free school meals have children who aren't smart enough to make a grammar school. People who are eligible for free school meals are usually from broken homes or poverty-ridden families. It's unlikely that the children from parents who can't afford to feed their own children would give birth to children who are of exceptional ability.