Grammar schools and labour hypocrisy.

You're middle class not poor so what exactly are you trying to tell us with your anecdote?

Also this is pretty old news and you havent even bothered to refute their main points. I also dont see the hypocrisy, since Diana Abbott, Tony Blair and Corbyn arent poor. Being against more grammar schools doesnt mean youre against private schools or grammar schools.

Tell me, do you go to a good grammar school? The lack of intelligence displayed in this post says otherwise.

Being against more grammar schools doesnt mean youre against private schools or grammar schools.
.

There are many poor people that go to my grammar school and I know them. I said that Diane abbot and corbyn are hypocrites as they went to grammar schools and send their children to grammar schools

Being against more grammar schools does mean your against grammar schools . And I didnt say I was against private schools, I was just illustrating that scrapping grammars would increase the education gap and get rid of opportunities for the poor and middle class.

Unfortunately labour is right because they have stats to actually prove the disparity between rich and poor in grammar schools. So inevitably the disparity increases as there are more grammar schools



First of all, you're middle class. Stop putting yourself in the same category as the poor and stop feeling sorry for yourself.

But you're absolutely wrong, Labour think the current number of grammar schools are more than enough and that it would be counter intuitive to increase.

Labours arguments against grammar schools amuses me.. Poor people still get into grammar schools because its hard work. And as I attend one the people outside catchment in general ( live in poorer areas) are far more smarter than the rich kids. I am from a middle class background.
But for grammar schools , if you get rid of them only the poor and middle class loose out. The rich still get private education and leave everybody trailing behind. Diana abbot and Tony blair are such hypocrites , send their children to private schools and Corbyn sends his children to grammar schools. They don't care about the poor , they just want the rich to have the best of the system and want every body to trail education wise.

The evidence on whether grammar schools improve social mobility is far from clear, and I'm personally swayed by the argument against grammar schools, namely that taking the highest achieving kids away from comprehensive schools and putting them in grammars benefits them at the expense of the majority of students. As the head of Ofsted has said, the highest achieving students - who would otherwise go to grammar schools - improve the entire school community at non-selective schools and pull everyone else up with them.

And, appealing to hypocrisy is fallacious. (Also, Jeremy Corbyn divorced one of his wives partly because she insisted on sending their children to grammar schools.)

They pull everyone else around them , what a load of utter rubbish. What gets good GCSE grades is hard work at home. The teaching standard is the same , the students are different. Just because I'm in a class of a maths genius doesn't make me one. It doesn't cost anybody anything.rwhether clever kids are there are not do not affect grades . Jeremy corbyn also attended a grammar school so the hypocrisy argument is valid

But while some pupils may benefit, experts also say that existing grammar schools generally widen the gap in attainment between rich and poor pupils.

“There is repeated evidence that any appearance of advantage for those attending selective schools is outweighed by the disadvantage for those who do not”, says Professor Stephen Gorard of Durham University. “More children lose out than gain, and the attainment gaps between highest and lowest and between richest and poorest are larger”.

Similarly, Luke Sibieta at the IFS says that grammars "seem to offer an opportunity to improve and stretch the brightest pupils, but seem likely to come at the cost of increasing inequality".

And the journalist Chris Cook wrote recently that “the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children—who are not educated in grammars—do slightly worse”.

Any appeal to hypocrisy used to reject an opponent's argument is a fallacious argument. That's a matter of basic logic. And, you know, I doubt that Jeremy Corbyn had much say as to whether he went to a grammar school. All we know is that he's been consistently opposed to grammar schools as an adult and that he didn't want to send his children to them.

There is evidence that the majority of pupils actually become worse off due to grammar schools.



There are plenty of subtle mechanisms by which this can occur. Lower performing students will have fewer people from whom they can ask for help; they'll have fewer role models to try to emulate; teachers will be less likely to deal with disruptions in classes if a greater proportion of the students aren't focused on work - I know from experience that teachers are more likely to deal with disruptions when they know that there are higher performing students in the class who actually want to work.

The fact is we are giving the brightest a better opportunity and a better working environment. Even if a tiny amount of poor people attend grammars its still good. Anyway the teaching is NOT better at grammars , its just the students. Just because there isn't a bright person in the class doesn't mean you won't do well, I don't see how it puts people at a disadvantage if bright pupils are in a different environment. Thats what you have a teacher for. The cleverest students are better off and the majority are unaffected( not worse of or better of). Grammar schools deliver better results and thats the fact

The left are complete hypocrites. They demonise grammar and private schools but will jump at the chance to send their children to one.

Labours arguments against grammar schools amuses me.. Poor people still get into grammar schools because its hard work. And as I attend one the people outside catchment in general ( live in poorer areas) are far more smarter than the rich kids. I am from a middle class background.
But for grammar schools , if you get rid of them only the poor and middle class loose out. The rich still get private education and leave everybody trailing behind. Diana abbot and Tony blair are such hypocrites , send their children to private schools and Corbyn sends his children to grammar schools. They don't care about the poor , they just want the rich to have the best of the system and want every body to trail education wise.

I've already given you some evidence that people are worse off because they don't have higher-performing students in their class, and I've suggested some mechanisms by which this can occur. You say you don't see how it puts people at a disadvantage when I've just given you some reasons as to why this might be the case.

In fact, you've just said it yourself: in grammar schools you're giving the brightest a better working environment, because they're surrounded by other bright people. Thus, you acknowledge that being around bright people helps pupils, meaning that taking away bright people from comprehensive schools and sending them to grammar schools will result in pupils who remain in the comprehensive schools having a worse working environment.

All the evidence shows that grammar schools benefit the lucky few to get in (who tend to be middle class and therefore can be tutored for the mock exams) but hinder those who miss out. The exams also dont necessarily correlate with intelligence.

Just because you disagree with grammar schools doesn't mean you shouldn't use them while they still exist. I campaign to close them but while there my children shouldn't suffer just because I want to prove a point.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I am a capitalist anyway and your probs centre-left so we'll never agree. You've got evidence then again its your spin on it. There is probably evidence to support grammar schools as they get better grades and challenge private schools. Lets just end this debate as well go round and round in circles

You can't - or rather you shouldn't - decide on which policies you support based on your preconceived ideology. And, you shouldn't make decisions on policy based on your view that there is "probably" evidence to support your position. You should make policy judgements after you've looked at the evidence (from all sides of the argument0, not before.

The evidence is not my spin on it: I quoted a piece from FullFact, which is an independent website which actually looks at the evidence.

I don't recognize the term centre-left. The 'left' and 'right' spectrum is meaningless, as is 'capitalist' vs 'socialist'. Plenty of people who identify as 'centre-left' also call themselves 'capitalist'.

Ultimately, I'm interested in supporting policies that improve the general well-being of the population. I couldn't care less about whether it's a 'right-wing' policy or a 'left-wing' policy. For instance, I support taking the railways back into public ownership, but I also support tuition fees and free trade. On balance, though, I can't support a policy that appears to benefit a minority of people at the expense of a majority, and widening income inequality whilst doing so, which has a corrosive effect on social cohesion and social mobility.

Ok however there are poor people who attend them and some are better than none. At least the middle class is able to challenge the private schools and the rich. So you would want to scrap grammars but when its your own children you wouldn't mind giving them a better education? Thats hypocrisy. And tutoring is £20 a week and pretty much anybody in work can afford £20 a week , even mininum wage workers. Tutoring isn't always successful. Most people outside catchment are smarter than those in catchment. As I said above your left wing and I am right wing so this will just go in circles so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.