Grammar schools [why don't labour like them?]

Is it fair when someones wins the lottery?
Is it fair when someone else gets a job?
Is it fair when someone else gets hit by a car?

Life is full of unfairness. The 11+ highlights those children with academic potential who are willing to work hard and achieve much.

I agree with grammar schools and believe that they are of great benefit to children who otherwise might have rotted in the comprehensive system. With credit to Labour they have not actually got rid of any grammar schools during their time in power, although if I had any say I would expand the system. In fact, I believe the Conservatives were the ones who got rid of most of the grammar schools.
The solution to the education problem in my opinion is an expansion of a grammar school system but with entrance based on tests, behaviour and teacher reports. I would also give children the chance to transfer to grammar school if they showed the necessary potential at their comprehensive. This gives children who work hard more than one chance to receive a good education. On top of this we can then focus specialist and vocational courses at comprehensives.

The lottery is irrelevant as it is random selection.

Jobs and cars are slightly different as they require ability/money to obtain them. People shouldn't be given ability/money on an equal basis, however they should all have the equal opportunity to obtain it. Hence selecting the ones who are going to be succesful at age 11 is ridiculous.

The lottery is irrelevant as it is random selection.

Jobs and cars are slightly different as they require ability/money to obtain them. People shouldn't be given ability/money on an equal basis, however they should all have the equal opportunity to obtain it. Hence selecting the ones who are going to be succesful at age 11 is ridiculous.

If differentiating between students at the age of the 11+ is rediculous, then surely examining students during years 3 and 6 (SAT's) is also pointless?

Life is full of unfairness. The 11+ highlights those children with academic potential who are willing to work hard and achieve much.

Anyway, on with my views. I'm of the opinon that Grammars would serve no useful purpose if Comprehensives worked properly, which they currently don't.

Labour hates the grammars because they have a huge chip on the shoulder regarding percieved 'class' and for them they represent the class system -which is total rubbish. Anyway long story short Labour do everything they can to get rid of the Grammars and so condemn thousands of poor kids from poor areas to a non-education at the failing comprehensives. Nobody quite does social equality/opening up of opportunities like the labour party .

Have you had a look at Labour policies on education?

It is a pity they have not done more to rid this country of an iniquitous selective system of education that does little to provide the same to the poor - have a look at the percentage of children from poor families (linked to free-school meal provision)who go to grammar schools in comparison to those who go to non-selective schools. To say that state selective schools give a 'leg-up' to those bright children from deprived backgrounds is one of the biggest myths propogated by pro-selection supporters.

Have you had a look at Labour policies on education?

I think that in some ways Grammar schools are a good idea as it enables students from poorer backgrounds to achieve a better education etc. But i think in other ways it creates inequality within society at an early age which i don't like.

3. "The people in the comprehensive system are less motivated". This is probably true and is a difficult situation, but it's surely better to make sure the brightest kids don't lose their motivation by sending them to grammar schools than sticking them in with the chavs as well and making sure no-one gets a decent education?

Depressingly yes.

Well of course thats the case when weve had decades of shutting down/discouraging Grammars to the point where most people have no option but to go to the comp. I remember this point being debated on this week last year in a manner which basically summed up what a joke this issue is and how deluded the labour types are with regard to it. You had some woman or other who was on moaning and complaining about the grammars and going on about how forcing the bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to hellhole sink schools would solve all the worlds problems (or words to that effect) and she was utterly contradicted by the other three on the show - Andrew Neil, Diane Abbot and Micheal Portillo all of whom come from backgrounds which are far from advantaged and who were, through the grammar schools, able to access the elite universities. As Neil said he finds that nowadays, as an employer, he finds that you get a far greater proportion of private school kids in jobs quite simply because the best state schools (grammars) have been done away with. This labour belief that enforced mediocrity will somehow be of benefit/produce equality or better opportunities for the disadvantaged is one of the most tragic bits of nonsense to have influenced government policy and tens of thousands of kids over the last decades have suffered for it.

What nonsense. How on earth can it not be a 'leg-up' to go to a decent school rather than be condemned to whatever decrepit institution you happen to have the misfortune to leave near? Grammar schools provided good education regardless of personal background/social status whereas Labour ensures that it is as hard as possible to make your way up the social ladder/escape from whatever situation you were born into.