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

It really does sicken me that so many who purport (with passion) to be in favour of equality and opportunity etc should place compliance with their ideology above reality and the welfare of the children affected.

I thought the whole point of a Grammar school was for the whole of society especially the working classes to have access to these schools as they cannot afford to send there kids to private schools. Additionally, the 11+ exams were neutral in that you didn't have to go to a private or top primary school to pass the test, rather it testing general intelligence and intellectual ability. Today, i asscociate grammar school with droves of middle class families taking advantage of the situation and moving next ot the bloody school so their kids can go there, whereas other families cannot afford this, furthermore, the bright children from those classes do not have their opportunity to excel and rather those middle class parents who's children may not be gifted or as intelligent, every opportunity to improve.

There was a BBc documentary on this issue a while back. Also, that educational stimulation starts from an earlier age, between pre-school and lower primary school so the better the education, the increase in his/her potential.

The bottom line is that no matter which school you go to, you only get what you put in.

I'm not prepared to wax political here, but the idea of "class distinction" did not stem from pupils or parents or teachers. so where did it materialise from?

From a progressive socialists behind.

One must remember that some 'grammar' schools are actually fee-paying so you can't really include them (although many people do).

All I can say is that my school had the vast majority of its pupils from local primary schools, just like all the other schools in the area. Many of my friends went to local comps, and we were all from similar backgrounds, however many people saw me as 'posh' by the simple virtue that I went to the grammar school. I feel that that prejudice is quite prevalent across the board and as no real direct studies have been publicised we don't really know what the state of play is here.

The bottom line is that no matter which school you go to, you only get what you put in.
I went to a middle of the range Comprehensive and a middle of the range FE College. I got 3 A's a A Level.

My beliefs are moulded by my own experiences. Kids from any background CAN do well no matter which school they attend.

This view my appear simplistic - but sometimes things in life have a habit of being overcomplicated!

Depressingly yes.


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.

Is it nonsense to say that poor children are not getting the 'leg up' by way of a selective education because they are not in those schools? As I said, the deprivation index for education is measured by receipt of free school meals. The percentage of children receiving free meals at selective schools is far less than those in non-selective schools.

And I have pointed out flaws in that method of measurement, i.e. it is not direct.

Perhaps you need to demonstrate a more definitive way of deciding on an index for determing deprivation and let all the political parties know because they have all agreed that free school meals entitlement is the clearest indicator of poverty.

I for one, don't believe that the education of a children should be merely left to democracy in this manner, where is the attempt to inform parents about the various benefits of the systems, how do we know that the vote won't be based on ignorant prejudice?

Certainly, an index actually based directly on household income (including child support payments) would be free from regional bias for a start. Such information would have to be obtain specifically from parents, which would be too much of an inconvenience for the government especially as it might actually show a different picture to the current. To be fair I couldn't care less what the Commons has agreed upon, that is hardly a seal of approval I trust.

I would suggest that those who could be bothered to vote on whether to retain selection or abolish it would be those who are sufficiently interested in the perceived benefits/disadvantages of either system and the effects thereof, on their own children, since only those who have children of school age would have entitlement to a vote.