Turn on thread page Beta

Grammar Schools watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you support the existence of Grammar schools?
    Yay
    299
    81.03%
    Nay
    70
    18.97%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Rog, you got there before me!
    So you were wrong too?

    I also want to make it VERY plain to all of those who think people get into grammar schools soley on academic merit, that money plays a big part in it. Why do people think there is a very disproportionate amount of middle-class to lower-class kids in grammars? Because middle-class kids are more intelligent? Its because middle-class parents buy tuition for the 11+, and that puts their kids in a much better position to take the tests- they practice practie practice what it is like to take tests, the same types of questions that will arise, etc. Poorer kids go in blind. They may be as clever, but if the only experience of tests they have had were ther SAT's, its hardly a level playing field, is it?
    So removing the 11+ helps how?

    You remove the chance the poorer kid has, and increase the power of money.

    Isn't that an argument against removing the 11+?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Yes they do.

    Have you never heard of selection?

    Over 60% of English secondary schools have the right to select intake (and I'm sure if we removed grammar schools this would increase).

    So having corrected you there, where is the difference between the systems?
    OK, so many school which have specialist status can select a small number of their pupils if they show a significant aptitude for the schools specialism. In practice, most schools don't select very many pupils on this basis and so it is really quite insignificant. And general grades nd ability play no part in this. In your little scenario up there both pupils would still get into the same school as they live virtually in the same place. Their grades play no part.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I agree too.

    btw: Have you seen the research I was mentioning?

    JESSON, D (2000) 'Further evidence on comparative GCSE performance between selective and non-selective schools and LEAs.'

    JESSON, D (2001) Selective Systems of Education - Blueprint for Lower Standards?
    available: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/econ/rc/cperm.thm

    KERCKHOFF, A.C., FOGELMAN, K., CROOK, D. and REEDER, D (1996)
    Going Comprehensive in England and Wales: a Study of Uneven Change

    OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (2000)
    National Summary Date Report for Secondary Schools
    available: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/public/index/htm

    SHUTTLEWORTH, I. and DALY, P (2000)
    The Pattern of Performance at GCSE

    and finally, a comment from Ian and Sandie Schagen who were commissioned to do research into "The Impact of Selection on Pupil Performance" by the NFER (publishers of 11+ practice papers)

    "It is sometimes alleged that the most able pupils perform better in grammar schools (see e.g. Gray et al., 1983; Kerchhoff et al., 1996) Our analysis does not support that view; on the contrary, it appears that the most able young people achieve better results in comprehensive schools."
    None of your links work, but having tracked down the documents anyway, none of them contain the claims you have made, nor do they contain any information that can back up, without doubt, the claims you make.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    So you were wrong too?



    So removing the 11+ helps how?

    You remove the chance the poorer kid has, and increase the power of money.

    Isn't that an argument against removing the 11+?
    I'm not saying that that would help the situation. I was pointing out, as an aside, that the gramar school system isn't quite as meritocratic as people suggest.

    And no. You were patently wrong. Now try addressing the points at hand, you hairdresser( aka nit-picker)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Its because middle-class parents buy tuition for the 11+, and that puts their kids in a much better position to take the tests- they practice practie practice what it is like to take tests, the same types of questions that will arise, etc. Poorer kids go in blind. They may be as clever, but if the only experience of tests they have had were ther SAT's, its hardly a level playing field, is it?
    What exactly do you mean by tuition?

    How prevalent is this practice?

    Is there any evidence to suggest that performance in the test can be improved by coaching?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    OK, so many school which have specialist status can select a small number of their pupils if they show a significant aptitude for the schools specialism.
    60% and with the abolition of grammar schools that would probably rise to 80%, so the vast majority.

    In practice, most schools don't select very many pupils on this basis and so it is really quite insignificant. And general grades nd ability play no part in this.
    It plays a very great part in this widely used policy.

    If you are a science based school you are not going to select a pupil who is particularly bad at sciences over a child is who is a hot shot at the subject are you?

    You obviously have not been involved in this process.

    In your little scenario up there both pupils would still get into the same school as they live virtually in the same place. Their grades play no part.
    Wrong.

    As shown they would still be seperated, and for similar reasons to now.

    So where is the difference?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    And no. You were patently wrong
    How can I be wrong, do we have a selction process or not?

    I said yes, now Roger says yes, the government says yes, and ofsted says yes.

    So where am I wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    What exactly do you mean by tuition?

    How prevalent is this practice?

    Is there any evidence to suggest that performance in the test can be improved by coaching?
    Extremely prevalent, and i should know, as i'm surrounded by people in my area who get their kids tutored to tailor them for grammar schools. My own cousin was tutored to get her into a grammar school.

    One parallel i can draw. You aren't supposed to be able to "revise" for aptitude tests(which is what the 11+ is). The LNAT is an aptitude test, to test peoples aptitude for law. Most of the russell gruop unis have the LNAT for law now. And do some quick searches on google, to see how many courses you can take to revise and practice for the LNAT. Its common sense that if you give kids more practice with tests situation, they are likely to do better than someone with barely any test experience.

    Of course coaching will improve your test results! Why are there tutors for anything, if not to give extra help, to improve your chances of passing? The more work you do for somthing, as a general rule, the better you will be at it. The more you get used to tests, and take prepared aptitude tests, the better you will be. The more you practice your theory test for driving at home on a CD-ROM, the more likely you are to pass when you take the real test. You really want me to provide evidece that practising things makes you better at them? Or is this another case of claiming that we don't have any evidence,and therefore we are wrong, whether you have any evidence of your own or not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    60% and with the abolition of grammar schools that would probably rise to 80%, so the vast majority.



    It plays a very great part in this widely used policy.

    If you are a science based school you are not going to select a pupil who is particularly bad at sciences over a child is who is a hot shot at the subject are you?

    You obviously have not been involved in this process.



    Wrong.

    As shown they would still be seperated, and for similar reasons to now.

    So where is the difference?
    One thing that annoys the hell out of me about you, is that you claiim things, and then say that is proof. Then i'll say, yes, there is a selection process, but one that is DIFFERENT to grammar schools. Then you'll say "see, there is a selection process, so i'm right" But noone is disputing that a selection process exists for both schools. The squabble is about whether they are the same, which you think they are, or different, which they blatantly are. So what you are doing then, is saying that grammar schools and comprehensives are similar in that they both select through academic ability, because specialists schools "widely" choose kids who fit well with their specialisation. I'm with roger on syaing that it isn't widely used, and just becaus eyou went through the system, or yo know a few people who did, that is NOT proof that it is widely used.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Extremely prevalent, and i should know, as i'm surrounded by people in my area who get their kids tutored to tailor them for grammar schools. My own cousin was tutored to get her into a grammar school.

    One parallel i can draw. You aren't supposed to be able to "revise" for aptitude tests(which is what the 11+ is). The LNAT is an aptitude test, to test peoples aptitude for law. Most of the russell gruop unis have the LNAT for law now. And do some quick searches on google, to see how many courses you can take to revise and practice for the LNAT. Its common sense that if you give kids more practice with tests situation, they are likely to do better than someone with barely any test experience.

    Of course coaching will improve your test results! Why are there tutors for anything, if not to give extra help, to improve your chances of passing? The more work you do for somthing, as a general rule, the better you will be at it. The more you get used to tests, and take prepared aptitude tests, the better you will be. The more you practice your theory test for driving at home on a CD-ROM, the more likely you are to pass when you take the real test. You really want me to provide evidece that practising things makes you better at them? Or is this another case of claiming that we don't have any evidence,and therefore we are wrong, whether you have any evidence of your own or not?
    I do agree with this, some kids get incredible coaching on the subject, at great costs, and I'm sure it must have some benefit.

    You might not be able to make the child smarter, but you can increase their chances in such a test.

    However to me that only highlights the lack of merit in doing away with grammar schools, because it shows that unfair systems are always going to exist.

    I am not anti the idea of abolishing grammar schools, it's just that I see no merit in abolishing them, people seem stuck on the idea that if we do it will some how change everything, but it won't.

    What we would be better focused on, IMO, is improving the system, making it fairer, and alleviating the problems surrounding it (or even coming up with a completely new system), but abolishing grammar schools at present seems to achieve nothing of any real merit (not in real terms, only in ideal fantasy worlds that don't exist).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)

    One parallel i can draw. You aren't supposed to be able to "revise" for aptitude tests(which is what the 11+ is). The LNAT is an aptitude test, to test peoples aptitude for law. Most of the russell gruop unis have the LNAT for law now. And do some quick searches on google, to see how many courses you can take to revise and practice for the LNAT. Its common sense that if you give kids more practice with tests situation, they are likely to do better than someone with barely any test experience.

    Of course coaching will improve your test results! Why are there tutors for anything, if not to give extra help, to improve your chances of passing? The more work you do for somthing, as a general rule, the better you will be at it. The more you get used to tests, and take prepared aptitude tests, the better you will be. The more you practice your theory test for driving at home on a CD-ROM, the more likely you are to pass when you take the real test. You really want me to provide evidece that practising things makes you better at them? Or is this another case of claiming that we don't have any evidence,and therefore we are wrong, whether you have any evidence of your own or not?
    That you choose to draw a comparison with the LNAT is a move which can only operate in my favour.

    From the LNAT website:

    'We think you should concentrate on exercising the relevant parts of your brain, and on familiarising yourself with the test format. We advise you to be sceptical about anyone's claims to be able to help you do well in the test by coaching. In our view there is nothing that anyone can do to help you get a high LNAT score that you cannot equally do for yourself, if you approach your preparation in a disciplined way.'

    That there are agencies which offer services of the kind which you mention is not evidence that coaching will have a perceptible impact on one's test score.

    Aptitude tests are not comparable to knowledge tests, like driving theory. Of course, practice in these kinds of tests will ensure a higher score. This is not the case wtih aptitude tests, however, which serve to elicit innate skill rather than learnt knowledge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    One thing that annoys the hell out of me about you, is that you claiim things, and then say that is proof.
    Only when it is

    Then i'll say, yes, there is a selection process, but one that is DIFFERENT to grammar schools. Then you'll say "see, there is a selection process, so i'm right"
    As I would be.

    I claimed there was a selection process, you claimed there wasn't.

    There is, isn't there?

    So I was right, you were wrong.

    What annoys me the hell out of you is your inability to admit when you are wrong, and your need to twist and turn in a pointless act of trying to make something wrong appear right for post after post after post, nit picking over every damn technicality you can think of, before sloping off when your argument has nowhere left to run.

    I said there was a selection process, that involves aptitude, you said no.

    The answer was yes.

    Ergo you were wrong.

    End of story, why try and twist and turn it any other way?

    But noone is disputing that a selection process exists for both schools.
    But that's exactly why the subject was brought up, because Roger said there was no form of selction, beyond location and catchment area, that you agreed with, but it was wrong.

    Now you've changed your story again.

    The squabble is about whether they are the same, which you think they are, or different, which they blatantly are.
    LIAR

    So what you are doing then, is saying that grammar schools and comprehensives are similar in that they both select through academic ability, because specialists schools "widely" choose kids who fit well with their specialisation. I'm with roger on syaing that it isn't widely used, and just becaus eyou went through the system, or yo know a few people who did, that is NOT proof that it is widely used.
    No one used the words widely used in the original posts you liar (you lie a lot).

    What was claimed was that such a system existed, which you claimed it didn't.

    Therefore you were wrong.

    Why don't you actually grow the balls to admit when you are wrong for once?

    It gets very annoying talking to a compulsive liar who always distorts what people say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I do agree with this, some kids get incredible coaching on the subject, at great costs, and I'm sure it must have some benefit.

    You might not be able to make the child smarter, but you can increase their chances in such a test.

    However to me that only highlights the lack of merit in doing away with grammar schools, because it shows that unfair systems are always going to exist.

    I am not anti the idea of abolishing grammar schools, it's just that I see no merit in abolishing them, people seem stuck on the idea that if we do it will some how change everything, but it won't.

    What we would be better focused on, IMO, is improving the system, making it fairer, and alleviating the problems surrounding it (or even coming up with a completely new system), but abolishing grammar schools at present seems to achieve nothing of any real merit (not in real terms, only in ideal fantasy worlds that don't exist).
    What people object to, or at least what i object to concerning grammar schools, is first the unfair system which you have just agreed on. Without grammar schools, there would just be comprehensives(lets leave private schools- totally different issue)- and because there wouldn't be any academic ability-selection process, it would even out system, making it fair to all, not just the lucky few. Yes, there is a big problem involving catchment areas, but that makes two problems, dosnt it. At least gettind rid of grammars would get rid one one problem.

    The only way to improve standards in all comprehensives would be to completely shake uo the system so that there is an even mix od social-classes in all school. You shouldnt have any catchment area. Yes, it means some people would have to travel further. So what? Get up earlier. Ride a bike. hen there is an even spred of people whoa re going to do well, and people whowont, instead of there being hug concentrations of both types in single schools, the system won't be fair. And i dont see this happening, and so unfair systems will exist forever. But a the very least, scraping grammars would help make things a bit more fair, though not totally fair.

    You shouldn't separate children into different schools based on ability. Different classes where necessary( necessary meaning that in maths, english or science, especially, but IT- not really), is fine, but not different institutions altogether. Where is the social mixing? I think so many people complain about, say, the "underclass" or the working class, syaing theya re rude,a ggressive, impolite. And yet society ignores them, and shoves them all together. Where will they get good influence from then? You learn things by example. Putting a bunch of "chavs" together, they'll learn from each other. Mix them up with middle-class kids to make frineds with, its likely they'll adopt their attributes. We are making sweeping generalisations here, but we are talking in hypothetical situations, and are using caricature. Im NOT saying all working class are feral chavs, and that they need to learn from those good 'ol middle class kids at all.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    60% and with the abolition of grammar schools that would probably rise to 80%, so the vast majority.
    Where did you get those figures from (an legit question)
    A specialist school can select up to 105 of it's pupils based on aptitude. It isn't anything to do with rejecting students based on aptitude. It is about being allowed to take in students who would otherwise live to far away to be able to normally get a place in a school. It is not there to exclude people who live down the road from the school because they aren't 'good enough'. Those pupils down the road, no matter how 'good' they are would be admitted amongst the 90% unselected pupils (assuming they expressed a wish to go to the school down the road. Both the pupils in your little story would get in on this basis.
    It plays a very great part in this widely used policy.
    Again, no it doesn't If you talk to schools, they actually pick very few of their pupil. Much less than the 105 the ar able to as it's specialist status is often just about getting the extra funding in to a school to improve certain subjects through better teaching. The selecting is a hassle that generally doesnt hel the schools, but takes up time.
    If you are a science based school you are not going to select a pupil who is particularly bad at sciences over a child is who is a hot shot at the subject are you?
    Again, a school may select a child who is good at science, but wouldn't exclude one who is bad, unless they lived too far away. But then the exclusion would be because of the distance they lived from the school and nothing to do with their ability.

    You obviously have not been involved in this process.
    You clearly haven't. You don't have an understanding of how the specialist status schools have works.


    As shown they would still be separated, and for similar reasons to now.

    So where is the difference?
    You haven't shown that they would be separated. You stated something and claimed a particular outcome...an outcome which wouldn't happen.
    I stand by my point that both pupils would get into their first choice school of TSR comp.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Only when it is



    As I would be.

    I claimed there was a selection process, you claimed there wasn't.

    There is, isn't there?

    So I was right, you were wrong.

    What annoys me the hell out of you is your inability to admit when you are wrong, and your need to twist and turn in a pointless act of trying to make something wrong appear right for post after post after post, nit picking over every damn technicality you can think of, before sloping off when your argument has nowhere left to run.

    I said there was a selection process, that involves aptitude, you said no.

    The answer was yes.

    Ergo you were wrong.

    End of story, why try and twist and turn it any other way?



    But that's exactly why the subject was brought up, because Roger said there was no form of selction, beyond location and catchment area, that you agreed with, but it was wrong.

    Now you've changed your story again.



    LIAR



    No one used the words widely used in the original posts you liar (you lie a lot).

    What was claimed was that such a system existed, which you claimed it didn't.

    Therefore you were wrong.

    Why don't you actually grow the balls to admit when you are wrong for once?

    It gets very annoying talking to a compulsive liar who always distorts what people say.
    I'm not doing this with you again. What i've put in that post, answer it, instead of being pedantic over words. You think the selection procedures for comps and gramamrs is the same, and that specialist schools widely use selection for the kids. I dont think it is. Argue that instead, why don't you. I know there is A selection procedure. For the sake of argument(because you miss the gist, as always), lets say we were wrong to say there wasnt a selection procedure and you were right. Now, we have established that both have selection procedures, the debate is whether they are the same, as you assert, or different, as we assert. Take it from there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    That you choose to draw a comparison with the LNAT is a move which can only operate in my favour.

    From the LNAT website:

    'We think you should concentrate on exercising the relevant parts of your brain, and on familiarising yourself with the test format. We advise you to be sceptical about anyone's claims to be able to help you do well in the test by coaching. In our view there is nothing that anyone can do to help you get a high LNAT score that you cannot equally do for yourself, if you approach your preparation in a disciplined way.'

    That there are agencies which offer services of the kind which you mention is not evidence that coaching will have a perceptible impact on one's test score.

    Aptitude tests are not comparable to knowledge tests, like driving theory. Of course, practice in these kinds of tests will ensure a higher score. This is not the case wtih aptitude tests, however, which serve to elicit innate skill rather than learnt knowledge.
    Of course on the LNAT website they'll sya that, because any aptitude test is supposed to be independent of practice. But there are courses available to practise, aren't there?. And note where ive emboldened. Even they agree that getting familiar with the testing format helps. Well, middle class kids pay to get that. Poor people go in blind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    What people object to, or at least what i object to concerning grammar schools, is first the unfair system which you have just agreed on. Without grammar schools, there would just be comprehensives(lets leave private schools- totally different issue)- and because there wouldn't be any academic ability-selection process, it would even out system, making it fair to all, not just the lucky few.
    But that is the point, money, selction processes, and all manner of other factors are still in play, so it is not fair for all, in fact it is possibly more unfair, because that poor student who was intelligent enough to pass the exam might not get the same chances now.

    So that argument does not stand up.

    Yes, there is a big problem involving catchment areas, but that makes two problems, dosnt it. At least gettind rid of grammars would get rid one one problem.
    But it doesn't, does it, we still see money and selection processes involved, and these would grow, not shrink, if grammar schools were abolished, so where is the difference?

    The only way to improve standards in all comprehensives would be to completely shake uo the system so that there is an even mix od social-classes in all school. You shouldnt have any catchment area. Yes, it means some people would have to travel further. So what? Get up earlier. Ride a bike.
    Doesn't that discriminate against even more people?

    Why should I get up earlier, and have a longer day, when the guy next door doesn't?

    And doesn't that even more divide people?

    Wasn't one of the arguments against grammar schools the fact you are divided from other people within your community, so how does shipping you off to another area help this?

    hen there is an even spred of people whoa re going to do well, and people whowont, instead of there being hug concentrations of both types in single schools, the system won't be fair. And i dont see this happening, and so unfair systems will exist forever. But a the very least, scraping grammars would help make things a bit more fair, though not totally fair.
    How would it?

    No ones actually showing how it would make much difference at all.

    You shouldn't separate children into different schools based on ability. Different classes where necessary( necessary meaning that in maths, english or science, especially, but IT- not really), is fine, but not different institutions altogether.
    Why not?

    Where is the social mixing?
    Why do you need this social mixing in the classroom, don't you go to school to learn?

    Do you not have a social life for your social mixing?

    Why do you need to mix in that way anyway?

    I think so many people complain about, say, the "underclass" or the working class, syaing theya re rude,a ggressive, impolite. And yet society ignores them, and shoves them all together. Where will they get good influence from then? You learn things by example.
    That's a pretty ignorant view of the working classes.

    Putting a bunch of "chavs" together, they'll learn from each other. Mix them up with middle-class kids to make frineds with, its likely they'll adopt their attributes. We are making sweeping generalisations here, but we are talking in hypothetical situations, and are using caricature. Im NOT saying all working class are feral chavs, and that they need to learn from those good 'ol middle class kids at all.
    So why make that point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Only when it is



    As I would be.

    I claimed there was a selection process, you claimed there wasn't.

    There is, isn't there?

    So I was right, you were wrong.

    What annoys me the hell out of you is your inability to admit when you are wrong, and your need to twist and turn in a pointless act of trying to make something wrong appear right for post after post after post, nit picking over every damn technicality you can think of, before sloping off when your argument has nowhere left to run.

    I said there was a selection process, that involves aptitude, you said no.

    The answer was yes.

    Ergo you were wrong.

    End of story, why try and twist and turn it any other way?



    But that's exactly why the subject was brought up, because Roger said there was no form of selction, beyond location and catchment area, that you agreed with, but it was wrong.

    Now you've changed your story again.



    LIAR



    No one used the words widely used in the original posts you liar (you lie a lot).

    What was claimed was that such a system existed, which you claimed it didn't.

    Therefore you were wrong.

    Why don't you actually grow the balls to admit when you are wrong for once?

    It gets very annoying talking to a compulsive liar who always distorts what people say.
    One more thing. You said that specialist schools "widely use" their selection process. Go and look. Unless you edited it out. Who is the liar? Thouroughly read post 306. LIAR
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I'm not doing this with you again. What i've put in that post, answer it, instead of being pedantic over words.
    I'm not being pedantic, I just dislike people who lie a lot, and try to missrepresent me and what was said.

    You think the selection procedures for comps and gramamrs is the same, and that specialist schools widely use selection for the kids.
    LIAR

    I dont think it is. Argue that instead, why don't you.
    Because I think it is also important to establish your last post was full of lies.

    I don't see why I shouldn't point out you lied and attempted to missrepresent me instead of being honest enough to admit the truth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    Where did you get those figures from (an legit question)
    A specialist school can select up to 105 of it's pupils based on aptitude. It isn't anything to do with rejecting students based on aptitude. It is about being allowed to take in students who would otherwise live to far away to be able to normally get a place in a school. It is not there to exclude people who live down the road from the school because they aren't 'good enough'. Those pupils down the road, no matter how 'good' they are would be admitted amongst the 90% unselected pupils (assuming they expressed a wish to go to the school down the road. Both the pupils in your little story would get in on this basis.

    Again, no it doesn't If you talk to schools, they actually pick very few of their pupil. Much less than the 105 the ar able to as it's specialist status is often just about getting the extra funding in to a school to improve certain subjects through better teaching. The selecting is a hassle that generally doesnt hel the schools, but takes up time.

    Again, a school may select a child who is good at science, but wouldn't exclude one who is bad, unless they lived too far away. But then the exclusion would be because of the distance they lived from the school and nothing to do with their ability.

    You clearly haven't. You don't have an understanding of how the specialist status schools have works.



    You haven't shown that they would be separated. You stated something and claimed a particular outcome...an outcome which wouldn't happen.
    I stand by my point that both pupils would get into their first choice school of TSR comp.
    You are teacher-training, aren't you? So i'm guessing you know quite a bit about the school systems from an adult, establishment POV, and are more qualified than Paul to talk about various selection procedures?
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.