&#x27;New grammar schools will kick-start social mobility&#x27; - do you agree?

Original post by Pseudocode

No. We should follow a Scandinavian approach. The notion that we need to assess children is ridiculous and this attitude has stemmed from Tory governments wanting to produce cheap labour for their friends in big business. Children do not need to be assessed. They need to be aided to become independent learners in their own environment. They are human beings. Also, there is a tenfold of evidence that this approach works.

You idiot

So how do we know whether a child is actually learning or not? Wait till they reach 16 and they test them? Ooops- just wasted 11 years of their life....

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 42

Original post by billydisco

You idiot

So how do we know whether a child is actually learning or not? Wait till they reach 16 and they test them? Ooops- just wasted 11 years of their life....

Yet Finland has a better education system than ours. Such idiots, aren't they?

Reply 43

Original post by Pseudocode

Yet Finland has a better education system than ours. Such idiots, aren't they?

objectively? By what measurement?

Reply 44

Original post by Jammy Duel

objectively? By what measurement?

They have a world renown education system. We, along with America, and a load of other nations have sent experts across there to look at how they've done it. The Green Party want to implement a similar system and Labour to a degree based on that research. The Tories do not because they want to produce labour fodder for their rich friends.

Reply 45

Original post by Pseudocode

They have a world renown education system. We, along with America, and a load of other nations have sent experts across there to look at how they've done it. The Green Party want to implement a similar system and Labour to a degree based on that research. The Tories do not because they want to produce labour fodder for their rich friends.

So the answers are "no" and "I don't know" then?

Reply 46

Original post by Jammy Duel

So the answers are "no" and "I don't know" then?

No. The answer is 'look up the research yourself' as its 20 past 3 in the morning and I'm trying to watch television with the missus.

Reply 47

Original post by Pseudocode

No. The answer is 'look up the research yourself' as its 20 past 3 in the morning and I'm trying to watch television with the missus.

Martians are real, the proof is out there, go look for it yourself if you don't believe me.

Reply 48

Original post by Jammy Duel

Martians are real, the proof is out there, go look for it yourself if you don't believe me.

Really? Is that the depth of how immature you're going to be about this? I'm done. If you need the last word then feel free to have it.

Reply 49

Maker

20

Original post by billydisco

The same kid who has a better chance in life full-stop?

So if you are against Grammar schools should we also ban parents from encouraging their kids?

I think your intepretation is incorrect. Grammar schools do not give a better education to the socially disadvantaged, otherwise, areas where they exist will have a different achievement profile compared to areas where they don't. As far as I am aware, there is no difference.

If they did what they are suppose to do and give an equal chance to all kids regardless of their social or financial status, then I would support them but they don't.

Reply 50

Original post by Pseudocode

Really? Is that the depth of how immature you're going to be about this? I'm done. If you need the last word then feel free to have it.

Well, you appear to just be spouting the Green Party line. You seem to claim that this research exists and objectively says by some measure you know that their system is better, yet you seem incapable of saying what this measure is, you merely make the declaration that this research exists. Given how easy it is to say what the measure is, say "university attendance", "number of people getting grade x and age y", or even "their students rank best in Europe in standardized test z" the failure to say so implies that you're taking it on blind faith that what you have been told is true.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 51

Original post by Maker

I think your intepretation is incorrect. Grammar schools do not give a better education to the socially disadvantaged, otherwise, areas where they exist will have a different achievement profile compared to areas where they don't. As far as I am aware, there is no difference.

If they did what they are suppose to do and give an equal chance to all kids regardless of their social or financial status, then I would support them but they don't.

I would say that interpretation is questionable too. Where are the few Grammar Schools that still have? Without looking it up I expect it's going to be the better off parts of the country. If you really want to see how good or bad they are for social mobility you want to look at when they were still around en mass, but even that will be flawed because society was very different back then.

Reply 52

Original post by Pseudocode

Yet Finland has a better education system than ours. Such idiots, aren't they?

Besides Nokia and Mika Hakkinen what exactly has Finland given the rest of the world? Nothing.

Reply 53

Original post by Maker

I think your intepretation is incorrect. Grammar schools do not give a better education to the socially disadvantaged, otherwise, areas where they exist will have a different achievement profile compared to areas where they don't. As far as I am aware, there is no difference.

If they did what they are suppose to do and give an equal chance to all kids regardless of their social or financial status, then I would support them but they don't.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by a different achievement profile?

Reply 54

Original post by Jammy Duel

I would say that interpretation is questionable too. Where are the few Grammar Schools that still have? Without looking it up I expect it's going to be the better off parts of the country. If you really want to see how good or bad they are for social mobility you want to look at when they were still around en mass, but even that will be flawed because society was very different back then.

Ah damn you- you beat me to it! That is why I was asking Maker to clarify what he meant. I am guessing he meant Grammar schools are full of middle-class kids. Yes they are, because only Tory (generally wealthier) areas kept the Grammar schools.

The only three LEAs which retain the whole 11+ system regionally are:

Lincolnshire (7 Tory MPs out of 7)
Kent (16 Tory, 1 UKIP MPs out of 17)
Buckinghamshire (7 Tory MPs out of 7)

So, the majority of Grammar schools are in Tory areas........ so not exactly a surprise to see they have a lot of middle class kids in them!

Perhaps if the Labour councils hadn't closed-down the Grammar schools the kids today would be achieving more, instead of being hoodwinked in to studying pathetic A Level subjects and attending a crap polytechnic?

Reply 55

Original post by Pseudocode

They have a world renown education system. We, along with America, and a load of other nations have sent experts across there to look at how they've done it. The Green Party want to implement a similar system and Labour to a degree based on that research. The Tories do not because they want to produce labour fodder for their rich friends.

And what have they done with their amazing education system? Nothing.

Reply 56

Sir Peter Rabbit

Woo, grammar schools. :yes:

The notion that only rich kids get into grammars isn't true. Everyone has access to resources these days and if the parents just aren't bothered then...that's bad luck. :fluffy:

Reply 57

Eanzi

9

Instead of a few classes, a whole school filled with stuck up kids with superiority complexes? No thanks.

Reply 58

DErasmus