'New grammar schools will kick-start social mobility' - do you agree?

money matters because?



What is wrong with elitism???


Whats wrong with thinking you're better than somebody? People aren't equal.....


You've complained about elitism- I think you are in for a shock.... Life is about competition and being better than everybody.


In short- continue reading the Guardian.....

Well, we already have the phonics assessments at a very young age and we have numerous children regarded as SEN children although in some subjects they are Gifted. For example, a SEN child can excel in programming whilst suffer major difficulties in English due to dyslexia. Labelling this child as SEN very early off based on their English ability may lead to schools not pushing them far enough in other areas.

The solution is obvious. Focus on humanising everything and focus on allowing children to be children whilst learning from their environment as much as they learn from the teacher. Allow them to become addicted to learning by not being forced to learn things they are not interested in. When you do that, you turn them off learning. When you force a child to eat food, in a lot of cases they rebel and they then go on through life not eating that food because of the psychological effect that has had on them.

It is the same with learning and we now have loads of children disillusioned because they're forced to learn about things they're simply not interested in. It's a turn off for them. Once you allow that love for learning to flourish by letting them learn what they want they will start learning themselves about other things because they will branch out to acquire more knowledge and they become addicted to learning. They want to know more and more.

the biggest question here is: what self respecting person reads the guardian?

How many 5 yr olds do you think will choose maths?....

except...that was my class? That's how I experienced it? and had these problems myself? way to misinterpret what I said! Being in a class full of the smart, richer kids was pretty ridiculous and an entire school built around that seems more separatist and elitist than anything. It wasn't until I left that I realised how unhealthy that environment of thinking we were better than others for doing well in ridiculous tests was.

'not prepared for the real world' what, of exams and memorisation? I don't think I'm going to be the one getting a reality check.

the biggest question here is: what self respecting person reads the guardian?

Least we agree on something.

Nobody suggested entirely removing key compulsory subjects. I'm just saying, at 11-16 children should have more freedom in what they wish to do as opposed to having to choose certain pathways. Usually, this means having to choose one of history or geography. What if you hate both? How demoralising for you if at 11 years of age you want to study electronics but cant as you have to select one of them as your options. I already point you to the Scandinavian system which works. You've chosen yourself to ignore that and have also chosen to not do any research on the topic. Had you done so, you would have seen that Finland has a more highly rated primary and secondary education system than us and thats because it works in favour of pupils as opposed to governments who just want statistics to boost their next election campaign.

The point of being in a grammar school is to be with like minded people (unless you don't like the idea). I admit that any school will have bad people who behave badly, but the is nothing elitist or sepratist to be with similar people who have the genuine interest to learn. I can say that not all of them are obnoxious little sh*theads, who think they are god's gift and not all of them are rich. Some may be, but the reason why you will find more rich ones in a grammar as opposed to in a bog standard comp is becuase if a rick kid couldn't get into a grammar, then they'd go to a private school.

You can, at GCSE. My school said that you never had to study Geography nor History at GCSE. And at 11, do you seriously think that someone could make an informed decision of their future? I had to study Physics (elements of which were gcse standard) for CE at 13, it was hard to understand but not demoralising, it's called a learning curve.

Ideally I'm sure they're great...but I know a lot of people who love learning who'd never get into a grammar school, and vice versa. Your academic intelligence doesn't show how good you behave in class and how much you care about your learning. If they were judged on 'enthusiasm for learning and behaviour' and not grades then maybe I'd be less critical, but I don't think they have a place anymore

Yet all research states this is not true. Why are you refuting the evidence out there which shows the Scandinavian model as working?

Enthusiasm for learning and behaviour would probably be judged by a teacher, but remember that academic rigour is a major part of grammar schools. Academic intellegence can be a result of behaviour and learning (assuming that intellegence isn't genetic here). It can be positive feedback loop, in which the two can increase the other as time passes. There are some "naturally" clever people who don't care about education, but by being enthuastic, you will study harder and you will get better grades and aspire to do great things blah blah blah (in theory).

The success of the Scandinavian system isn't because of students doing what they like (they only pick until they are 15!). It's because of the mentality of the students, the small class sizes (of approximately 20) and how they offer free school meals to the children.

You point out the problems yourself - genetics and theory. There's more to it than just hard work. Obviously it's a mix of the two (as I learnt at A level ) but the idea that you can just work hard, get into a good school and get a great job is incredibly flawed.

Either way, having a dull life full of homework when you're a child shouldn't be a requirement for getting a 'good job' when you're 21+.

Why the sad face? Biology's great (apart from ecology... )

But anyway... genetics can't exactly be a barrier nor a problem. If you remember from bio (apologies if any PTSD flashbacks are induced), enviromental factors influence the genetics. Even if you were the lovechild of Einstein and Stephen Hawking, but was placed in a council estate with Vicky Pollard at birth, then you envionment wouldn't allow you to unleash your maximum genetic potantial. However, you either win the genetic lottery or lose. You have to make most of what you've got and take advantage of what's out there. The system isn't really 100% flawed, but what I would say is that people do slip though the system out of misfourtuneand like the genetic lottery, lady luck can either make you win or lose.

And yes, hw is v. important. Tedious and boring enough to make me want to rip my lungs out and throw them at people, but is necessary. It's helpful for you and the teacher to see if you know your stuff and if you can't give a donkey's testicle about hw, then how can your employer be sure that you give a damn when they ask you do some seeming pointless task? such is life.

Nobody suggested entirely removing key compulsory subjects.

I'm just saying, at 11-16 children should have more freedom in what they wish to do as opposed to having to choose certain pathways. Usually, this means having to choose one of history or geography. What if you hate both? How demoralising for you if at 11 years of age you want to study electronics but cant as you have to select one of them as your options.

I already point you to the Scandinavian system which works. You've chosen yourself to ignore that and have also chosen to not do any research on the topic. Had you done so, you would have seen that Finland has a more highly rated primary and secondary education system than us and thats because it works in favour of pupils as opposed to governments who just want statistics to boost their next election campaign.

I'd rather read the Guardian than the Daily Mail...

But Charlie Brooker is amazing (from self confessed Grauniad reader)...

The Scandinavian system was failing before the changes to the education system. It took years to turn things around and bring a different culture to Finland but it happened. The Scandinavian model works because they, unlike us, learnt from their mistakes and realised that they needed radical change, so they did it.

Yet all research states this is not true. Why are you refuting the evidence out there which shows the Scandinavian model as working?