M501 – Grammar Schools Motion 2018

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
M501 – Grammar Schools Motion 2018, TSR Libertarian Party
This House believes that the government should commit to the expansion and reformation of grammar schools.

Grammar schools can be a good way of encouraging social mobility, but at the moment there are issues that need addressing within the system to ensure this is done. This House believes that entry criteria for grammar schools should be lowered to allow more children the opportunity to access a grammar school education. Quotas should also be introduced to bring the representation of those children from less affluent backgrounds more in line with that of ordinary state schools. This House also supports the addition of verbal reasoning to to the national curriculum for primary schools in order to allow all children to practice this aspect of the admissions tests, not just those whose parents can afford private tuition.

To cater for the increased number of children able to access such an education, this House believes that there should be an expansion of grammar schools. To do this, the government should ensure that a percentage of all new schools that are built are grammar schools, phasing them into every local education authority over time.

This House believes that this reform and expansion would allow the nation’s children to be able to access the education that they deserve, one which has the capability of allowing even the most disadvantaged children to excel and reach their full potential.
0
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
How would an oversubscribed grammar school choose its students if not their test scores?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Aye.

We need to promote social mobility as much as possible, and grammar schools are proven to work as engines of such social mobility.
0
Jarred
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
The kids who are most let down by our education system are the ones who would never get into a grammar school. They would be left to rot even more than they already are. The “social mobility” argument is always used in this debate purely anecdotally and always by right wing types who despise any move towards social mobility on any other policy. Forgive me for never trusting that argument.

Grammars are a right wing system designed to segregate poor people from rich people and should never be supported. Worst still, they don’t work.

I’d say we’re best with rigorous per-subject streaming within the comprehensive system. At least then it can work more dynamically and adjust to constant progress, rather than through arbitrary tests that only rich kids can pass
3
_gcx
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Nay. State comprehensives regularly outperform grammars, and the problem is funding and the variable quality of teaching. (which ultimately comes to the former) We should not lower entry standards in the name of social mobility, that just lowers overall standards and ultimately leads to a lower quality of education. Exactly the opposite of what we want. Education should be accessible but should not compromise academic standards as proposed.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by _gcx)
Nay. State comprehensives regularly outperform grammars, and the problem is funding and the variable quality of teaching. (which ultimately comes to the former) We should not lower entry standards in the name of social mobility, that just lowers overall standards and ultimately leads to a lower quality of education. Exactly the opposite of what we want. Education should be accessible but should not compromise academic standards as proposed.
Hear Hear. Good to see you make a stand against your party on this issue
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Nay for the idea of quotas, it should be based on ability
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
The entry criteria should not be lowered unless the school chooses to do so and there should be no quotas, an able student should not be denied a better education just because they're richer or whiter or straighter than somebody less able.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by _gcx)
Nay. State comprehensives regularly outperform grammars, and the problem is funding and the variable quality of teaching. (which ultimately comes to the former) We should not lower entry standards in the name of social mobility, that just lowers overall standards and ultimately leads to a lower quality of education. Exactly the opposite of what we want. Education should be accessible but should not compromise academic standards as proposed.
[citation needed]
0
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Aye.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Aye.

In my capacity as Secretary of State for Education, I am already committed to the expansion of grammar schools throughout the United Kingdom. As a Government, we were elected on a pragmatic manifesto that cited our commitment to reintroducing grammar schools in Wales and more generally supporting grammar schools. It is my personal opinion that, and one shared by some members of my party, that we ought to go above this commitment.

In my Ministerial Report, I set out this Government's plans in respect to grammar schools more fully - including the stipulations of facilitating expansion.
0
LibertarianMP
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Aye, coming round on the idea of grammar schools myself at the moment so perfect timing really
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Aye. I believe we’ve already committed to this idea in our Queen’s Speech but it’s nice to hear the Libertarian’s have shown interest too.
0
CountBrandenburg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
I’m abstaining on this one, whilst the plan was to indeed build a grammar school in every LEA last term, I still find it hard to stomach to quotas ( even with going to a grammar school myself, with quotas being employed by the trust overseeing almost all the grammars in the area - which I struggle to see why it hasn’t contributed to a decline in quality to what had been some great schools)
Rather I’d like to see the targeting of the opening of new grammar schools in the more deprived areas within a city as a priority since people will naturally gravitate towards schools in their locale , though I can still support the expansion of grammars to every LEA
0
Bluestar511
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
Aye. Grammar schools are an excellent way to give working class students with potential an opportunity to escape poverty.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
I agree with the use of quotas although there is no point lying to ourselves and saying this is possible without reducing the criteria for admissions. I like having selective schools, European education systems generally tend to offer more choice and I believe, as a rule, choice is helpful as it caters for different needs, but if we want academic students of a less privileged background to enter selective schools the requirements have to be reduced as they are naturally disadvantaged.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Saunders16)
I agree with the use of quotas although there is no point lying to ourselves and saying this is possible without reducing the criteria for admissions. I like having selective schools, European education systems generally tend to offer more choice and I believe, as a rule, choice is helpful as it caters for different needs, but if we want academic students of a less privileged background to enter selective schools the requirements have to be reduced as they are naturally disadvantaged.
This motion does in fact call for the lowering of entry criteria, in case you missed it.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
This motion does in fact call for the lowering of entry criteria, in case you missed it.
I did miss that actually, thank you. In that case, I am very happy with this motion, but I would say that because I believe this is my policy from when I was in the party
0
Sanjith Hegde123
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
Aye,
The following post is an anecdotal story, but reflects many other stories. I'm not rich, and was not born in England, neither were my parents. 5 years after birth, my family is struggling but doing ok. The only thing that could possibly set me big at the moment was education. So I decided to study hard for whatever came to me, and when my family heard about the 11+ I decided to work really hard to get into a grammar school and succeeded in doing so.
The only thing that got me into a grammar school was the hard work that was put in, and in reality, that is the ONLY thing required.
Sure, you are more likely to get in if you come from a privileged background but it's not a segregation act of any sort.
1
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
This motion does in fact call for the lowering of entry criteria, in case you missed it.
Why have so many people missed my comment in the second post? A school can't just lower entry criteria and accept 10 times as many kids. And the only way they have to pick kids is to go by the highest scorers, effectively raising the entry criteria back up to where it was.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (275)
34.03%
No (533)
65.97%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed