Poorer students to get two grade "head start"!

I'm glad we don't follow the English system and still have academic selection (Although if Catriona ******* Ruane gets her way...). It allows working class pupils (such as myself) an opportunity to get into the best schools and get a shot at Oxbridge, not because of where I live or how much my parents earn, but because of my own academic ability. If the government tried to give me a two grade head start because I'm from a low income family I'd be more than offended.

The stereotype that poor = chav is also really irritating, also that if you lived on a council estate you must be a chav. I am both and am nowhere near a scally, thank you very much. Although it is amusing to see the reactions of middle-class people at school when I tell them I used to live on the scalliest estate in the entire area!

That's why we should have grammar schools, but if people don't do well in the 11+, they can transfer to the grammar at the end of a year if they do well in exams.

What are you talking about?

"Every child is born equal, for this reason there should be no separation"? But you acknolwedge yourself that genes vary. Therefore, some children are more intelligent than others. It makes sense to educate the intelligent ones together, doesn't it? so they can go at a pace which suits them. In the same way, it is no use for the less academic if they are continually forced to move between topics without understanding them.

If someone mucked up the test, but did very well at their secondary school, they could transfer to the grammar after a year. I thought that was reasonably commonplace?

Now I respect that you have a tough time, hell I could be in the category. But do you know what you proved - you're a state schooler with self-motivation so you don't need the grade boost. What are you trying to say - you need it?

I didn't say every public schooler was self-motivated but I do believe they worked hard because at the end of the day, regardless of anything else, it's what you put on the damn exam paper that gives you your A.

Tbh, that's life! There's NO formula that if you put in X amount of hours, you get this! I can't that, you can't and neither can the government can with this system.

At the end of the day, everyone has to put in different amounts of work to get what they want, because, hello, we're all different! I don't think you've grasped that point yet. Because tbh, your example can go the other way, i.e.:

2 pupils of exactly the same IQ/potential etc. Pupil A goes to a great school so goes home, does 3 hours of homework, but *doesn't* understand everything and he missed to get 3As. Pupil B goes to a crap school where half the teachers are supplies, so when he goes he has to spend 3 hours, 1.5 for doing the homework and 1.5 to self-teach. He gets 3As. (To make things fair they do the same amount of work). Now because of the system, why should Pupil B get the grade boost because of his background, when Pupil A clearly struggled and is not entitled to it? Isn't that unfair and discriminating *against* people from great schools? I.e. one of the biggest flaws in this system?

Btw, tbh, how the bloody **** is that discrimination to make him (in response to your Q at the end) work twice as hard for the same uni place? WHAT A FAIL! Of course, in life, people have to work harder than others because ffs we're all different! We're not all robots that compute at the same time as others! Personally, if someone is made to "work harder" for the same uni place, that's to ******* see if they are capable of that place. If you're not, you don't get in. Simple as that. And tbh, isn't it fair that the uni actually gave the ******* offer in the first place to SEE if he had true potential? If you want to get in, work ******* hard for it. And that brings me back to the point of regardless of anything, you have put in sheer hard work. I can't change the fact that it's fact people put in different amounts of work. Why? It's common sense! What you put in, you get out - FOR YOU. Who gives a **** a private school pupil does 2 hours a night whereas you do 4? What's for him. This is YOU! In fact, school backgrounds doesn't even have to come into this:

Pupil C and D have same income/potential etc etc, both go to the SAME state school but C has to put in 4 hours a night, one puts in 2. Get AAA. Isn't that just life?

This is REALITY! But this is not about working harder/less than the other applicant. **** no. It's about working for YOU. What YOU put in is what YOU get out.

Any more questions? Because tbh, life isn't fair and it will never be. Society is flawed and the UK education system is screwed. That's how it is. In fact everything isn't fair. Life isn't something you can coast through. Everything YOU put in is what YOU get out of.

Decent state schools in the first place is the answer. Bring back Grammer schools and improve comps.

That is rather unfair.
My mum and dad are not overly well of. They're middle class. But they've worked very hard for the money they've got. Neither were brought up in middle class families. They both grew up on farms and had little money. Dad still works on a farm and does not get paid well but my mum h as studied very hard over the years as a nurse. Shes done various diplomas and due to this is well paid for a nurse. And because of this I would get penalised. I would have to work harder at school to get better grades because of these proposals. while having to also work at my part time job because i don't qualify for ema or grants for uni. and my mum and dad can't afford to fund university.

More chavs failing their degrees then. Honestly, what system would justly turn a C into an A, or a D into a B? That's, like, insane innit bro?

Oh, and grammar schools should be brought back in. But to stop all the whiny socialists who go on about the chavs being "left behind" there should be entry points after the 11+ at 13 and 16.

Since when does family income affect a childs ability to succeed in education? Absolute nonsense.

I'm not saying that the proposal is fantastic and after 12 years of New Labour we shouldn't have poor kids and poor schools.

Of course discrimination is discrimination whatever way you look at it, so this is a bit of a catch 22 situation. It's about picking the fairest option. I'd go with Mandy's one and hurry up and get schools improving so this policy can go to bed

What have poor kids got to do with chavs? Are you suggesting poor people are criminals?

Are you suggesting all chavs are criminals?

Then when the student starts higher education they might find it too difficult because they haven't got the necessary grade profile they need as a foundation to build their studies on.