Poorer students to get two grade "head start"!

Could any of those expressing such 'outrage' at this idea please explain to me exactly what the proposals being made are, and how exactly they will impact on the grades of 'poorer' students? The only mention of a two grade 'head start' is in the opening paragraph, and maybe I'm missing something but there's no more information than that in this article; the rest is horribly vague. So what exactly is it you're all screaming about?

Maybe. You can't assume. It's not fair on those who ARE middleclass, seeing their achievements get devalued based on guesswork.

I am not surprised. This is the mentality of socialism.

Why does everyone forget this: No National Curriculum! No "one-size-fits-all" strategy!

No, they're not academically equal. If they were academically equal they'd have the same grades. Life isn't Billy Elliot and universities can't dole out extra UCAS points for "trying hard" - everyone's got some sort of sob story they can tell about how they could have done better if they went to a better school/had more money/had both parents still around/didn't have so many days off sick/had been fed more Marmite when they were younger...

While we can't know what grades someone would get living in different situations, there's plenty of sociological evidence to show working-class people are disadvantaged by the education system, which I'm not going to again. Besides, middle-class grades wouldn't change; they'd just have to compete against people they should be competing against anyway if the system was fair. Which is surely positive for the country as the people who are best for the job would get the position, rather than the one with richer parents.

Oh, and grammar schools really don't work.

This kind of thing makes me angry. Instead of dealing with the problem properly, politicians think 'levelling the playing field' or 'giving less advantaged students a boost' is the way to solve the issue. No, it just screws over people who have really worked to be where they are. Sometimes a survival-of-the-fittest system is better than positive descrimination or manipulation, however 'unfair' it might seem.

No. Improve education, make student loans at a level accessible to everyone and accept the fact that some students don't have the motivation or the brains to make it to decent universities.

I'm going to retire before my kids turn 16, and send them to private school whilst claiming a 2 grade bonus and EMA. I hate this country.

I would assume it would be one of their grades bumped up by 2, surely it cannot be as rediculous to assume a CCC grade student would be bumped up to AAA

Rediculous proposal.

Again, you're trying to simplify something very complex. There's more to academic attainment than natural ability!

If you don't like it here, feel free to leave, nobody's stopping you!

It's the opposite of assuming working-class people are 'thick'. The scheme recognises that in the current system, grades aren't awarded based on someone's natural ability, but from their background. I'm interested in the 'sociological crap' you could bring in to support your argument, as most sociological studies in this area show that working-class children are disadvantaged by the education system, and would actually support these measures.

Hmm, having read the article, i'm not sure where i stand. Instead of being somewhat unfair to middle class candidates who have got the grades, they should push the already qualified GPs to go and work in the lower class areas; a much cheaper response in terms of political capital.

They've wasted a spot which a hard-working student could have had.

This is just another way of showing how labour are failing. They claim state schools are as good as private schools at educating kids. So, why do kids from poor backgrounds (who, generally speaking) will go to state schools NEED a headstart if they're being educated just as well?

Yes, exactly. Whilst the proposals are ridiculous and would take an upheaval to enforce, the government has been pushed into a corner to look for solutions to a difficult problem. It's the GPs that have already qualified that are causing the problem; in refusing to work in lower income areas there is a shortage of healthcare coverage, and the government should really grab this bull by its horns.

Last time I checked this country was a democracy, and this thread was asking for opinions on government policy.

As an aside, could any of the pro-grammar lobby in here show that the grammar system has improved social mobility in those areas of the UK that still have state-funded grammar schools, compared to the areas that don't?

But surely someone who's had to fight all these factors, and has still come out with decent grades is academically equal to the middle-class pupil who has been helped by his parents, is more respected by the teachers and has the material benefits of coming from a higher income family. If their positions were switched, then it is highly likely their grades would too. Isn't it wrong to deny the working-class student a chance to study at the country's best universities and to get a higher paid job just because someone else happened to have been born in a family that gave them these advantages?