If Grammar schools were really a meritocracy then the statistics from them would be more balanced. Innate intelligence is not attuned to the class structure.

They are nothing but an opportunity for the middle classes to cement their positions of advantage but in this instance with the assistance of the state.

If someone has worked their way into the middle classes (a rarer outcome today) then that's a success story and not a negative but the state should not be involved in favouring one class over another.

The brightest can be easily catered for from within a comprehensive system. Again, Finland proves all the arguments for Grammars are nothing to do with what is best but instead about the 'I'm alright' mentality.

And that is not a meritocracy.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 May 2017 9.26am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

But they don't right now.
Like I said before. I wanted to keep my kids away from the scum that populate South London state schools.
I remembered my experience at school and didn't want the same for them. I cannot control society but I could have some influence there. If that is what you call an 'I'm alright' attitude then so be it.

I don't really have a problem with your feelings on that. I had a similar crap experience as a child in a comprehensive having to put up with peers who didn't want to learn. There is a significant and disruptive minority of families within the state sector who don't want the pressure and effort that comes with actually maximising their children's education...they want them to get through it and get a job..the family culture is transmitted to their children..What the system will tolerate the system will get. The system is shaped by the law in how it deals with these families....I should of course mention that the state sector also has plenty of wonderful families with great kids.

What I'm talking about is how I believe the state should progress with education.....What we should design for the future.

Personally I don't blame anyone for seeking the best education for their children as that is time limited....What I'm talking about is what the system should be....not what we have....I suppose I'm being idealistic and envious of fairer systems.

Even the top comprehensives here have very few children on free school meals....they find the ways to exclude using their own methods. Grammars in reality are an ideological backwater.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 May 2017 11.36am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

We shouldn't need private schools or grammar schools, the fact that we do and keep arguing for the later, to me suggests that our education system hasn't actually improved at all in 30 years, but continued to be more about achieving scores, than producing educated young people with the necessary basic intellectual skills for society or higher education.

Grammar schools aren't the solution - We need to address the problems of the education system (funding, class size, teachers, special needs education and special programs targeted at failing students to at least give them some hope in the society to which they are going to be released.

Those that would have benefitted from grammar schools, will probably be those who come out of schools and attend higher education (even if its to retake their GCSEs). They're not in need of 'saving from the system' because the second stage of the education system will pick them up (College) and provide them with a recovery route.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

What 30 odd years ago. Shouldn't the questions be about policies now, and the election, rather than his relationship with Sinn Fein in the 80s. Maybe for fairness we should look at the collusion between the UK security services and the UVF and others.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

This election has been fascinating so far, to my mind, because it has shown how popular socialist policies still can be with the electorate at large, and how they can resonate through to people even as the vast majority of the media is hostile.

Remember when everyone one was saying Corbyn was unelectable? They said the same about Sanders, but now both men, probably two of the most extreme leftist figures in their respective countries' politics, have both come perilously close to winning power. Arguably had their own parties been more supportive, they both would've walked it.

If i was the Tories I'd be really worried. Not necessarily about this election as they should still scrape home, but 5, 10, 15 years down the line...people from the younger generations will remember this period, how the Tories showed such hubris and malice towards them.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4