This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 dannyh  wherever I lay my hat....... 22 Mar 17 3.05pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
The bearded tramp had a dig at the PM at questions for the amount of funding being made available for grammar schools, Much to the delight of the shadow home secretary Diane (pig in knickers) Abbott, calling it a divisive policy, and that " he wanted a staircase for all, not a ladder for a few". Him and truffle pig were of course put immediately back in their box when the PM pointed out HE himself went to one, as did one of the snouted ones offspring. "Typical labour, taking up the advantage, then pulling up the ladder behind them." If you can't win a war of words over an education system that is in total melt down then please just fcuk off you useless article.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Michaelawt85 Bexley 22 Mar 17 4.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
The bearded tramp had a dig at the PM at questions for the amount of funding being made available for grammar schools, Much to the delight of the shadow home secretary Diane (pig in knickers) Abbott, calling it a divisive policy, and that " he wanted a staircase for all, not a ladder for a few". Him and truffle pig were of course put immediately back in their box when the PM pointed out HE himself went to one, as did one of the snouted ones offspring. "Typical labour, taking up the advantage, then pulling up the ladder behind them." If you can't win a war of words over an education system that is in total melt down then please just fcuk off you useless article. Far be it from me to point out but the grammar system (in boroughs which have it) IS accessible for all . Costs nothing to enter your child for the exam. The resources can all be found online free of charge , yes paying a tutor obviously helps however the children who have been coached heavily often struggle once at grammar school and much of it comes down to a natural ability or aptitude. Quite why the Labour party needs to object at every turn (in my eyes for the sake of disagreeing) is beyond me.
When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 22 Mar 17 4.13pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Michaelawt85
Far be it from me to point out but the grammar system (in boroughs which have it) IS accessible for all . Costs nothing to enter your child for the exam. The resources can all be found online free of charge , yes paying a tutor obviously helps however the children who have been coached heavily often struggle once at grammar school and much of it comes down to a natural ability or aptitude. Quite why the Labour party needs to object at every turn (in my eyes for the sake of disagreeing) is beyond me. Why? Because grammar schools have been proven rather than increasing social mobility to prevent it. Because they have been shown to contribute to an overall decline in standards. Because all the evidence says that grammar schools result in the poor being worse off. Grammar schools are good for the select few that get in. For everyone else they are $hit. Should also be said that Corbyn effectively ended his marriage because of a dispute over sending their kid to a grammar school. He wanted his kid to go to the local comp and his missus said no. Look at every piece of educational research out there and it confirms that grammar schools are a bad idea.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sedlescombe Sedlescombe 22 Mar 17 4.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Why? Because grammar schools have been proven rather than increasing social mobility to prevent it. Because they have been shown to contribute to an overall decline in standards. Because all the evidence says that grammar schools result in the poor being worse off. Grammar schools are good for the select few that get in. For everyone else they are $hit. Should also be said that Corbyn effectively ended his marriage because of a dispute over sending their kid to a grammar school. He wanted his kid to go to the local comp and his missus said no. Look at every piece of educational research out there and it confirms that grammar schools are a bad idea.
Why not improve all schools rather than just a gimmick of pandering to Grammar schools who do no better than comprehensives for adding value.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Michaelawt85 Bexley 22 Mar 17 4.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Why? Because grammar schools have been proven rather than increasing social mobility to prevent it. Because they have been shown to contribute to an overall decline in standards. Because all the evidence says that grammar schools result in the poor being worse off. Grammar schools are good for the select few that get in. For everyone else they are $hit. Should also be said that Corbyn effectively ended his marriage because of a dispute over sending their kid to a grammar school. He wanted his kid to go to the local comp and his missus said no. Look at every piece of educational research out there and it confirms that grammar schools are a bad idea.
I agree to the point that it's feels as though your child is being thrown on the educational scrap heap to a degree by being deemed non selective. We have just been through this whole process a few months ago and my son didn't pass his 11+ . I do agree the non selective schools should be sorted out and brought up to a better standard. I agree 100% BUT I have never made any secret of the fact that had my son passed he would have gone to grammar school in a heart beat. The results of those schools speak for themselves where I live. They are head and shoulders above the state sector. My other children will all be put through the selection system and should any of the others pass they will be educated at such a school . I did well at school in the state sector myself 1 A*, 3A , 6B, 2x c grade at gcse and 2 a and 1 b at A level. I wish I had the opportunity to have gone to grammar school. I believe I would have done even better (croydon obviously didn't and still doesn't have the 11 plus)
When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 22 Mar 17 4.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Michaelawt85
I agree to the point that it's feels as though your child is being thrown on the educational scrap heap to a degree by being deemed non selective. We have just been through this whole process a few months ago and my son didn't pass his 11+ . I do agree the non selective schools should be sorted out and brought up to a better standard. I agree 100% BUT I have never made any secret of the fact that had my son passed he would have gone to grammar school in a heart beat. The results of those schools speak for themselves where I live. They are head and shoulders above the state sector. My other children will all be put through the selection system and should any of the others pass they will be educated at such a school . I did well at school in the state sector myself 1 A*, 3A , 6B, 2x c grade at gcse and 2 a and 1 b at A level. I wish I had the opportunity to have gone to grammar school. I believe I would have done even better (croydon obviously didn't and still doesn't have the 11 plus) And that's fine for you as an individual looking after your individual child. But for the leader of the opposition, he should rightly oppose the reintroduction of an institution which has been proven time and time again to be detrimental to the vast vast majority of the population. So that's why he he has to object at every turn. Well done him for doing so. As Sedlescombe said, focus should be on improving standards across the state sector rather than going contrary to every single piece of research for nothing other than to pander to a certain element of the electorate. Edited by OknotOK (22 Mar 2017 5.00pm)
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 23 Mar 17 12.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
And that's fine for you as an individual looking after your individual child. I thought the basis of a democracy was freedom of choice ? typically as Grammar schools do not fit into Compo's "right on" policies all of a sudden they are bad and selective/divisive But for the leader of the opposition, he should rightly oppose the reintroduction of an institution which has been proven time and time again to be detrimental to the vast vast majority of the population. Going back to his comment about being selective, and yours about being them being detrimental to the "vast (so vast you said it twice) majority of the population" is simply untrue, any parent of any child can put there child forward, if they are intelligent they get in, if not they don't. What is so wrong with rewarding talent ? why are we so against promoting ourselves in this country. You don't in my book have a right to the best education unless you show your going to excel academically.
Hypocritical at best. How many of his party workers are taken from the local "academy" our local college, most if not all would have degrees and gone through one Uni or another, your not going to get a CV from someone who was in and out of borstal, and think holy fcuk this guy sounds awesome are you ? As Sedlescombe said, focus should be on improving standards across the state sector rather than going contrary to every single piece of research for nothing other than to pander to a certain element of the electorate. Again this comment is staggeringly loaded to suit your own agenda and factually incorrect, as previously stated Grammar schools set a high standard if you can reach that standard your in, if your a thick fcuk you don't. It is a fact of the human race that some people are more blessed in the brain cell department than others, and those people deserve a chance to use that talent. Us lesser mortals still have a very good education system that is there for the taking if you work hard. I went to an all boys state school and got 9 GCSE's 6 B's and 3 C's not bad for a piss poor state education system. Edited by OknotOK (22 Mar 2017 5.00pm)
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 12.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
If grammar schools were a tool that selected the brightest from all backgrounds and gave them the opportunity to succeed that would be great. Realistically that isn't even close to what happens. That's just a fact. It is what happened when they were universal and it is what happens now where they are still in use. And worse is that where they exist they suck resources and brighter children out of the non-selective system to the detriment of the rest. If grammar schools just took the brightest students regardless of socio-economic background then they would be a worthy tool. But they don't. That only happens in a fantasy la-la land.
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| gbox82 Meols, Wirral 23 Mar 17 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
Why? Because grammar schools have been proven rather than increasing social mobility to prevent it. Because they have been shown to contribute to an overall decline in standards. Because all the evidence says that grammar schools result in the poor being worse off. Grammar schools are good for the select few that get in. For everyone else they are $hit. Should also be said that Corbyn effectively ended his marriage because of a dispute over sending their kid to a grammar school. He wanted his kid to go to the local comp and his missus said no. Look at every piece of educational research out there and it confirms that grammar schools are a bad idea.
So how is a comprehensive system where there is a strong correlation between affluence of the area and school performance any better? Surely that just makes the gap between rich and poor even wider?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 23 Mar 17 12.56pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by OknotOK
If grammar schools were a tool that selected the brightest from all backgrounds and gave them the opportunity to succeed that would be great. Realistically that isn't even close to what happens. That's just a fact. It is what happened when they were universal and it is what happens now where they are still in use. And worse is that where they exist they suck resources and brighter children out of the non-selective system to the detriment of the rest. If grammar schools just took the brightest students regardless of socio-economic background then they would be a worthy tool. But they don't. That only happens in a fantasy la-la land. The methods utilised by any parents to get their kids into the best schools is always going to be a factor surely? House prices preclude the poorer parents who can't afford to move to the catchment area of the most successful schools. So what if some parents pay for additional teaching to aid their kid's chances of passing the 11+ ? Darwin refers to it as Natural Selection or Survival of the fittest. I failed my 11+ in 1965 because I was more interested in football and my Dad was a milkman living in a council house and obviously couldn't or wouldn't pay extra for my schooling. I ended up going to an all boys secondary modern school, but I got 8 O Levels and " A's in Pure Maths and Applied Maths, and was offered 2 places at Uni. Hardly an indictment of the failure of the grammar school system in my experience?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 23 Mar 17 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Michaelawt85
Far be it from me to point out but the grammar system (in boroughs which have it) IS accessible for all . Costs nothing to enter your child for the exam. The resources can all be found online free of charge , yes paying a tutor obviously helps however the children who have been coached heavily often struggle once at grammar school and much of it comes down to a natural ability or aptitude. Quite why the Labour party needs to object at every turn (in my eyes for the sake of disagreeing) is beyond me. Especially since their restructuring of schools created falling standards and the mess we have today.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 2.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by gbox82
So how is a comprehensive system where there is a strong correlation between affluence of the area and school performance any better? Surely that just makes the gap between rich and poor even wider? It's a fair criticism of the current system. But the solution to that shouldn't be something that has been proven to make it even worse?
"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.