Jeremy Corbyn

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 328 of 464 < 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 >

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 2.19pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted 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? No he doesn't/wouldn't. Like I said if it was genuinely survival of the fittest - so the brightest and most committed pupils got in - then fine. But it isn't. It is Tarquin who is tutored on how to pass the exam getting in over Tommy who is brighter but doesn't.* It is a fair criticism that the current system sees a skewing anyway. The best schools attract higher house prices around so it is in built into the current system. But doing something that makes it worse isn't the solution. I'm not an educational expert - I've read the research on grammar schools and I've seen the research on the correlation between house prices and Ofsted but that's about it - so I don't know what the solution is (as I acknowledge there is both a problem with our average school performance and with the way the current system favours the better off). But it isn't grammar schools. *No idea why I chose those names - not meaning to offend any Tarquins or Tommys out there. "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

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 2.19pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

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?

No he doesn't/wouldn't. Like I said if it was genuinely survival of the fittest - so the brightest and most committed pupils got in - then fine. But it isn't. It is Tarquin who is tutored on how to pass the exam getting in over Tommy who is brighter but doesn't.*

It is a fair criticism that the current system sees a skewing anyway. The best schools attract higher house prices around so it is in built into the current system. But doing something that makes it worse isn't the solution.

I'm not an educational expert - I've read the research on grammar schools and I've seen the research on the correlation between house prices and Ofsted but that's about it - so I don't know what the solution is (as I acknowledge there is both a problem with our average school performance and with the way the current system favours the better off). But it isn't grammar schools.

*No idea why I chose those names - not meaning to offend any Tarquins or Tommys out there.

"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

hedgehog50 Croydon 23 Mar 17 2.46pm
Originally posted by OknotOK No he doesn't/wouldn't. Like I said if it was genuinely survival of the fittest - so the brightest and most committed pupils got in - then fine. But it isn't. It is Tarquin who is tutored on how to pass the exam getting in over Tommy who is brighter but doesn't.* It is a fair criticism that the current system sees a skewing anyway. The best schools attract higher house prices around so it is in built into the current system. But doing something that makes it worse isn't the solution. I'm not an educational expert - I've read the research on grammar schools and I've seen the research on the correlation between house prices and Ofsted but that's about it - so I don't know what the solution is (as I acknowledge there is both a problem with our average school performance and with the way the current system favours the better off). But it isn't grammar schools. *No idea why I chose those names - not meaning to offend any Tarquins or Tommys out there. I went to a grammar school by passing the 11+. My father was a bricklayer and we lived in a 2 up 2 down terraced house in a working class street. Tutoring? We had two books in our house, the Bible and a boxing encyclopaedia. Look how well I turned out! We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 23 Mar 17 2.46pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

*No idea why I chose those names - not meaning to offend any Tarquins or Tommys out there.

I went to a grammar school by passing the 11+. My father was a bricklayer and we lived in a 2 up 2 down terraced house in a working class street. Tutoring? We had two books in our house, the Bible and a boxing encyclopaedia. Look how well I turned out!

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 23 Mar 17 2.54pm
A complete nutter with a permanent yellow card thats how it turned out.........
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 23 Mar 17 2.54pm

A complete nutter with a permanent yellow card thats how it turned out.........

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 3.01pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I went to a grammar school by passing the 11+. My father was a bricklayer and we lived in a 2 up 2 down terraced house in a working class street. Tutoring? We had two books in our house, the Bible and a boxing encyclopaedia. Look how well I turned out! There will always be exceptions in every story. And like I said I understand why parents would want their kids to attend grammar schools. The question was asked why Corbyn was opposing it. The answer is because some individuals will benefit, but the majority (and particularly the majority of the poor) will not. So I think he is right to do so. Realising I am opening myself up to hypocrisy charges, I benefited from something similar. My dad was a truck driver and picking potatoes when they had to chose schools. I passed entrance exams and got into a posh private school in Edinburgh and then Croydon on scholarships. It was good for me. Doesn't mean it is good for society as a whole. "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

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 3.01pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

There will always be exceptions in every story. And like I said I understand why parents would want their kids to attend grammar schools. The question was asked why Corbyn was opposing it. The answer is because some individuals will benefit, but the majority (and particularly the majority of the poor) will not. So I think he is right to do so.

Realising I am opening myself up to hypocrisy charges, I benefited from something similar. My dad was a truck driver and picking potatoes when they had to chose schools. I passed entrance exams and got into a posh private school in Edinburgh and then Croydon on scholarships.

It was good for me. Doesn't mean it is good for society as a whole.

"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

Hoof Hearted 24 Mar 17 10.39am
Originally posted by OknotOK No he doesn't/wouldn't. Like I said if it was genuinely survival of the fittest - so the brightest and most committed pupils got in - then fine. But it isn't. It is Tarquin who is tutored on how to pass the exam getting in over Tommy who is brighter but doesn't.* It is a fair criticism that the current system sees a skewing anyway. The best schools attract higher house prices around so it is in built into the current system. But doing something that makes it worse isn't the solution. I'm not an educational expert - I've read the research on grammar schools and I've seen the research on the correlation between house prices and Ofsted but that's about it - so I don't know what the solution is (as I acknowledge there is both a problem with our average school performance and with the way the current system favours the better off). But it isn't grammar schools. *No idea why I chose those names - not meaning to offend any Tarquins or Tommys out there. Most people that have responded so far seem to prefer the grammar school system and that includes passers and failers of 11+ who all seem to have turned out alright... I talk to a lot of people my age and almost to a man say the Grammar School system worked well and it was a shame that Labour got rid of it. I don't expect you to change your opinion though, I'm just commenting on my observations.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 24 Mar 17 10.39am

Originally posted by OknotOK

*No idea why I chose those names - not meaning to offend any Tarquins or Tommys out there.

Most people that have responded so far seem to prefer the grammar school system and that includes passers and failers of 11+ who all seem to have turned out alright... I talk to a lot of people my age and almost to a man say the Grammar School system worked well and it was a shame that Labour got rid of it.

I don't expect you to change your opinion though, I'm just commenting on my observations.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 24 Mar 17 11.42am
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Most people that have responded so far seem to prefer the grammar school system and that includes passers and failers of 11+ who all seem to have turned out alright... I talk to a lot of people my age and almost to a man say the Grammar School system worked well and it was a shame that Labour got rid of it. I don't expect you to change your opinion though, I'm just commenting on my observations. Of course the system was not perfect, but it gave kids like me a good education after being selected on merit. Meanwhile the champions of comprehensives only, like Diane Abbott, send their kids to private schools. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 24 Mar 17 11.42am

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

I don't expect you to change your opinion though, I'm just commenting on my observations.

Of course the system was not perfect, but it gave kids like me a good education after being selected on merit. Meanwhile the champions of comprehensives only, like Diane Abbott, send their kids to private schools.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 24 Mar 17 1.20pm
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. I will say it again say maybe this time it sinks in, IF YOU PASS THE ENTRANCE EXAM YOU GET IN, regardless of your social status or what car your mum picks you up in. Realistically that isn't even close to what happens. What happens is that the poorest have less chance of attending grammar schools because middle class and wealthy parents tutor and hothouse their kids to get into them. Because it is cheaper than sending them to private school. Are you saying that parents who work hard for their money shouldn't be able to pay for a better education for their children ? FREEDOM OF CHOICE my good man. To be honest you are sounding more and more like a Marxist mentalist the more I read from you. 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. No it is not a fact, it is your opinion based solely on left wing propaganda, from Compo who himself went to a grammar school as did his kids. 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. Why to the detriment of the rest, it is not up to bright child to pull his sh1t thick muckers through school that is the job of parents and tutors. 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. A land which you seem to be commenting from. "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

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 24 Mar 17 1.20pm

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.

I will say it again say maybe this time it sinks in, IF YOU PASS THE ENTRANCE EXAM YOU GET IN, regardless of your social status or what car your mum picks you up in.

Realistically that isn't even close to what happens.
What happens is that the poorest have less chance of attending grammar schools because middle class and wealthy parents tutor and hothouse their kids to get into them. Because it is cheaper than sending them to private school.

Are you saying that parents who work hard for their money shouldn't be able to pay for a better education for their children ? FREEDOM OF CHOICE my good man. To be honest you are sounding more and more like a Marxist mentalist the more I read from you.

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.

No it is not a fact, it is your opinion based solely on left wing propaganda, from Compo who himself went to a grammar school as did his kids.

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.

Why to the detriment of the rest, it is not up to bright child to pull his sh1t thick muckers through school that is the job of parents and tutors.

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.

A land which you seem to be commenting from.

"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 24 Mar 17 2.04pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Most people that have responded so far seem to prefer the grammar school system and that includes passers and failers of 11+ who all seem to have turned out alright... I talk to a lot of people my age and almost to a man say the Grammar School system worked well and it was a shame that Labour got rid of it. I don't expect you to change your opinion though, I'm just commenting on my observations. I don't know what the popularity of grammar schools in the country. There is probably polling out there but it doesn't really matter. What would change my mind would be statistical evidence that it improves social mobility. And that simply doesn't exist. "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

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 24 Mar 17 2.04pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

I don't expect you to change your opinion though, I'm just commenting on my observations.

I don't know what the popularity of grammar schools in the country. There is probably polling out there but it doesn't really matter.

What would change my mind would be statistical evidence that it improves social mobility. And that simply doesn't exist.

"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

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 24 Mar 17 2.08pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Of course the system was not perfect, but it gave kids like me a good education after being selected on merit. Meanwhile the champions of comprehensives only, like Diane Abbott, send their kids to private schools. The likes of Dianne Abbott were faced with the same decision any parent is - do what is right for everyone or what is right for your child. Most choose the latter. It's almost certainly the decision I would make as well. The state schools in my area (primary and secondary) are generally pretty good and non-selective so it probably won't be a decision I have to labour over for too long. I'd rather see the focus be either how to improve the current system or - if grammar schools are going to be the future - then a way of better identifying potential/ability. Because despite what dannyh says grammar schools do not select the best and brightest. "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

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 24 Mar 17 2.08pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

The likes of Dianne Abbott were faced with the same decision any parent is - do what is right for everyone or what is right for your child. Most choose the latter. It's almost certainly the decision I would make as well.

The state schools in my area (primary and secondary) are generally pretty good and non-selective so it probably won't be a decision I have to labour over for too long.

I'd rather see the focus be either how to improve the current system or - if grammar schools are going to be the future - then a way of better identifying potential/ability.

Because despite what dannyh says grammar schools do not select the best and brightest.

"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

Michaelawt85 Bexley 24 Mar 17 2.16pm
My son wasn't tutored. When he was in year 4 I asked his teacher outright what she felt his chances were of passing it. At that point it stood at 50/50 . The exam favours those who are maths and science minded . I couldn't really afford a tutor at £25 an hour every week. If she had felt he had more chance of passing then I would have made a sacrifice somewhere to scrape the money together to pay for one but I had a decision to make. I can say with all confidence that no amount of driving a flash car, owning instead of renting my property, his father being a city worker rather than a window fitter or any amount of tutoring would have made a hot of difference. He would not have passed that exam and I stand by that. He would struggle in a grammar school and be in all the bottom classes. I will repeat if any of my other children pass that's where they are going. They will get a better education at grammar school. I had extensive experience of it last year with friends . Many had tutored their children to the hilt. Yes you could call them middle class. Homeowners, multiple car white collar workers in the main. A lot of them failed and it came as a bigger shock to the parents. Call me cruel but it was quite a site to behold. The automatic assumption of the monied that they could chuck cash at something and buy their child a better education. Same thing happened this year. I watched all this unfold once again with my own child in the middle of it. Multiple teachers including some on here have quite clearly stated that tutored and coached children who pass often struggle. It is better if they have a natural aptitude for it. Chis and sid only take the top 180 scorers for example. The local comp which is actually an academy where my son is going has 3 separate 'houses' which one you end up in is done by selection test and one is an accelerated curriculum in their own in house grammar stream. My friend is a single mum originally off a rough council estate her son passed the 11+ with flying colours. Not one tutor or practice exam in sight. That put a few peoples backs up lol Edited by Michaelawt85 (24 Mar 2017 2.18pm) When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC
Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85

Bexley 24 Mar 17 2.16pm

My son wasn't tutored. When he was in year 4 I asked his teacher outright what she felt his chances were of passing it. At that point it stood at 50/50 . The exam favours those who are maths and science minded . I couldn't really afford a tutor at £25 an hour every week. If she had felt he had more chance of passing then I would have made a sacrifice somewhere to scrape the money together to pay for one but I had a decision to make.
I can say with all confidence that no amount of driving a flash car, owning instead of renting my property, his father being a city worker rather than a window fitter or any amount of tutoring would have made a hot of difference. He would not have passed that exam and I stand by that. He would struggle in a grammar school and be in all the bottom classes. I will repeat if any of my other children pass that's where they are going. They will get a better education at grammar school.

I had extensive experience of it last year with friends . Many had tutored their children to the hilt. Yes you could call them middle class. Homeowners, multiple car white collar workers in the main. A lot of them failed and it came as a bigger shock to the parents. Call me cruel but it was quite a site to behold. The automatic assumption of the monied that they could chuck cash at something and buy their child a better education.

Same thing happened this year. I watched all this unfold once again with my own child in the middle of it. Multiple teachers including some on here have quite clearly stated that tutored and coached children who pass often struggle. It is better if they have a natural aptitude for it. Chis and sid only take the top 180 scorers for example.

The local comp which is actually an academy where my son is going has 3 separate 'houses' which one you end up in is done by selection test and one is an accelerated curriculum in their own in house grammar stream. My friend is a single mum originally off a rough council estate her son passed the 11+ with flying colours. Not one tutor or practice exam in sight. That put a few peoples backs up lol

Edited by Michaelawt85 (24 Mar 2017 2.18pm)

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC

Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85 Bexley 24 Mar 17 2.20pm
Originally posted by OknotOK Because despite what dannyh says grammar schools do not select the best and brightest. Yes they do. I got it almost spot on which children from my son's year would pass and which wouldn't. The most academic children pass and go there. End of When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC
Alert a moderator to this post

Michaelawt85

Bexley 24 Mar 17 2.20pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

Because despite what dannyh says grammar schools do not select the best and brightest.

Yes they do. I got it almost spot on which children from my son's year would pass and which wouldn't. The most academic children pass and go there. End of

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 24 Mar 17 2.27pm
Originally posted by OknotOK The likes of Dianne Abbott were faced with the same decision any parent is - do what is right for everyone or what is right for your child. Most choose the latter. It's almost certainly the decision I would make as well. The state schools in my area (primary and secondary) are generally pretty good and non-selective so it probably won't be a decision I have to labour over for too long. I'd rather see the focus be either how to improve the current system or - if grammar schools are going to be the future - then a way of better identifying potential/ability. Because despite what dannyh says grammar schools do not select the best and brightest. Bullsh1t If you really believe those that turn up with the fattest wallet get in, then I can't help you. Edited by dannyh (24 Mar 2017 2.32pm) "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

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 24 Mar 17 2.27pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

The state schools in my area (primary and secondary) are generally pretty good and non-selective so it probably won't be a decision I have to labour over for too long.

I'd rather see the focus be either how to improve the current system or - if grammar schools are going to be the future - then a way of better identifying potential/ability.

Because despite what dannyh says grammar schools do not select the best and brightest.

Bullsh1t

If you really believe those that turn up with the fattest wallet get in, then I can't help you.

Edited by dannyh (24 Mar 2017 2.32pm)

"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

Page 328 of 464 < 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors