Poll: Grammar Schools back on the table.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Its just putting a small band aid on an amputeed leg.
Those who are good need to be given the chance go at a fast pace otherwise some get incredibly bored and well get in trouble.
Some people struggle but want to learn they need to be given the opotunity.
Disruptive people. Need to be seperated out. Quite often down to parents, where more help and education to parents and some parents just shouldn't be parents but I don't see any sensable solutions to that issue.
I mean when parents come in and knock a headmaster out, as police where called on their son who stonned someone. Then what chance does that kid have. Quite obviuse where he got that behaviour from.
And education is far to academic focused. Especially in cities there's enough pupils and schools to not have this one size fits all. Obviously core academic subjects still need to be taught to everyone.
But this is all which ever happens know, each party is to interested in their own little world and the opposition is to interested in sticking it to them and won't even back gebuinley good ideas. So you get half arsed stuff which flips flops around every decade.
I almost missed out on higher science and maths due to my lack of English skills. Thankfully persuaded them to put me up.
Those who are good need to be given the chance go at a fast pace otherwise some get incredibly bored and well get in trouble.
Some people struggle but want to learn they need to be given the opotunity.
Disruptive people. Need to be seperated out. Quite often down to parents, where more help and education to parents and some parents just shouldn't be parents but I don't see any sensable solutions to that issue.
I mean when parents come in and knock a headmaster out, as police where called on their son who stonned someone. Then what chance does that kid have. Quite obviuse where he got that behaviour from.
And education is far to academic focused. Especially in cities there's enough pupils and schools to not have this one size fits all. Obviously core academic subjects still need to be taught to everyone.
But this is all which ever happens know, each party is to interested in their own little world and the opposition is to interested in sticking it to them and won't even back gebuinley good ideas. So you get half arsed stuff which flips flops around every decade.
I almost missed out on higher science and maths due to my lack of English skills. Thankfully persuaded them to put me up.
Last edited:
If you think assessing a child's academic ability at eleven is a reliable guide to determining whether or not they are "thick", then you're an idiot.
I'm not sure you understand what "absolutely" means. You're claiming there are no qualifiers to your statement. Differentiating children IS a bad thing when it means that you're closing off the possibility for children to change how they are treated. A grammar school is a decision to radically affect a child's future and opportunities based on a rudimentary judgement of them at the age of eleven. How that is "a bad thing" should be fairly clear.
This much I agree with, but again the issue in your following paragraph is that you start placing children on a track at far too early an age:
Placing children on a particular track (focus on maths, focus on language, focus on art) should be done at a much later stage and on the basis of what they themselves choose to focus on. That is what university is for. Secondary school is about a broad base of general education. Well that and conditioning people to accept a nine to five work day and obedience. It's not the time for deciding that a child will be put into some particular track. Flexibility has to be preserved with the educational system is to be productive and efficient. Railroading children, who are the ultimate in round pegs, is neither efficient as a society nor doing right by the children. There's a principle in software development which is that premature optimization is a bad thing. The same principle applies well to the school system and the sorts of things you're talking about.
Academic excellence (or not) is usually clear to see by the end of KS2. Given that all the latest evidence shows that intelligence is almost entirely genetic, we should be able to clearly differentiate at relatively early stages.
The judgement is not rudimentary.
If you had understood my post properly you would have seen that children shouldn't be treated differently other than tailoring the education to things they have an aptitude in. Their natural aptitudes are unlikely to change through time, although some things nobody has an aptitude for and they must choose to do it and the system must allow for that.
I don't think we'll ever agree but, for example, I do think a system where the naturally gifted mathematicians are segregated and educated in a way that maximises their learning WILL produce world-leading mathematicians. That doesn't mean not producing a baseline level of knowledge in everything else, it just means they are placed with the maths teachers who are best at teaching gifted children and taught at a pace that suits them. They might totally suck at English and are therefore placed in a class with a teacher good at teaching those who are poor at English and at a pace which suits them.
Can't you see how a system like that would maximise the abilities of the child in each area, without removing their individuality?
Waiting until University to specialise is too late. University is too late to be deciding IMO, and the push to get more and more people into Uni is the reason why our Universities are offering more and more "joke" degrees. We wouldn't need people who are degree-level educated in Golf Course Management if our secondary schools could identify people who were fantastic at gardening/landscaping and got them into more appropriate vocational learning early on.
Ah, the brain disease that is "the endless money tree" approach that Labour and their supporters seem to suffer from?
Why bother maximising something in a person when you can simply have a mathematician devise a computer to do the job of 10, 100 or even 1000 people?
We only need mathematicians then, sucks for anyone not good at maths - worthless.
One only need experience a place like San Francisco today vs a couple decades ago to see the future we'll have, 0 culture.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
There are proponents of the ideology that too good an education for the working class man is not beneficial to a country's productivity.... I suspect few here will embrace that though 
There are proponents of the ideology that too good an education for the working class man is not beneficial to a country's productivity.... I suspect few here will embrace that though
Well you put it in a deliberately provocative terminology but changing the wording slightly look at it this way;
"What good is is getting the "less intelligent" into uni, on a Mickey Mouse bull **** degree which loads them with huge debts and they still end up in the same probably less the average yearly salary job they would have done anyway because their bull **** bit of paper is just that and most employers will see this."
Labour's insane desire to push everyone through the highest education level has not helped people so you could argue there is a clear case of over educating someone is not to their benefit.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't aim to improve standards because it's too expensive?
A complete side note, but do universities require lower entry grades from comprehensive school kids, marginally or otherwise? I had lower grade entry requirements than some other people... Presumably because of their "superior" education (private vs comprehensive).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
I'm not against them but agree with Rotty's comments on how selection is applied.
I find it odd how the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott are vociferously against them but they are both products of grammar school. That said, Ms Abbott's hypocrisy on matters educational is well known.
I find it odd how the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott are vociferously against them but they are both products of grammar school. That said, Ms Abbott's hypocrisy on matters educational is well known.
What a ham that man is. What happened to former PMs who had the decency and courage to carry on serving their constituents? I expect he'll be off to some plum job or another. I wonder whether he can find something as inappropriate as Blair going off to be Middle East Peace Envoy? Perhaps he can join the EU commission.
Why's that odd? Someone can be the beneficiary of an unfair system and still recognise it as unfair.
And yet they still send their children to them. Blatant hypocrisy.
Neither Corbyn nor Abbot send their children to a grammar school. The children of both of them went to private school; Corbyn separated from his wife partially because of a falling out over this because he insisted on sending them to the local comprehensive and she strongly disagreed.
In any case, I don't think it's hypocritical to send you own children to private school at the same time as trying to improve education for all. I don't believe either Corbyn or Abbott advocate banning private schools (unlike me, who would ban them).