Not an objection no...It's more about what I see the role of the state in terms of how it treats children....I'd define middle class is defined by a combination of your income and assets relative to the median.

I don't see the state...an entity meant to represent everyone....as doing its job when it is used to favour the class system.

Besides selection is not always a test of innate intelligence anyway. Children who are coached are more likely to pass the test.

Research has shown that 22% are wrongly attributed, ie some failed who would have passed and vice versa.

Selection takes no account of the fact that children develop at different rates. It assumes that ability is fixed at 10+ and that children have therefore to have a different curriculum and schooling

On this issue I'm a red Tory.

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

In our system yes....Though different systems around the world show that if you design a comprehensive system correctly then it will provide the state with a better all round educated workforce.

When you take the top talent out of the system of course what is left is going to be worse.

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

I totally agree if we are talking about a fair and sensible country like Finland but we are not. We are talking about the U.K and its backward dog eat dog mentality. The only way to achieve what you correctly aspire to is for a full-on social revolution. Ain't going to happen unless the right-wing politicians disappear sharp-ish. It's not their bag. Never will be.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I think May is more red Tory than most....But I agree that the system is riddled with self interest.

I'm not against self interest in many areas....I'm just not sure that the education system.....how we treat the nation's children...is the right forum for it.

Whatever produces the best educated workforce....that's what we need.

Get rid of the human rights lawyers and....well there are so many things.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 May 2017 5.46pm)

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

Surely not the same 'Diane Abbott' who has voted 30 times against increasing the authorities powers to fight terrorism.

What is the point of this? The best attainment scores in the world are from the comprehensive system that Finland have.

That treats all of its children far better.

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

I was previously called the London Labour Briefing, also been the Labour left briefing. Whichever name it uses, it was formed by members of the 'Chartist Minority Tendency', which was a former Trotskyist part of the 'Chartist Collective'. [I know it is hard to keep track of all the communist splintering and name changing that goes on.] The Briefing of many names was a supporter of the Trotskyist 'Militant Tendency' and of Irish Republicanism. Apart from the comments they made that have been previously mentioned, after the Brighton bombing, they published, "What do you call four dead Tories? A start", and mocked Norman Tebbit who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel and who's wife was left permanently paralysed, saying "try riding your bike now, Norman".
So folks, when you vote on 8 June, remember these are the type of people you will be electing if you vote for the hijacked Labour party.

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

It seems to me the big issue is how can you design a system that allows good access to all and that is fair in terms of allowing the brightest roughly the same chance as the competition.

In Croydon we don't have Grammar Schools. But Sutton does. So there is a massive industry in getting Croydon pupils ready to sit the exams for Sutton schools. The industry is based upon parental drive, ability to pay and access to tutors. It also - in my opinion - robs many children of much of their childhood as they are forced into dingy study rooms with tutors for hours each week.

In the end not many children who aren't tutored make it into the Grammar schools. You cannot design tests that remove the effect of being tutored.

So you add together the advantage of the extra academic focus of Grammars schools with the super-demanding and mobilised parents - many of whom are also highly educated and in a position to guide their children far better than most - and you get a virtuous circle. For the few. And almost nobody else gets to break in.

Comprehensives were designed to allow people to move between streams so if you are found to be brighter than at first thought you can progress and vice versa. It is incredibly unusual for people to get 'promoted' into Grammar schools if they miss the first cut.

Grammar schools are therefore automatically divisive and obstructive to social mobility.

Still, what do I care. The State paid for me to go to an independent school when I passed my 11+ due to having been sent to a Prep school.

The home tutor industry is worth 2billion quid. Bright kids from low income families rarely can afford tutors.

I could make a mint myself from tutoring for 11+ but won't out of principle. Those that are tutored tend to drop to the lower sets and struggle.

If selection was more of an even playing field, I'd have less of a problem, notwithstanding the fact that surrounding schools fall below average national expectations when it comes to exam results.

But my kids had no tutoring Einstein.