You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
January 18 2021 10.37am

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 327 of 463 < 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 >

 

View dannyh's Profile dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 22 Mar 17 3.05pm Send a Private Message to dannyh Add dannyh as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Michaelawt85's Profile Michaelawt85 Flag Bexley 22 Mar 17 4.01pm Send a Private Message to Michaelawt85 Add Michaelawt85 as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View OknotOK's Profile OknotOK Flag Cockfosters, London 22 Mar 17 4.13pm Send a Private Message to OknotOK Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add OknotOK as a friend

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.


Edited by OknotOK (22 Mar 2017 4.13pm)

 


"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Sedlescombe's Profile Sedlescombe Flag Sedlescombe 22 Mar 17 4.18pm Send a Private Message to Sedlescombe Add Sedlescombe as a friend

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.


Edited by OknotOK (22 Mar 2017 4.13pm)

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Michaelawt85's Profile Michaelawt85 Flag Bexley 22 Mar 17 4.31pm Send a Private Message to Michaelawt85 Add Michaelawt85 as a friend

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.


Edited by OknotOK (22 Mar 2017 4.13pm)

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View OknotOK's Profile OknotOK Flag Cockfosters, London 22 Mar 17 4.57pm Send a Private Message to OknotOK Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add OknotOK as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dannyh's Profile dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 23 Mar 17 12.29pm Send a Private Message to dannyh Add dannyh as a friend

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.


So that's why he he has to object at every turn. Well done him for doing so.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View OknotOK's Profile OknotOK Flag Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 12.36pm Send a Private Message to OknotOK Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add OknotOK as a friend

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.
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.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View gbox82's Profile gbox82 Flag Meols, Wirral 23 Mar 17 12.48pm Send a Private Message to gbox82 Add gbox82 as a friend

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.


Edited by OknotOK (22 Mar 2017 4.13pm)

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
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.
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.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 23 Mar 17 1.04pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View OknotOK's Profile OknotOK Flag Cockfosters, London 23 Mar 17 2.13pm Send a Private Message to OknotOK Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add OknotOK as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 327 of 463 < 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn