Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| 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. 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 2.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
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 |
|
 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.
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
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 |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.