[Closed] Grammar Schools, again.....

Just for my benefit, can someone please make a non-ranty bullet point list of why they are a bad idea? (i went to one and i'm fairly glad i did, this was in 1981. Parents firmly working class, we didn't have a car all the same colour until about 1995.)

My son is taking his 11+ today.

We did not have any tutoring but we are the only one.

People are travelling miles to join some schools, Dartford Grammar for example.

Calday Grange Grammar did me the world of good from 1985-1992, it turned my brain into an information sponge, which then turned into mush around the turn of the century after various life experiences including Seasonal Affective Disorder.

Just for my benefit, can someone please make a non-ranty bullet point list of why they are a bad idea?

Have a listen to this, I'm hoping it is what I happened to hear (I cant listen to it at the minute) Basically they said that if you from an under privileged background you are doomed before you get anywhere near taking the Grammar school entry exam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07nrxdq

Personally though I am not apposed to grammar schools, if they help some kids attain better education then why not?

In theory they are a great idea (my dad went to one and it undoubtedly changed his life for the better)

The fact is that currently grammars admit much fewer kids from poorer backgrounds than other schools

they decrease social mobility

a grammar in every county would mean 3 secondary moderns for each one, to take all the other children, the small increase in attainment for the grammar school (well off) kids vs a negative effect on a much larger number of (poorer)children,
you can see why the 1922 committee have such a raging boner for it

In Kent, where Grammar schools never went away there are 5x [s]less[/s] fewer kids on free school meals in the grammars compared to the comps

I went to Grammar School 1965-72 along with a large number of my working class peers from our pit village. It was a very good school until 1970 when it went comprehensive and comprehensively downhill. Luckily by then I was in the 6th form and it didn't really impact me.

I will admit the one downside was the selection process. The 11+ was flawed and I'm quite sure there were friends of mine who didn't go who should have (and vice versa).

In theory they should be a great idea, and increase social mobility. In practice, through the system being easily manipulated, they do the opposite.

The people who advocate them know this, but as their children are the beneficiaries, they're more than happy to carry on with their "I'm alright jack, so....." attitude.

It makes a mockery of Theresa Mays pledge to create a fairer society that this is the first policy we've seen. Hardly comes as a great surprise though, does it?

Just for my benefit, can someone please make a non-ranty bullet point list of why they are a bad idea?

The Secondary Modern.

It's the rather unpleasant corollary of the Grammar school system that those in favour don't really want to talk about.

Just for my benefit, can someone please make a non-ranty bullet point list of why they are a bad idea?

* Selective, which means you either have to be clever to get in, or rich (i.e. can afford tutoring)
* If you're rich and not so clever, you will need tutoring all the time to keep up - which impacts on your time available for extra-curricular activities, leading to a less rounded education.
* 11+ failures are branded failures very early on in their lives, when they might just be a late developer

There are additional arguments on them taking resources away from other schools and primary teaching focussing on teaching to the 11+ but I'm not sure there's much hard evidence.

Source: Just what the Mrs bangs on about when I'm trying to watch TV.

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/new-grammar-schools-thoughts/page/2 ]I refer you to my post on a thread on this around 12 months ago.[/url]

Oh, and watch this (end to end is essential, but if you want the specifics, start at 3:04):

binners - Member
In theory they should be a great idea, and increase social mobility. In practice, through the system being easily manipulated, they do the opposite.

The people who advocate them know this, but as their children are the beneficiaries, they're more than happy to carry on with their "I'm alright jack, so....." attitude.

It makes a mockery of Theresa Mays pledge to create a fairer society that this is the first policy we've seen. Hardly comes as a great surprise though, does it?

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on them.

On the one hand it clearly makes things worse for the other 75%. On the other hand I'd like tho think if I had kids they'd pass the 11+ so it would benefit me.

On the third hand, if there wasn't a really good school nearby I'd probably consider private schools.

I went to a (good) comprehensive and the last university graduate in my family was a my granddad on my mums side. So the current system does allow for mobility if you're bright, but on the other hand, what's the practical difference between a grammar and a comprehensive school with sets/streams meaning for English/maths/science I was in a group of the top 10% anyway?

On the third hand, if there wasn't a really good school nearby I'd probably consider private schools.

A lot of comfortable middle class families move to areas with Grammars, and pay for additional tutoring for their offspring to pass the 11+. This then saves them money on school fees for a similarly advantageous education for Tabitha and George, so they can then spend the saved cash on Range Rovers and private number plates.

People on council estates can't afford private tutors.

That pretty much sums up the problem with the system, as the stats back up. They just become colonised by the middle classes and further entrench social division in the same way private schools do

So the current system does allow for mobility if you're bright, but on the other hand, what's the practical difference between a grammar and a comprehensive school with sets/streams meaning for English/maths/science I was in a group of the top 10% anyway?

Good question...

but on the other hand, what's the practical difference between a grammar and a comprehensive school with sets/streams meaning for English/maths/science I was in a group of the top 10% anyway?

It allows movement of those who develop a little later to more to an appropriate class. The grammar schools system doesn't really allow this.

what's the practical difference between a grammar and a comprehensive school with sets/streams meaning for English/maths/science I was in a group of the top 10% anyway?

Going to school is about more than exam results and academic achievement. Its about socialising with people from different backgrounds, and developing as a person as a result of that, in the form of empathy and understanding different cultures, for example. .

If you have a system which divides everyone at the age of 11, normally with the comfortable, white, middle class kids, going into a Grammar, and 'everyone else' going to receive what everyone acknowledges is a second rate education, thus telling them they're lesser people, and not as good or as worthy of the comfortable, white, middle class kids, then what does that say about us as a society?

You can't look at education in isolation. Its a huge part to play in developing a fair and cohesive society, at peace with itself. Grammar schools do the opposite of this by creating very clearly stratified social division, and entrenching that division while you're still a child

I 'passed' my 12+ (as it was back then) but chose to not go to grammar. Didn't really make a difference to me as I believe a child will generally make of their education as they seem fit.

My eldest will take his 11+ next week. He has the ability but whether or not he will make the grade will entirely depend on the wind direction on that day. We've tutored him to some extent, only to really prepare him for it rather than increase his ability (he has socio-communication issues and finds new experiences extremely intimidating). Others parent's of children in his class are spending hundreds on private tuition, which IMHO is crazy and defeats the point entirely. If the child isn't naturally more academic in the core subjects then perhaps grammar school isn't right for them anyway.

I don't have any major issues with a grammar school system, yes it some-what ignores those that are no less bright but are more creative or hands-on or physical, but it's this tutoring lark that gets me, and that's where the class divide really shows it's ugly head as those less privileged (us included) are relying on just ability than an paid-for raised level of expectation.

Which going back to my first point. My decision not to go to grammar was put to me by my dad, and I quote;

"It's better to be at the top of a small pile of shite, than the bottom of a big one".

I went to a grammar school - Dr Challoner's in Amersham and generally enjoyed my time there. Although it was supposed to be free, I remember parents being asked to contribute each term towards costs which led to a bit of 'I am considerably richer than yow' competitions. I'm not sure if it was the school or living in the South East but going to uni in Brum was an eye opener!

It does seem that things have changed a bit though - talking to family who still live in the area, there is a huge scrum each year trying to get your kids in with stories about people renting houses to get the right post code but not live there etc.

These days I'm not really pro or anti - there are some really good comprehensive schools with good facilities etc.

That pretty much sums up the problem with the system, as the stats back up. They just become colonised by the middle classes and further entrench social division in the same way private schools do

Whilst I agree, I lived in Middlesborough for a couple of years, and you'd have to be very [b]VERY[/b] committed to socialist ideals to send your kids into some of the schools if you had the money to go elsewhere.

Slightly different to SE England though, because a middle class 3-bed house was only £150k-£200k, so that leaves a huge amount of spare cash for other things, a bit different to buying a £600k house in Berkshire.

Which going back to my first point. My decision not to go to grammar was put to me by my dad, and I quote;

"It's better to be at the top of a small pile of shite, than the bottom of a big one".

By the same token, my GF's nephew recently said he was deliberately not trying hard in class and skipping school because he was already top of his class in Schience. When I suggested did he want me to ask about work experience in Engineering he clarified that he was the top of the bottom set.

I really don't get the mentality of not wanting to be the best. Whether that was being the kid who could do the highest times table or being promoted into the year aboves Rugby team, I was always that kid who really hated coming second. I'm not even that good at maths or was particularly athletic!

If you have a system which divides everyone at the age of 11, normally with the comfortable, white, middle class kids, going into a Grammar, and 'everyone else' going to receive what everyone acknowledges is a second rate education, thus telling them they're lesser people, and not as good or as worthy of the comfortable, white, middle class kids, then what does that say about us as a society?

My own experience was pretty different - my peers at grammar school were really mixed in terms of race. I guess that generally most were comfortable financially when compared to the wider country, but I think living in the south east skews this (as I realised when I was at uni).

Most of my friends made it in without tutoring, but again times have probably changed (I started there in 1996).

If you have a system which divides everyone at the age of 11, normally with the comfortable, white, middle class kids, going into a Grammar, and 'everyone else' going to receive what everyone acknowledges is a second rate education, thus telling them they're lesser people, and not as good or as worthy of the comfortable, white, middle class kids, then what does that say about us as a society?

my old grammar school is significantly dominated by Asian kids disproportionately to the local demongraphics within the catchment, what does that tell you about us as a society?

This

[img] [/img]

and this

[img] [/img]

are why I wouldn't support Grammar schools.

Great. Some sense returning to education after far too long

Hopefully we can return to proper polytechnics and apprentices too - but is that too much to ask for?

comfortable, white, middle class kids

As others have noted, white kids are actually the least likely to do well in school. Possibly because their previous generations haven't had it easy so they're pushed harder? And the stereotypical middle class white parents tutoring their kids is actually a minority of that ethnic group?

are why I wouldn't support Grammar schools.

But, the question should be "do less gifted/tutored kids lose out?". They're still in the majority (3x secondary moderns per grammar school). Does skimming the top off the population and giving them specific schooling harm the rest?

It's one thing to say that poor kids don't get into grammar schools, and therefore don't get that opportunity. But do they then go on to do worse in a secondary modern than they would have in a comprehensive? Or would they have stayed on the same track? Do poor kids do disproportionately better than rich kids in comprehensive schools?

Hurty. You are Michael Gove and I claim my copy of the St John Bible 😀

If you have a system which divides everyone at the age of 11, normally with the comfortable, white, middle class kids, going into a Grammar,

Not sure I'm reading this right, but graph top of page 6 seems to suggest the %age of non-white kids in Grammar schools is higher than the general population / all secondaries.

I'm sure it's different around the country though.

Other than that, agree. Education is not just about grades.

My daughter has just started yr 7 at a Kent Grammar. We are in East Sussex, and she travels up by train. Lets not bash the good schools, but try to improve the rest. We should praise and encourage high achievers more in this country. Raise the standards at the bottom rather than depressing the top end.

I would fully support an increased quota of means tested place allocations at Grammars, to ensure bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds got in too.

I went to a grammer school in the 60s as did several of my mates in the local area to different grammer schools with others going to the local secondary modern. My experience of growing up and going to school in the Ilford/Barking area of Essex was it was almost totally comprised of kids from working-class backgrounds. There were also a fair smattering of black and Asian kids at my school as well, which reflected the local population mix at that time.

I think the biggest problem now is the fact that that whole system of grammer schools has been largely dismantled when the comprehensive system became fashionable. Trying to re-introduce it piecemeal is only going to highlight the worst aspects of streaming for gifted or rich middle-class kids that others have alluded to because grammer school places will be at a premium. In my day there seemed to be a lot more scope for anyone who passed the 11+ to go to a decent grammer school.

At my school as well we took several kids from the local secondary modern who moved up in around the 2nd or 3rd year I believe by whatever process existed then for that.

My grammer was also rated one of the highest in the borough for exam passes and university places which plummeted when it went comprehensive and having gone through amalgamation with another school several years after I left, no longer even exists.

Personally I support some sort of grammer school system but bow to those with superior knowledge about the pros and cons. No system seems to be perfect however but my personal experience seems to indicate that overall a comprehensive system tends to drag down towards the LCD rather than up towards excellence.

bbc journo on 'more or less' a few weeks ago, who apparently has looked at this topic quite thoroughly, says that there is evidence that areas that have grammers actually have worse performing 'other' schools.
that and the fact that by the time you get to that age, you're either going to do well or not, largely irrespective of what school you go to, suggests to me that grammers are a bad idea for a few reasons.
IMO the low value ascribed to teaching as a profession in this country is genuinely shocking. everything flows from education. if any of those politicians who spout about 'making this country better' and 'investing in the future' actually did something to invest in education i'd have a bit more respect for them.

Hurty. You are Michael Gove and I claim my copy of the St John Bible

Ooohhh, below the belt, bins!!! Michael Gove, how dare you? 😀

bbc journo on 'more or less' a few weeks ago, who apparently has looked at this topic quite thoroughly, says that there is evidence that areas that have grammers actually have worse performing 'other' schools.

Yes, but if (in a perfect world, a bit like the physics joke 'imagine a spherical cow in a vacuum' ) the average A*-C pass rate was 50%, and you skim off the top 25% of kids at 11.

Does the grammar school then get a near 100% A*-C rate, and the 'other' school get a 25% A*-C?

Or does the grammar school do worse (<<100%), and/or does the 'other' school get better (>>25%).

If you can remember which day it was on I'd be interested in listening to it on iplayer?

These scrums with parents trying to get kids into grammar schools - why do they exist?

I think you also need to be careful with some of the social mobility statistics. You would expect people with good education and good jobs to have educational aspirations for their children. That may not be the same from all strata of society. A child not getting into grammar isn't the same as a child being denied access - theres a fair chance they never even applied.

Nothing wrong with grammar schools just the selection process & there being such a massive difference between them & secondary modern. A good comprehensive will knock spots off them in terms of social mobility. Having had one son who was grammar school through and through, one who was not & one who was easily capable but failed 12+ because he hadn't been tutored and i know which system I'd favour

If you can remember which day it was on I'd be interested in listening to it on iplayer?

Not the iplayer link but a different source along similar lines.

[url= http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/ ]FT data on grammar schools[/url]

From what I've read on the subject it would seem that by far the biggest effect on a child's education is the wealth of their parents. If you want a better educated society then we need to do more to lift people out of poverty.

Its obvious the government dont give a crap about social mobility

otherwise they wouldnt have closed >800 Sure Start centres, a scheme that unlike grammars actually increased mobility

early intervention obviously making a much greater difference than just selecting the brightest/luckiest/richest when they reach 11 years

edit- exactly what the statistics in the FT article ^^^ say

these torys really do hate the poor

My daughter has just started yr 7 at a Kent Grammar. We are in East Sussex, and she travels up by train. Lets not bash the good schools, but try to improve the rest. We should praise and encourage high achievers more in this country. Raise the standards at the bottom rather than depressing the top end.

I would fully support an increased quota of means tested place allocations at Grammars, to ensure bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds got in too.

The problem with grammers is not the grammer schools it is the rest. You are creating a 2nd class of schools. The fundemental argument of those oposed is that all schools should be good schools!

edit- exactly what the statistics in the FT article ^^^ say

How do you get past the paywall?

From what I've read on the subject it would seem that by far the biggest effect on a child's education is the wealth of their parents. If you want a better educated society then we need to do more to lift people out of poverty.

That's the point I was trying to make, does a kid suffer for not being in a grammar school, or if they fail to pass the 11+ are they already on a trajectory to do worse than those that did pass?

The problem with grammers is not the grammer schools it is the rest. You are creating a 2nd class of schools. The fundemental argument of those oposed is that all schools should be good schools!

Some schools will always be better/worse than others. Same as Oxford/Cambridge.

Fundamentally, I see aspiration and achievement as positives and want the top end encouraged. If Secondary moderns (or whatever name you want to call it) really are that bad, sending all the bright kids there too is crazy.

With regards to tutoring, it has definitely got out of control. Its a sad reflection on SATS/National Curriculum IMHO. There were definitely subjects not covered at school on the Kent 11+ paper.

These scrums with parents trying to get kids into grammar schools - why do they exist?

Because people want the best for their kids. If the system is rigged then its natural to try and play that system to the advantage of your children. Thats only human nature

The problem isn't with the people doing it. They're just doing the best for their kids. Which is a natural (and admirable) human behaviour. The problem is with the system that seeks to divide children at the age of 11, and thenbestow a far superior education on a selected minority, giving them far better life chances, at the expense of 'the others'

Raise the standards at the bottom rather than depressing the top end.

Indeed. But this is where theory and reality part company. The problem is that its sharp elbowed, vocal and literate middle classes (like the whiney cockbags on here 😉 ) that apply the pressure to education authorities/heads that drive up standards and keep them high. Once those people have opted out, either though going private, or through selection, they have little interest in the standards of 'the rest'.

People at the lower end of the pecking order either don't have the ways or means to drive standards up, because they have no influence, or connections, and people in power don't listen to them, because they don't have too. Or they're working 3 zero-hours contract jobs, on minimum wage and just don't have the time.

The effects on the non-selective schools in the area is huge.

Some become sink schools, where the lowest ability or those from poor backgrounds go.
If the non-selective has a 6th form, you can pretty much guarantee that those who get good grades at GCSE will go on to a grammar. Thus reducing the course choice in the non-selective, as they just cannot retain the students. Grammars will also take on those with the 'middle' grades, as 6th formers are worth more, so bigger 6th forms, equals more funding. So non-selective can miss out on a lot of funding, as students they have worked hard with, just leave.

Many of those who do go to grammar have just been taught to pass a test, and those with extra tutoring generally come from middle class backgrounds, as they are on the whole engaged with education. Those whose parents are not engaged, just go to the comps.

Pressure put on students to 'pass' this test is immense, yes I know many will say, 'my daughter did it, and it did not affect them'. Students at grammar schools, particularly girls are the most likely to self harm due to the pressure. Not healthy.

Working in a non-selective school in Kent, we work bloomin' hard with the students that we have (42% are FSM) but still are seen by many as a 'poor choice'. It creates a two tier system, much of it is snobbery.

Luckily, we are no longer judged on % of A*-C, so people may start seeing non-selective schools in a different way.

You should be raising the standards of ALL schools, not just creating schools where standards will naturally be high, as they will have the brightest.

at the expense of 'the others'

How?
Are grammar schools better funded? Seems unlikely with things like the pupil premium giving schools added finances to deal with those at the bottom of the curve.

Binners for Education Secretary.

I assume you won't mind becoming a tory for the betterment of the country?

The problem isn't with the people doing it. They're just doing the best for their kids. Which is a natural (and admirable) human behaviour.

Agreed

The problem is with the system that seeks to divide children at the age of 11, and thenbestow a far superior education on a selected minority, giving them far better life chances, at the expense of 'the others'

Not sure that is what you stated earlier in the thread, but I will let you off.

Out of interest, do you give the stradivarius to the kid who can play the violin well or to anyone chosen at random?

Right lunch break. Read 1/2 the first page. No one seemed to mention that it goes further than the poor kids just not getting in. The evidence is pretty clear that most ( those not at the grammar) do worse when at schools with a grammar in the area than they would in a non grammar area. The few ( those at the grammar) do a bit better than they would in a Comp.
Clearly they make social mobility worse for the vast majority but do make things better for a few.

Indeed. But this is where theory and reality part company. The problem is that its sharp elbowed, vocal and literate middle classes (like the whiney cockbags on here ) that apply the pressure to education authorities/heads that drive up standards and keep them high. Once those people have opted out, either though going private, or through selection, they have little interest in the standards of 'the rest'.

Many a true word spoken in jest (again)

At the end of the day, the biggest determinant of a child's educational success is their parents. The rest is just noise. Hence kids can and do excel in different environments.

Back to work now, this is too much of a distraction! 😀

How do you get past the paywall?

........... guess 😉 (actually my institute pays)

the FT analysis shows that there is a very marginal gain for rich children in counties with grammar schools

and a much larger decrease in attainment for the poorer kids

Out of interest, do you give the stradivarius to the kid who can play the violin well or to anyone chosen at random?

The kid who plays the violin well has probably been having lessons.
The kid who's talent is revealed late should also get a chance.

Are grammar schools better funded? Seems unlikely with things like the pupil premium giving schools added finances to deal with those at the bottom of the curve.

The grammar that I went to used to bolster their funds with termly donations from parents, so potentially.

At the end of the day, the biggest determinant of a child's educational success is their parents

What if they have no parents?

I don't think you can view this policy in isolation. Grammar schools are proved to lessen social mobility. Alan Millburns latest big investigation into social mobility concluded this, as well as many other studies.

We have a new prime minister who has said she wants to increase social mobility. She made it the centrepiece of her agenda. But as with all politicians, don't listen to what they say, watch what the do.

And her first policy is to reinstate a policy that its well known is socially divisive, and advantages the better off. So I think its safe to assume the direction of travel of our 'new' government. And its to creating further inequality, and widen the already substantial divide between the haves and have nots.

The only surprise is that anyone would be surprised

The grammar my eldest went to was in effect a private school paid for by the public purse, had no problem with raising £1m in parental donations (c2000) including 2 x individual donations of £50k because a lot of the parents saw the school as saving them from going private. No way a sec mod school could match that level of donations.

Some hugely sweeping statements on here and some pretty obvious chips on shoulders to boot!

Isn't it amazing how, when someone wants to do something positive for a change, that some people look for every opportunity to decry it! I thank that if new Grammar schools are targeted in poor areas, then the benefits to the poorer families children will be there for the taking. Okay, some people might try and take advantage, but that is for the powers that be to ensure they put forward a test that doesn't allow tutored pupils to win against brighter untutored pupils. It can't be THAT difficult.

FWIW I never went to a GS and failed dismally at school, so I have no agenda.

Its obvious the government dont give a crap about social mobility

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37250916 ]This year the proportion of students entering Oxford from State Schools is the highest for at least 40 years.[/url]

Why the Tories have chosen to push this forward despite having no manifesto commitment to it (rather the opposite, in fact) and thus no voter mandate to do it is a sign of how little they value parents input.

It's ideological, not for the good of children.

The answer is obvious, if grammar schools are better, then make all schools grammar schools.

[s]Grammar[/s] [b]poor schools[/b] are proved to lessen social mobility.

FIFY

the arguments around grammar schools are noise, the numbers are small, they aren't going to be 1000's, unless we are going to say that we are going to have a monolithic single way of being educated some variation allows for local parental choice

the other realty is that the money follows the poorer pupils, who by all accounts are going to the non selective sector. The question is why with all these extra resources following poorer pupils social mobility isn't being achieved (or has the impact of the extra money not had time to hit the stats?)

And her first policy is to reinstate a policy that its well known is socially divisive, and advantages the better off. So I think its safe to assume the direction of travel of our 'new' government. And its to creating further inequality, and widen the already substantial divide between the haves and have nots

Rockape63 - I don't think many people are arguing against the principle of it. But like a lot of principles it doesn't work in practice. It has been proved over and over and over.

This is being driven purely by ideology, not results, or reality. If this were targeted at poorer areas to raise the educational standards of the disadvantaged then who would argue with that

But if the government were serious about doing that then it wouldn't be falling back on a system that has been discredited, as it achieves anything but that. It entrenches divisions at the age of 11, and hands a huge advantage to a minority. A minority that will be disproportionately inclined to vote Tory, I'd imagine

So its not really that cynical to assume that this is being driven by pandering to their core vote, who are the ones we all know will end up benefitting from this. Not kids on council estates.

When you've given it the big one about increasing social mobility, this is a deeply cynical move

It entrenches divisions at the age of 11, and hands a huge advantage to a minority. A minority that will be disproportionately inclined to vote Tory, I'd imagine

That's all well and good, but can't hide the fact that there are winners and losers in all walks of life, whether they've been well educated or not. I think TM wants to ensure she is putting her money where her mouth is and making an effort to help bright kids in poor areas. Sure its no help to the dim ones like me, we have to do something different to pull ourselves up the social scale.

As for the voting Tory bit....please!

The sooner we give trades the same level of reverence, the better.

I think TM wants to ensure she is putting her money where her mouth is and making an effort to help bright kids in poor areas

By instigating a policy that has proved repeatedly to help middle class kids at the expense of kids (bright or otherwise) in poor areas?

Its certainly an interesting way of going about it. She'd never get into a grammar school herself showing that kind of aptitude.

As for the voting Tory bit....please!

I reckon its a pretty safe bet that the people standing to benefit from new grammar schools won't be rushing out to vote for Corbyn. Mind you... who would?

I think thats a major factor here. She's throwing red meat to her own core voters while she's not got any opposition worthy of the name. Grammar schools are up there with leaving the EU when it comes to Tory MP's getting themselves worked up into an orgasmic frenzy. Why do you think that is? Because they'll help benefit kids on council estates and create a more level educational playing field?

This is being driven purely by ideology, not results, or reality.

No, this is what drives the news flow and the false narrative that surrounds it.

Politicians are pragmatists not idealists (and they largely react to events rather than lead them.) Even Fatcha was a pragmatist - her ideology was largely a myth and she abandoned much of it - eg, pure monetarism, monetary targetting etc. Ditto Austerity George who quietly abandoned austerity, helping the UK economy to recover as a result.

But still the myths of Thatcherism and Austerity live on - mainly from critics of the Tories as they are easy labels despite being false ones.

The sooner we give trades the same level of reverence, the better.

Agreed (largely)

[i]Politicians are pragmatists not idealists[/i]
[i]
In 2011 the former Tory leadership candidate Michael Portillo admitted that Cameron and the Tories had lied to the public about their intentions towards the NHS: "They did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS."[/i]

No ideology there. Nope, none at all.

Grammar schools are up there with leaving the EU when it comes to Tory MP's getting themselves worked up into an orgasmic frenzy. Why do you think that is? Because they'll help benefit kids on council estates and create a more level educational playing field?

Funny, I thought the Cabinet was largely split on the whole thing? Despite what you think (I'm sure there are a small minority or self serving Tory MP's) genuine Torys want to see everyone in our country given the chance to do well...they just don't like the types who can't be bothered too much. I think Grammar Schools in poor areas will give some that chance.

As for not being aimed at benefitting core Tory voters, Its simply more of [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/26/george-osborne-didnt-want-to-build-houses-that-produce-labour-voters-claims-nick-clegg_n_9324920.html ]this mindset[/url]

[i]Politicians are pragmatists not idealists

In 2011 the former Tory leadership candidate Michael Portillo admitted that Cameron and the Tories had lied to the public about their intentions towards the NHS: "They did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS."[/i]

No ideology there. Nope, none at all.

I think you'll find Portillo didn't admit any such thing....you've even quoted what he said FFS! He explained that like every political party talking about what they are going to do and not going to do, they didn't explain any details. Pretty much par for the course I'd suggest!

And...I'm not defending it, as ALL polititions dodge questions and fudge answers continually, which is one of the reasons they are so unpopular.

we didn't have a car all the same colour until about 1995

Always handy as it leads to conflicting eyewitness reports

I think some people on this thread have a strange idea what constitutes middle-class in this day and age. Paying for tutoring for your kids because the primary education system in this country has failed them in one way or another does not make you middle-class.

Some good points on this thread, from both sides of the fence.

As for not being aimed at benefitting core Tory voters, Its simply more of this mindset

Quite probably true, but almost certainly brought about by the abolishment by Blair/Brown of our borders, to allow a few more million labour voters into the country. (apparantly!)

binners - Member
On the third hand, if there wasn't a really good school nearby I'd probably consider private schools.
A lot of comfortable middle class families move to areas with Grammars, and pay for additional tutoring for their offspring to pass the 11+. This then saves them money on school fees for a similarly advantageous education for Tabitha and George, so they can then spend the saved cash on Range Rovers and private number plates.

People on council estates can't afford private tutors.

That pretty much sums up the problem with the system, as the stats back up. They just become colonised by the middle classes and further entrench social division in the same way private schools do

Since the Gurhkas arrived and who's parents are not in any strong position to tutor their kids, you won't believe the high number of their kids in Grammar school, but then they have a different attitude to education than our own and round here the equivalent of council houses are Military other ranks housing.

If they open any more Grammar schools I'm willing to bet there will be more 2nd generation immigrants kids from the more eastern regions in them than there will be from benefit streets or council estates peopled by the entitled indigenous species.

I think you're probably right there rosscore.

Which raises another interesting question. The lowest achievers educationally are poor white families (the much maligned 'underclass'). Its what we do about them. Because the answer to that particular issue certainly isn't more grammar schools. That'll just make the situation worse

But as all (relevant - sorry Jeremy) politicians now recognise - the electorate are in no mood to keep on with an open-ended commitment to paying benefits to people who are unemployable due to low educational standards So they're going to have to do something

Roscore - In line with what you say above, I have great sympathy with lack of educational access based on wealth, for hard working aspirational families. My sympathy for the Jeremy Kyle watching, celebrity infatuated, self entitled class get a lot less.

Do we actually know what the proposed policy is now?

So far all I've seen is a report on a photo somebody took of a document somebody walking onto 10 DS had.

My sympathy for the Jeremy Kyle watching, celebrity infatuated, self entitled class get a lot less.

A lot of comfortable middle class families move to areas with Grammars, and pay for additional tutoring for their offspring to pass the 11+.

Which works up until many of said children end up in the secondary modern because they are unable to pass the test. Mrs T saw the danger of alienating her core vote with the re-introduction and kept well away.

As has been said above the middle classes would be better served ensuring that all schools were good schools.

Which raises another interesting question. The lowest achievers educationally are poor white families (the much maligned 'underclass'). Its what we do about them. Because the answer to that particular issue certainly isn't more grammar schools. That'll just make the situation worse

Ahh, but is more grammar schools hurting their chances, or just making everyone else better? Or conversely, if there were no grammar schools would the high achievers achieve less? The latter also improves social mobility because if you make the top tier worse by default some will overtake them, but that clearly isn't fair?

But as all (relevant - sorry Jeremy) politicians now recognise - the electorate are in no mood to keep on with an open-ended commitment to paying benefits to people who are unemployable due to low educational standards So they're going to have to do something

As someone currently on JSA, I have no ****in idea where this comes form, if anyone could explain to me ho to get more than £73/week out of the system that would be great, thanks.

As has been said above the middle classes would be better served ensuring that all schools were good schools.

How? Given that schools are funded based on the kids in them (poorer kids = more funding, with exception of the small minority of private schools where parents are expected to contribute), the only difference is the kids themselves and their parents.

[i]ensuring that all schools were good schools. [/i]

This, if people thought that their children would get a good education at the local secondary all of these issues woudl disappear.

Anything that perpetuates the idea (and actuality) that parents have to fight to get their children into a 'good' school highlights the failure of governments of all parties to make all schools 'good'.

there was lots of talk ont he radio earlier of coaching lower income kids, paying for private tutoring etc to get them through an 11+. Why not just put the same resources into their education without opening a grammar school they have to attend of they want to succeed?

Wwaswas,

How though?

I don't think anyone gets into politics or becomes a head teacher and thinks "these kids parents are poor, better give them a 2nd rate education".

Grammar schools apparently work for the above average. What would you propose would turn the other 75% round?