An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

At a guess, I'd say it's related to the relative maturity at the given ages. Will an 11 year old understand the importance of the test in the same way a 16 year old would?

As already mentioned, if you fail to get the entry requirements at 16/18 you've got additional steps to catch up, but if you fail at 11 and end up in a crap school, you're pretty much stuck there.

why do you say the 11 year old will end up in crap school?
why would the school be crap ?
-because there are other pupils like himself?
-because the teachers are crap?
-because funding per puil is less?

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you say the 11 year old will end up in crap school?

Why do "bright" 11 year olds need a whole school to themselves?

CLAPTON wrote: »

why would the school be crap ?

Because schools are ranked in performance tables by gcse results. If all the top set pupils go to a separate school then the remaining schools results will be pulled down the league table and it will be deemed "crap".

CLAPTON wrote: »

-because there are other pupils like himself?
-because the teachers are crap?
-because funding per puil is less?

see above answer

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

If you don't get good enough A levels you can retake and if you pass you can still go to university, if you fail your 11 plus that's it.

Haha yes, but the system is like that because we make it like that.

What is to stop people re-taking the entry exam into a grammar school and moving a year behind as they do in other countries?

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

At a guess, I'd say it's related to the relative maturity at the given ages. Will an 11 year old understand the importance of the test in the same way a 16 year old would?

As already mentioned, if you fail to get the entry requirements at 16/18 you've got additional steps to catch up, but if you fail at 11 and end up in a crap school, you're pretty much stuck there.

Again this is because we allow re-sits for those exams. Why not allow re-sits for exams at 11?

It isn't unheard of for pupils to be kept back a year.

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Haha yes, but the system is like that because we make it like that.

What is to stop people re-taking the entry exam into a grammar school and moving a year behind as they do in other countries?

Why don't we not waste tax payers money on stupid, meaningless exams and spend the money on paying teachers better?

That way, all pupils will benefit whether they are in the top, middle or bottom sets.

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

Why do "bright" 11 year olds need a whole school to themselves?

I don't support grammars schools but that doesn't mean we should suspend rational arguement

Because schools are ranked in performance tables by gcse results. If all the top set pupils go to a separate school then the remaining schools results will be pulled down the league table and it will be deemed "crap".

that is simply absurb terminology and has no bearing on the quality and appropriateness of the education being provided for that pupil.

they wouldn't be crap schools

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't support grammars schools but that doesn't mean we should suspend rational arguement

How is that an answer to the question - "Why do "bright" 11 year olds need to be housed in a separate school?"

What's rational about separating children out on the basis of a score on some random test that lacks any validity?

CLAPTON wrote: »

that is simply absurb terminology and has no bearing on the quality and appropriateness of the education being provided for that pupil.

they wouldn't be crap schools

What alternative reality do you live in? No-one wants to send their kids into a school with poor GCSE results. That's why secondary moderns don't work. Parents with money will send their children into the private sector. So the only kids left at the original school will be the poor, working class kids which will then have by then even worse results.

MobileSaver

ukcarper wrote: »

If that £50 million is available the fact that it is going to grammar schools shows than funding would be diverted away from comps.

Unless you know something everyone else does not then there is no evidence to suggest the £50m is being diverted away from comprehensive schools.

setmefree2 wrote: »

Explain to me why bright pupils need a whole school of their own?

setmefree2 wrote: »

Why do "bright" 11 year olds need a whole school to themselves?

They do not "need" a whole school to themselves but it does not take much intelligence to work out why a dedicated school for bright pupils could be a good thing; both for the pupils and ultimately the whole country.

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Again this is because we allow re-sits for those exams. Why not allow re-sits for exams at 11?

It isn't unheard of for pupils to be kept back a year.

Why don't we just test kids at 4 ???

Oh that would be because it would be dumb......

setmefree2

MobileSaver wrote: »

They do not "need" a whole school to themselves but it does not take much intelligence to work out why a dedicated school for bright pupils could be a good thing; both for the pupils and ultimately the whole country.

Well, I must be thick then because I don't understand why they "need" a whole school to themselves? Please explain.

I went to a grammar - I was in the top form (no setting in my day - you had to be good at everything). My kids went to a mixed ability state high school - they were in the top sets. I see no difference between our educational outcomes.....

....so please explain why I needed to be in a "special" school and what exactly was so much better about my education compared to that of my children?