An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

MobileSaver

setmefree2 wrote: »

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

Fortunately there was no "random test that lacks any validity" and I am not sure where you got that idea from.

Grammar school entry was based on the 11-plus which was widely regarded as a good indicator of IQ.

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.

setmefree2 wrote: »

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

Maybe you are thick as I clearly stated that they do not need a whole school to themselves. However like many things that people do not "need" that does not mean that there cannot be many benefits to having such a thing.

setmefree2

MobileSaver wrote: »

Fortunately there was no "random test that lacks any validity" and I am not sure where you got that idea from.

Grammar school entry was based on the 11-plus which was widely regarded as a good indicator of IQ.

Some scientists dispute the concept of IQ entirely....but I wouldn't expect you to understand that......

MobileSaver wrote: »

Maybe you are thick as I clearly stated that they do not need a whole school to themselves. However like many things that people do not "need" that does not mean that there cannot be many benefits to having such a thing.

So what are those benefits?

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

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.

This!......................and isn't there streaming within comprehensive schools?

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

Some scientists dispute the concept of IQ entirely....but I wouldn't expect you to understand that......



So what are those benefits?

Knowing mobiles posting history we can guess.......it will enable the elite and deserving to escape the malingering wasters which make up the dregs of society:rotfl:

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

and isn't there streaming within comprehensive schools?

No - there is setting. Streaming is when you are placed in a top class for all subjects. (So in my day you were in the top group for everything - even if you were rubbish at say French but brilliant at say Maths.)

Setting is when the student is allocated to a group in each separate subject....so you can be in the top group for Maths but a middle group for Spanish.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

Knowing mobiles posting history we can guess.......it will enable the elite and deserving to escape the malingering wasters which make up the dregs of society:rotfl:

He/she is being duped - their kids largely won't be classified as elite and deserving - their kids will be assigned to being dregs....

This is all about providing free state education to rich people (which according to the posters on here - they deserve!)

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

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?

already answered

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.

you may despise academically low achieving children but a little logical thought will lead you to recognise that there are some average, some above average and some below average.

Many parents recognise that their children may not be acedemically inclined and would seek a less acedemic education.

One notes that our universities aren't 'comprehensives' and that many people pay large sums of money to go to Unis that you may describe as crap.

I repeat I am not in favour of grammar schools in general.

MobileSaver

setmefree2 wrote: »

Some scientists dispute the concept of IQ entirely....

Some scientists claim to have created a drug that cures Aids, Ebola and cancer... your point is? :rotfl:

setmefree2 wrote: »

So what are those benefits?

Seriously? You cannot see the benefit of putting more-academically-minded pupils together? Presumably you cannot see the benefits of anyone attending a sports academy or specialist musical school either? Let's just put everyone together in one place and stick with the lowest common denominator... a sure fire path to success!

Moby

setmefree2 wrote: »

No - there is setting. Streaming is when you are placed in a top class for all subjects. (So in my day you were in the top group for everything - even if you were rubbish at say French but brilliant at say Maths.)

Setting is when the student is allocated to a group in each separate subject....so you can be in the top group for Maths but a middle group for Spanish.

I stand corrected.....Can't get my head around what the current plan is?? I read yesterday the aim will be to have an 11+, 12+, 13+ opportunity to get into the grammar school.....so those who can coach their kids or pay for someone else to get them coached into these schools will have multiple chances...what is the point of that?.....and what will that mean for those left behind?
I also don't understand the purpose of having a school set aside for those who pass when we already have setting to reflect abilities anyway?
Is it simply that people want the chance of exclusivity which can only be reflected through a completely separate school? Surely it's not that crude .....am I missing something?

Filo25

MobileSaver wrote: »

Some scientists claim to have created a drug that cures Aids, Ebola and cancer... your point is? :rotfl:



Seriously? You cannot see the benefit of putting more-academically-minded pupils together? Presumably you cannot see the benefits of anyone attending a sports academy or specialist musical school either? Let's just put everyone together in one place and stick with the lowest common denominator... a sure fire path to success!

Where is the empirical evidence for the benefit provided by the grammar school system?

Do people honestly think that if Grammar schools were a simple approach to improving educational standards that the Thatcher government wouldn't have reintroduced them, or do you think that Thatcher was deeply influenced by a sense of socialist style equality of schooling.

If I thought Grammars would actually improve average educational standards in the country I would be all for their reintroduction, but I haven't seen any significant evidence to support that, if Grammars are the answer why does London seem to achieve better educational outcomes than Kent?