An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

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 haven't seen details of the green paper. However, I have heard it suggested that the conditions to open new grammars are likely to be so onerous that few new ones will in reality open.

Moby wrote: »

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?

You're not missing anything. It's snobbery of the highest order. "Some" middle class parents (actually you tend to find less of this in London) don't want their kids mixing with working class kids. They want their kids educated in a completely separate school. However, middle class kids often aren't that bright so some will need to take the test over and over again to pass (imagine how well off you have to be to afford that tuition)....

Also, it's completely mad to tell an 11 year old child they are "bright" - nearly as stupid as telling a child they're "stupid".

ukcarper

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That wasn't what was said.

Inaccuracy is not disproof of a concept.

But it's important ifyou are basing someone's future on that result.

setmefree2

setmefree2 wrote: »

I haven't seen details of the green paper. However, I have heard it suggested that the conditions to open new grammars are likely to be so onerous that few new ones will in reality open.

MOBY These are the conditions laid out in The Green paper

Selective schools can expand on the explicit condition they provide support to ensure “good quality non-selective places locally”.
Conditions for expansion will be chosen from a range including:

Take a proportion of pupils from lower-income households


Establish a new non-selective secondary school


Establish a feeder primary in low-income area


Partner with existing non-selective school or ensure opportunities to join the selective school at different ages, such as 14 and 16 – as well as 11

Multi-academy trusts will be encouraged to select within their trust and set up a single centre to educate their “most able” pupils, dubbed a “centre of excellence”

7. Existing selective schools will be required to engage in outreach activity, including teacher and pupil exchanges with local schools

8. Selective schools must have in place strategies to ensure fair access – legislation would require selective schools to prioritise, or set aside places, for pupils of lower household income in oversubscription criteria

Moby this bit here is worrying.

Selective schools that do not deliver good or outstanding education alongside their new education places could be stripped of access to additional funding streams for new pupils, removing their right to select by ability or be barred from further expansion

This suggests that these schools will be getting additional funds.


http://schoolsweek.co.uk/grammar-schools-green-paper-the-12-policy-recommendations/

bobbymotors

Whether an IQ tst or an exam of some kind is completely accurate is immaterial really. There has to be a test of some kind, and there has to be a fail or pass cut off point.

If the pass mark is 80% and you get 79% and I get 81% does that mean I'm clever and you're thick?

No, it doesn't

But if you are going to educate cleverer pupils in a separate environment, it's the best we've got so far.

But none of it really matters. Corbyn will never be Prime minister. Despite how much RT and some others want him to be, it will never happen. I will still pay £5 to every £1 someone wants to bet on Corbyn being PM after the next election.

And it won't be the media that's to blame (although the left will blame them) it will be the policies.

capitalism is far from perfect, but compared to marxism or far left socialism it is utopia.

There are no countries in the world where Corbynist policies of spend now, pay later, everyone's equal, etc can be shown to be working or have historically worked.

On the radio yesterday someone was enthusing about what a perfect society existed in Cuba.

Until someone else pointed out the they are all trying to get on boats to Florida. None go the other way.

And that despite the wonders of Cuba, their currency is so unwanted that they cannot even import aspirin, unless they pay in dollars.

I went there on holiday a while ago and researched it before i went. We took ball point pens, cotton buds, and $200 in dollar bills. They are a lovely warm people, I like them. But they are extremely repressed and afraid to criticise the regime.

Capitalism is not utopia, but it's the best we've got.

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

you may despise academically low achieving children

Come again? - I think you are mistaking me for YOU.

CLAPTON wrote: »

but a little logical thought will lead you to recognise that there are some average, some above average and some below average.

What? in all subjects? So you don't think some kids are good at Maths but not French and vice versa?

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Yes, many parents are clamoring to bring secondary moderns - NOT.

setmefree2

MobileSaver wrote: »

Let's just put everyone together in one place and stick with the lowest common denominator... a sure fire path to success!

That is such an ignorant comment. When was the last time you were actually in a state school?

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

[/B]Come again? - I think you are mistaking me for YOU.


What? in all subjects? So you don't think some kids are good at Maths but not French and vice versa?



Yes, many parents are clamoring to bring secondary moderns - NOT.

there are plenty of people who pay good money (well borrow it) and are willing, even keen, to go to Unis that aren't oxbridge

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way is a child in the lowest 'stream ' not being left behind?

Streaming is bad education and was abandoned decades ago.

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way is a child in the lowest 'sets' not being left behind

Because if their talents lie else where they will be in the top sets in those subjects.

CLAPTON wrote: »

do they or their parents, not notice as they are all in the same physical building?

Parents know that from the moment their kids arrive at infant school the very table they sit on denotes their child's' ability. So I doubt it would have escaped their notice how their children are setted.

CLAPTON wrote: »

note I don't support in general support grmmar schools.

Really????

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way is a child in the lowest 'sets' not being left behind

if a child is moved to a lower set would they not feel they were being left behind?

I thought I'd answered this. There is more flexibility and chances to move back 'up' in the comprehensive system.

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Show me the credible evidence that the concept of IQ is incorrect/doesn't exist that stands up to scrutiny.

The comparison is fine.

IQ tests 'do not reflect intelligence'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

Plenty more where that came from if you want me to clutter up the thread.