An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

TrickyTree83

setmefree2 wrote: »

Before the Blair reforms. Schools have changed a lot. For the better.

My sister, 8 years my junior, went through the same crap.

Why should the idiots be forced upon those willing and wanting to learn? That's wrong in my view, just following an ideology because it sounds right rather than doing what they do (or did, perhaps my knowledge there isn't current) in Finland for example.

A state system that recognised not everyone is equal, no national curriculum, nothing standardised. They had much better outcomes than even a grammar system. But if grammar schools are the best we can do for now in terms of advancement on merit, I'll take it.

setmefree2

mrginge wrote: »

Absolutely.

I have personal experience of the issues that May is highlighting so I can sort of just about understand the logic, but at a fundamental level, given where we are as a country it just seems like an utterly bizarre move.

If Grammar schools start to flourish - so will private schools. Back in the day when I went to Grammar School in the 70s (not the greatest experience for a working class kid, which is why I loathe them) plan B was private school when middle class kids didn't get through the 11+. Nobody wants to send their kids to the secondary Mod.

So get saving grandparents......

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

My sister, 8 years my junior, went through the same crap.

Why should the idiots be forced upon those willing and wanting to learn? That's wrong in my view, just following an ideology because it sounds right rather than doing what they do (or did, perhaps my knowledge there isn't current) in Finland for example.

Well my kids aren't much younger than your sister at nearly 23 and 20 and they both got to top universities from mixed ability schools as did all their friends - including the disadvantaged.

One of my friend's kids failed the 11+ for Tiffin in Kingston and had to do to the "normal" state school - he got 10 A*s and an A at GCSE. What does that tell you?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

A state system that recognised not everyone is equal, no national curriculum, nothing standardised. They had much better outcomes than even a grammar system. But if grammar schools are the best we can do for now in terms of advancement on merit, I'll take it.

All state schools in London use setting. There is no need to open up a totally separate school to house the top sets.

TrickyTree83

setmefree2 wrote: »

Well my kids aren't much younger than your sister at nearly 23 and 20 and they both got to top universities from mixed ability schools as did all their friends - including the disadvantaged.

One of my friend's kids failed the 11+ for Tiffin in Kingston and had to do to the mormal state school - he got 10 A*s and an A at GCSE. What does that tell you?

That your experience isn't indicative of the overall state school experience. Neither is mine, nor the anecdotal evidence.

Was the school your children attended a failing school during their tenure there?

ukcarper

As someone who fail 11plus and went to a state secondary modern I can say with confidence that the education of those that didn't pass suffered. I manage to get through my secondary education with out taking a foreign language, physics and chemistry lesson, so yes grammar schools benefited the minority of people who went to them but at the expense of the others.

As an aside when studying HNC electrical and engineering I managed to pass while people who had gone to grammar school fail it just took me five years longer to get to the position to where I could start the course.

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That your experience isn't indicative of the overall state school experience. Neither is mine, nor the anecdotal evidence.

Trouble is you won't find any evidence to back up your position. All the evidence backs up my position. (But please feel free to look).

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Was the school your children attended a failing school during their tenure there?

My kids' primary school was mid table to bottom in the league tables - yet it was great. Their high school was mid table to top in the performance leagues. They moved at sixth form to a top performing school. They got in on their performance at GCSE. They had to move schools at 16 as their high school didn't have a sixth form.

mrginge

setmefree2 wrote: »

If Grammar schools start to flourish - so will private schools. Back in the day when I went to Grammar School in the 70s (not the greatest experience for a working class kid, which is why I loathe them) plan B was private school when middle class kids didn't get through the 11+. Nobody wants to send their kids to the secondary Mod.

So get saving grandparents......

Ah well there's apparently £8.8 trillion just sat round waiting to be dished out by the old dears.

Granted the distribution is not what you'd call equitable, with just under half of that owned by the top 10% of households, while the bottom 50% of households own around 10%, but let's not worry about that.

TrickyTree83

setmefree2 wrote: »

Trouble is you won't find any evidence to back up your position. All the evidence backs up my position. (But please feel free to look).



My kids' primary school was mid table to bottom in the league tables - yet it was great. Their high school was mid table to top in the performance leagues. They moved at sixth form to a top performing school. They got in on their performance at GCSE. They had to move schools at 16 as their high school didn't have a sixth form.

That's interesting how you can say that disruptive behaviour from those uninterested or unwilling to learn doesn't take a toll on the pupils, because the teachers appear to think otherwise.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/184078/DFE-RR218.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21895705

There's plenty of information that supports what I'm saying, and supports my experience of state education too.

Why deny children the opportunity to escape that system? The state system will still exist. It'll still be as it is now, warts and all. If you like it that's fine, why deny others the opportunity to excel outside of that rigid paradigm?

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The state system will still exist. It'll still be as it is now, warts and all. If you like it that's fine, why deny others the opportunity to excel outside of that rigid paradigm?

Except it won't. People will stop using the state system if they can't get their kids into the grammar and will send them private. So get saving.....

Why do you think grammar schools were scrapped? It was because middle class children regularly failed the 11+ - everyone wants their kids to go to the grammar school - nobody wants their kids to go to the secondary Mod.

Bring back Secondary Mods! Said nobody EVER!

TrickyTree83

setmefree2 wrote: »

Except it won't. People will stop using the state system if they can't get their kids into the grammar and will send them private. So get saving.....

Why do you think grammar schools were scrapped? It was because middle class children regularly failed the 11+ - everyone wants their kids to go to the grammar school - nobody wants their kids to go to the secondary Mod.

Bring back Secondary Mods! Said nobody EVER!

I see no problem in running a parallel system which recognises academic achievement over and above the norm and produces the next generation of bright superstars.

The idea of sticking everyone in together just for the sake of it sounds as pragmatic and productive as telling every child they're a winner on sports day.