An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Please do not be silly

seriously
you really really don't see peoples' basic abilities are relevant to the discussion?
you want to pretend that all people have equal abilities : madness

[Deleted User]

CLAPTON wrote: »

seriously
you really really don't see peoples' basic abilities are relevant to the discussion?
you want to pretend that all people have equal abilities : madness

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!

I agree with Clapton :eek: .

How on Earth can the state equalise opportunity given differences in health, economic security, aptitude, home encouragement, competing domestic stresses, family make up, living conditions, access to peace and quiet for study and role models?

I'm not saying 'give up' but come on .

WR

TrickyTree83

BobQ wrote: »

I have not used meaningless slogans.

There are people better qualified to design the system than me. All I would argue is that if it is not a comprehensive school then whatever types of school exist they should have equal resourcing, the same quality of teachers, some means of transitioning between them and some common goals including outmores which lead to high standards of literacy, numeracy, language skills, ethics, and IT.

By a level playing field I mean not creating types of school where some have better teachers, more resources, and better facilities, wgere transition between types of schools is possible. They should all seek to ensure that all children have the same opportunites.to make the best of abilities they have.

Everyone loves the idea of a level playing field. That's not what we have, and it's not what we're moving towards. It's unachievable. It's a grand idea, like socialism, but the reality is very different. I prefer to take the route of letting everyone achieve the best they can, even if that means some people get selected for a particular type and focus in education and others do not. If that means some people want to send their children to a selective school what gives anyone the right to say they should be denied that opportunity? Ideology? Really? If parents are not happy sending kids to a selective school, there should be an option not to also. If they want to go to a faith school so be it, if they want to home school, so be it. The key is having the opportunity.

None of us on here have any right to deny others opportunities, even at our own expense. If your kids or the kids of others fail to gain entry or do not even try to gain entry into a selective school then that's fine, lesson learnt, either they didn't try hard enough, simply were not good enough or didn't want to.

Please tell me why it's OK to have selection at A Level and at University level of education but not pre-GCSE? What of the opportunities denied to millions who did not attend Oxford or Cambridge due to the entry criteria and selection process? What about people on a council estate in Stoke-on-Trent being denied entry into the finest schools in London, doesn't every child deserve the best teachers? Extreme example yes, but it proves the point. Right now we have selection by postal code. Instead of merit. I'm arguing for the opportunity to use merit to succeed rather than the wealth and decisions of your parents. For example foster kids who bounce around could be in a selective grammar instead of a long list of comprehensives as they're moved around from home to home.

I would like to have an educational system which mirrors A Level and University selection throughout, where merit reigns supreme and a postal code is just where you live and not what quality of education you get.

seven-day-weekend

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Everyone loves the idea of a level playing field. That's not what we have, and it's not what we're moving towards. It's unachievable. It's a grand idea, like socialism, but the reality is very different. I prefer to take the route of letting everyone achieve the best they can, even if that means some people get selected for a particular type and focus in education and others do not. If that means some people want to send their children to a selective school what gives anyone the right to say they should be denied that opportunity? Ideology? Really? If parents are not happy sending kids to a selective school, there should be an option not to also. If they want to go to a faith school so be it, if they want to home school, so be it. The key is having the opportunity.

None of us on here have any right to deny others opportunities, even at our own expense. If your kids or the kids of others fail to gain entry or do not even try to gain entry into a selective school then that's fine, lesson learnt, either they didn't try hard enough, simply were not good enough or didn't want to.

Please tell me why it's OK to have selection at A Level and at University level of education but not pre-GCSE? What of the opportunities denied to millions who did not attend Oxford or Cambridge due to the entry criteria and selection process? What about people on a council estate in Stoke-on-Trent being denied entry into the finest schools in London, doesn't every child deserve the best teachers? Extreme example yes, but it proves the point. Right now we have selection by postal code. Instead of merit. I'm arguing for the opportunity to use merit to succeed rather than the wealth and decisions of your parents. For example foster kids who bounce around could be in a selective grammar instead of a long list of comprehensives as they're moved around from home to home.

I would like to have an educational system which mirrors A Level and University selection throughout, where merit reigns supreme and a postal code is just where you live and not what quality of education you get.

Well said. I absolutely agree.

MobileSaver

BobQ wrote: »

I went to a grammar school in the 1970s and it served me well. ... But was it fair? No I think it was unfair. I later thought that all children deserve the same opportunity and resources,

I disagree. Essentially you are bringing everyone down to the same level rather than accepting that some people in life will become brain surgeons and others will empty bins all their life. Both are useful jobs in society, both need an education but no-one would argue that the resources put into that education should be the same for both.

BobQ wrote: »

While my parents were never able to do such things I was fortunate to have a retired teacher as a neighbour who was willing to ensure I was well prepared for the 11+

Many ordinary people at 11yo went into the exam not sure what they would face and not having much coaching. That makes the system unfair in my view.

My parents didn't have a penny to their name, I didn't have a retired teacher as a neighbour and I had no idea whatsoever what the 11+ exam entailed but fortunately I passed on merit and was sent to a grammar school. As it happens I hated it but I can't dispute that it gave me a great education that set me up for life.

If someone has parents who can afford and/or are motivated to give their child a better education or a neighbour who is willing to put themselves out to help a child then I really can't see why we shouldn't celebrate that fact and provide the mechanisms to do so.

Ultimately, the better educated the population are, the more prosperous our country will become to the benefit of us all.

Fella

ruggedtoast wrote: »

So far the Corbyn juggernaut has seen off the Blairites, Hilary Benn, Angela Eagle, David Cameron, and it is presently crushing Owen Smith and Theresa May.

It's good that you're getting over your dislike of his generation. He's the definitive Boomer: given a great start in life with his privileged upbringing & expensive prep school education, followed by Grammar school. Then has spent most of his life on a fat taxpayer funded salary which has lately gone up even higher. Has a stunning little North London pad worth a fortune & a guaranteed gold-plated pension. Most of which will be paid for by your own generation.

It's a little unfair that he will, if given the opportunity, rack up even more squillions of pounds of debt to pay back, but no doubt he'll find your eagerness to spend your life doing so extremely heartwarming.

ruggedtoast

Fella wrote: »

It's good that you're getting over your dislike of his generation. He's the definitive Boomer: given a great start in life with his privileged upbringing & expensive prep school education, followed by Grammar school. Then has spent most of his life on a fat taxpayer funded salary which has lately gone up even higher. Has a stunning little North London pad worth a fortune & a guaranteed gold-plated pension. Most of which will be paid for by your own generation.

It's a little unfair that he will, if given the opportunity, rack up even more squillions of pounds of debt to pay back, but no doubt he'll find your eagerness to spend your life doing so extremely heartwarming.

I can't believe you are pre-judging someone just because they were born a boomer.

What kind of person are you?

ukcarper

So the answer for all you grammar supporters is to pick an arbitrary age and test apply this to all children then if they don't pass condem they to a future of poor education and opportunities.

I don't see that as the way forward, a comp which is correctly streamed by subject should not disadvantage the more gifted children or someone who for instance is very good at maths but no English.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

childen who inherit their parents' genetic make up have an inbuild advantage (on average of course)
what would you think we should do about?

Well thanks for reminding us that we should be developing the master race, Goebbels.

The obvious fallacy in your logic, apart from its discredited ignorance, is that followed to its logical conclusion, you should be a protoplasmic amoeba.

Maybe you are.

TrickyTree83

ukcarper wrote: »

So the answer for all you grammar supporters is to pick an arbitrary age and test apply this to all children then if they don't pass condem they to a future of poor education and opportunities.

I don't see that as the way forward, a comp which is correctly streamed by subject should not disadvantage the more gifted children or someone who for instance is very good at maths but no English.

This already happens in the UK.

At 16 (post GCSE) in selection for further education (6th form/college) and after further education at 18 in selection for University based on the grades you achieve. Why is testing to separate the bright from the dull acceptable at 16 and 18 but not at 11?

If you, I, or anyone else has children who wish to participate in a school system that involves selection - why can't we? Why is that opportunity not freely available?

As parents:

We choose where our children live.

We choose how to bring them up.

We choose (largely) what they eat and drink.

We choose (again largely) what media they consume.

We are able to choose private healthcare for them over NHS provision.

We can choose to privately tutor them rather than use state funded schools.

Why then must people be denied the choice to be able to attend a state school which selects pupils purely on merit in the same way Colleges and Universities do?