An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

setmefree2

MobileSaver wrote: »

It seem to me that the model was ditched as part of general dumbing down malaise at the time; middle-class children benefited more than working-class children and we can't have that so let's bring everyone down to the same (lower) level.

They were got rid of because plenty of middle class children didn't get into Grammars and then the choice was the sink secondary modern or private. And trust me private education was a lot cheaper than it is today.

MobileSaver wrote: »

I genuinely do not understand why people think giving the brighter pupils a better education is a bad thing?!?

Brighter students get a great education here in mixed ability state schools in London.They are all in the top sets. Explain to me why bright pupils need a whole school of their own?

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

That doesn't mean that increasing the intake of disadvantaged pupils into a grammar system would not translate into those pupils achieving better grades than they do under a comprehensive system does it?

Just because a grammar school had the word "grammar" in its name didn't make it a good school back in the day. There were plenty of rubbish grammars around.... people are forgetting....

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I honestly don't get this obsession with denying grammar schools when we already have selection at ages 16 (College) and 18 (University).

Can someone who opposes grammar schools explain to me why it's ok to select at these two ages for these two types of institution, but it's not ok to select at 11 for a grammar school?

Why do you need a whole school to accommodate what is effectively the top set?????

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

May's swagger was knocked out from under her.

She will be dreading the next PMQs.

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.

A bit desperate Rugged but I realise you are on the wind up;). One swallow does not make a summer. Granted Corbyn and his idiot acolytes, (like the ones I saw on TV in Brighton the other day) have temporarily taken over the Labour party but me and many others are in for the long haul. He's 67 and will be gone soon. We'll just keep chipping away until we finally see off the arrogant loser and his lying McDonnell sidekick. Only when Labour returns to the middle ground will we become electable again. It'll just take some people longer than others to realise it......last time it took 18 years:eek:

cells

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.

This is a problem with all levels of education in the UK

My own view is of you don't pass a subject you should not move onto the next level. It is not just pointless but totally counter productive to have children who only get a C grade or even worse to move onto the next stage.

Of course its not an easy problem to fix. You could end up with 15 year olds in classes of 10 year olds. Maybe limit it to 3 years.


Oh it doesn't have to be annual it can be each term. So don't pass that term with a good grade then redo that term. Fail it three times and have the choice to drop that subject altogether. I'd have failed French and been glad to drop it rather than stick with it for another 4 years wasting my time the teachers time and the members of the class that actually wanted to learn French. Bonjour

setmefree2

Grammar schools benefit rich, says OECD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37364697

So tell me why do you want the rich to get free education paid for by the tax payer?

So that £50 million is really going on education for the rich. I have to say that's not very MSE and I think you are all being taken for a ride....

cells

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37364697

So tell me why do you want the rich to get free education paid for by the tax payer?

Are you joking?

westernpromise

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37364697

So tell me why do you want the rich to get free education paid for by the tax payer?

So that £50 million is really going on education for the rich. I have to say that's not very MSE and I think you are all being taken for a ride....

They should get no education at all. They should just pay for it for everyone else.

setmefree2

cells wrote: »

Are you joking?

Not at all. I think you're being mugged....

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I honestly don't get this obsession with denying grammar schools when we already have selection at ages 16 (College) and 18 (University).

Can someone who opposes grammar schools explain to me why it's ok to select at these two ages for these two types of institution, but it's not ok to select at 11 for a grammar school?

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.