To think funding new grammar and faith schools is a bad idea.

[ConstantlyCold]

Just that really. This will benefit pushy middle classes (like me) but not the kids that really need investing in.

Stupid idea.

Mine didnt go to a Grammar school- its all academic anyway as they are in their 20s now and thats all done with.
i am just against this idea that they ( faith and grammar) can have funding and other ordinary schools can't. This is all, it seems very unfair.

Nope. Still doesn’t make sense. If you live in a wholly selective area what should you do about your child’s education?

BertrandRussell Well they will be if the liberals have their way often the types that don’t like grammer also don’t see why their shouldnt be mixed ability classes until of course their child’s fails the 11+ And has to attend a no selective school 😀

Grammar schools receive the least funding out of all secondary school types so the fact they still turn out medics, vets and Oxbridge candidates in high volumes speaks for itself to me.

Why wouldn't you support special educational needs at all parts of the spectrum? Have an Essex (super selective) system rather than a Kent one and see what happens. Again, look at the league tables. Dominated by Essex grammars.

Oh, right. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt up to now.

Are you seriously suggesting a regular parent should put their political beliefs above the best choices (such as there are) for their children, Metoo?

But that’s how champagne socialists work they drink the Moët themselves and tell the rest of us how good the muddy stream will be and give reasons why they possibly couldn’t

Whereas the Conservatives are never elitist and really help the less well off (sarcasm). Better vote for them, then.

BertrandRussell Their is no areas in th uk that only has selective schools

Northern Ireland have grammers but also have non selective

But what you really mean is what are you supposed to do if your a liberal only have selective or a shit state school you drink your Moët of course Diane abott did 😅😅😅

Oh as an ex grammar student (hated it and wanted them abolished) with dc at grammar (they're thriving there best thing for them) you get disruptive shits in grammars as much as any other school. Drugs and alcohol are a problem as any other school too just not on such a large scale. It tends towards mental health issues and eating disorders more than drugs tbh.

Metoodear

But you aren't engaging with the point though. You have to work within the system that exists at the time, while you work to make it fairer in the long run.

What would be gained if my child passed the 11+ but on principle I sent them to a rubbish secondary school instead?

I know that the reason why that school is under resourced and rubbish is likely to be because of the Grammar system, therefore I can send my child to the grammar, while still working towards a system in the long run where everybody in my area gets a good education, not just the ones who pass the test.

Bettyfood No I suggest you don’t try and take away choices for others your clearly happy to give your own children

Of a grammer is good enough for your children why should the children in my area not have a change to go to one

What's not being discussed is what type of grammar school system are they striving for. It differs in each county. For me I prefer super selective as then it really is a specialist educational resource for the genuinely in need children rather than just another school choice.

PatriarchyPersonified

Just said they have a up and running grammer system in Northern Ireland and funny enough its were the education system works best

PatriarchyPersonified No it’s the middles classes getting a job education for their own children while stopping anyone else for having a chance

Metoodear

I don't think that's what the data shows. There have been a considerable number of studies done on the effects of the grammar system, they have all shown that selective grammar systems are not as good as properly resourced, fully streamed comprehensives.

Your still not engaging with the point. You can participate in something (becuase you have to) without supporting it.

If you look upthread I was saying that I can't properly oppose the suggested policy as we will likely benefit from it, but that the whole system needs to change. This is a sticking plaster which will only benefit a few people.

I know that the reason why that school is under resourced and rubbish is likely to be because of the Grammar system

How does that work? Grammar schools don't get more funding per pupil than non-selective schools.

BumpowderSneezeonAndSnot you do realise that grammar school children aren't randomly selected.

Diane abott did

Diane Abbott is an MP. Parents are not even likely members of a political party. There is quite a difference.

“BertrandRussell Their is no areas in th uk that only has selective schools ”

Yes there are. Kent, for one.

No. I hadn't realised that what with having sat the 11+ myself and so have my dc...

Super selective take the best of the best high achievers - Also has fewer schools (essex has 4 for each sex county wide)

Kent system takes the top ?25% regardless of exam results.

Glue

Because grammars group all the children who's parents are less likely to be supportive and engaged in their education into one place. The secondary modern becomes the school where aspirations go to die. Children are told from an early age that they are 'not academic' and that kind of thing sticks.

The best teachers aren't attracted to schools like that, meaning their results suffer, which means fewer teachers want to work there, which means their results suffer even more. It becomes a negative feedback loop.

You seemed to think them having the most Oxbridge candidates etc tells you something. It is like saying my top set got more grade As than my lowest ability set.

Well given they are supposed to be a school full of top set students...why don't people like to accept and acknowledge intelligent children exist and need to be catered for?

That makes sense partiarchy, but it isn't my personal experience. Maybe it is different now, but when I was at school (late 1990s) our local grammars and secondary moderns were all good schools. Because (I believe) we lived in an affluent area and it was very common for families to have children in both schools.

Bumpowder

But the brightest are catered for perfectly well in a fully streamed comprehensive system.