Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Tories abandon support for grammar schools

2»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not all counties have grammar schools though do they? I don't think think there was even an option for me to take an 11+ (that was in Northamptonshire).

    (To be quite honest I thought the 11+ was abolished around the time my mum took it :o shows how much I know!)

    I was wondering if it wasonly me completely confused by this thread, seems not.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deceelpool wrote: »
    I sat and passed my 11+, but I thought there was a pass, fail and borderline setup.

    That makes no sense though. If a grammar school has 100 places, then surely the top scoring 100 kids taking the 11 plus would get the places. No pass or fail. They're not going to leave places empty just because someone didn't "pass".
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    :yes:

    Ditto in my experience. Without any exaggeration, teachers spent 75%+ of the time trying to get the dumb twats who just wanted to jump on tables to read a book, whilst the 'clever' ones banded together in a corner and tried to do some work, and were instantly identified as a different social circle and hence victimised.

    That's not quite what happened at mine - when we were streamed for GCSE I was in top set for everything, and while I can't speak for the other classes, ours were always quite good. Nobody tried to jump on the tables or anything! Before that though, there was a lot of disruption (and it was ALWAYS from the boys! No joke. Oh and Leanne but she was mannish anyway) and if you actually tried to do the work yeah you got teased and whatnot. Some of the work we were set though before GCSE was a joke!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    No, I think she's saying that the more intelligent you are there's a better chance of you getting wealthier in later life and then you can afford to send your children to private schools.

    If you're parents are smart, there's a good indication you're going to be smart too.

    theres no link between intelligence and wealth though, was in something a few weeks back, having the right sort of personality helps more

    and i was quoting
    "While there are still private schools in existence, there will never be an entirely comprehensive schooling system, as those more able to afford private schools (the more intelligent, higher paid part of the population) are likely to take their (more intelligent genetically) offspring out of the state system."
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    theres no link between intelligence and wealth though, was in something a few weeks back, having the right sort of personality helps more

    Well, i was making the broad assumption that people who are better paid tend to be more intelligent.

    And actually, i'm not talking about middle-manager type jobs. I'm talking about the sort of job which allows you to spend 12k+ a year on school fees (per child). Which people with below average IQs are unlikely to have.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's not quite what happened at mine - when we were streamed for GCSE I was in top set for everything, and while I can't speak for the other classes, ours were always quite good. Nobody tried to jump on the tables or anything! Before that though, there was a lot of disruption (and it was ALWAYS from the boys! No joke. Oh and Leanne but she was mannish anyway) and if you actually tried to do the work yeah you got teased and whatnot. Some of the work we were set though before GCSE was a joke!

    In subjects such as science, mathematics, french where we were setted I achieved GCSEs of A*, A and A :p. Subjects where we weren't setted like English (someones idea that it was wrong to divide kids according to ability) then I didn't get as good grades.

    Might've been down to me, can't blame everyone else all the time. But in English we did have one boy who climbed on top of the roof in the middle of a lesson. Me and my three friends sat in the corner. Both of the girls received lewd comments and various innappropriate contact from like you said, the 'lads'. (Bum grabbing and I think even an attempt at a breast) Me and the other boy, of course, just got ridiculed for the way we looked / spoke / whatever. Because of my voice / accent I was 'gay' and my friend who was dyslexic was just picked on even worse than me. They'd chase him and grab him and throw him in a cupboard.

    In retrospect, if it happened now I would have stood up to them. But the teacher was there, the teacher saw it happening, but just told them to be quiet and get on with their work.

    Often we'd sit nearest the teacher in the hope that we would receive more protection. It's all part of the parcel when I get arsey about bullying and my perception teachers don't really give a stuff. Cos in my experience they didn't stop it. That was in more than one subject. The only ones that I was alright in were the ones where I was setted or the ones I picked myself.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The bullying thing sounds about right. The rest of it, well Daventry isn't as rough as Leicester :razz: What made it worse for me was that my dad was the last teacher most of the kids in the class had had at primary school, and obviously this was a good reason to take the piss out of me and bully me for 5 years. :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katchika wrote: »
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/6658613.stm

    The Conservatives are to abandon their support for grammar schools by saying academic selection is unfair to poorer families and limits social mobility.
    Education spokesman David Willetts told the BBC that middle-class children dominated the grammar intake, saying "not many poor children" got in.

    What do you think?

    I went to a grammar school..hard for me to comment because I obviously didn't go to a comprehensive to be able to compare and contrast. I don't think it was an inherently bad thing though and I would have no problem sending my children to a grammar school.

    Why not end all state education? Why should forced tax money be used to pay for others' education?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    Why not end all state education? Why should forced tax money be used to pay for others' education?

    But how many parents could afford to pay for education for their children? I doubt very many could.
    tell me about it last lesson we had kids slinging chairs across the room, trying to shove someone out the window, slinging scissors and compasses across the room (on of which hit me in the back) hitting each other over the head with 400odd page text books, lobbing anything and everything, full on fights between the boys shoving tables over on each other and teacher can't do anything. Worst thing is this is top set GCSE maths taking out exam in 3 weeks in the top comp. in the area - and they recon school's meant to be a safe environment :rolleyes:

    Been there, done that as well.

    And I used to get hit & punched by people as well whilst in lessons.
    if you actually tried to do the work yeah you got teased and whatnot.

    I had this as well. And at one point I got teased because I was one of a few people who wanted to actually learn.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    Why not end all state education? Why should forced tax money be used to pay for others' education?

    Because it benefits us all?

    Why not get rid of the NHS, Fire Service, Police Force, Army, Welfare state...? In fact why not get rid of taxation completely and make sure that everyone looks after themselves first?

    Do you understand the concept of society and the benefits it brings?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think all of these things can be provided on the free market, without any governmental force.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    I think all of these things can be provided on the free market, without any governmental force.
    History and experience tell us the exact opposite.

    The freer the market= the more fucked up the people. Unless you are part of the rich elitist minority who can afford private services.

    There is a new Michael Moore film coming out soon that exposes the evils of private health insurance in the USA and hardships such philosophy brings to millions upon millions of people. I suggest you pre-order tickets and go watch it at the earliest opportunity.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    Why not end all state education? Why should forced tax money be used to pay for others' education?

    because hardly anyone would get educated otherwise? Not many people i know can afford 2k+ per term for school fees.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote: »
    because hardly anyone would get educated otherwise? Not many people i know can afford 2k+ per term for school fees.

    :yes: Especially if it was for more than one child.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Competition would lead to lower prices.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    There is a new Michael Moore film coming out soon that exposes the evils of private health insurance in the USA and hardships such philosophy brings to millions upon millions of people.

    It's medicare and medicaid which bring "hardships" amongst millions of people. Abolish the FDA and let the US have a total free market in healthcare.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    Competition would lead to lower prices.
    Yeah right.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    It's medicare and medicaid which bring "hardships" amongst millions of people. Abolish the FDA and let the US have a total free market in healthcare.
    Nope. Create a National Health Service in the US and thus ensure people have access to healthcare.

    That *Cubans* have better access to healthcare than tens of millions of Americans tells you all you need to know about your precious free market healthcare :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    America doesn't have a free market in healthcare. It should though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    America doesn't have a free market in healthcare. It should though.

    What does this have to do with grammar schools, seeker?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    America doesn't have a free market in healthcare. It should though.
    No it shouldn't. It's bad enough as it is.

    As I said earlier, the freer the market= the more fucked up the people.

    Get it in your head my friend :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    Competition would lead to lower prices.

    And in return, crap education?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No it shouldn't. It's bad enough as it is.

    As I said earlier, the freer the market= the more fucked up the people.

    No, the freer the market the freer the people.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Nope. Create a National Health Service in the US and thus ensure people have access to healthcare.

    That *Cubans* have better access to healthcare than tens of millions of Americans tells you all you need to know about your precious free market healthcare :lol:

    May not be as true as claimed

    http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001470.html

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2006/11/the_british_view_of_fidel_cast.html

    (bear in mind this was not intended for public consumption, but was only realesed under an FoI request)

    That said I'm unconvinced that a free market health system works. I'm also unconvinced that in many other issues that state control is the best answer
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    No, the freer the market the freer the people.
    Oh, that idealistic, yet hopelessly wrong cliche.

    In the real world however the opposite is true.

    And the biggest truth of all is that the freer the market, the poorest and most disadvantaged the people- with the exception of the small elite.

    Which leads me to ask you the following: are you rich, or are you a turkey voting for christmas?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katchika wrote: »
    What does this have to do with grammar schools, seeker?
    That's what I thought!
Sign In or Register to comment.