ChatterBank2 mins ago
Labour And Lib Dems 'would Fight Grammar School Plans'
http://
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
Answers
I definitely agree that grammar schools should be a thing of the past.I passed the 11 plus and went to a grammar school but hated pretty much every minute of it.My son however went to our local comprehensiv
17:26 Tue 09th Aug 2016
Naomi - // It’s already been explained to you that selection into Grammar school depends upon nothing other than academic ability - and that isn't confined to the 'elite' - whoever they may be. //
And it's already been explained to you that setting up a system where academically able children are creamed off and their schools are resourced properly, and less able children are left to go to under-resourced schools that will ultimately trend downwards is elitism.
And it's already been explained to you that setting up a system where academically able children are creamed off and their schools are resourced properly, and less able children are left to go to under-resourced schools that will ultimately trend downwards is elitism.
andy-hughes, so am I right in assuming you'd like to see everyone attend these under-resourced schools that trend downwards, thereby failing miserably children who do have exceptional ability? (And please don't say you'd like to see all schools well-funded. We'd all like to see that - but it isn't the point).
Naomi - //andy-hughes, so am I right in assuming you'd like to see everyone attend these under-resourced schools that trend downwards, thereby failing miserably children who do have exceptional ability? //
No, you are not right, and you know you are not right, so I ponder why you clutter the thread up with a pointless premise which you don't believe, for me to deny it.
// (And please don't say you'd like to see all schools well-funded. We'd all like to see that - but it isn't the point). //
That is absolutely the point!!! What on earth else is the point if that is not the point?
Are you just wasting space on purpose?
No, you are not right, and you know you are not right, so I ponder why you clutter the thread up with a pointless premise which you don't believe, for me to deny it.
// (And please don't say you'd like to see all schools well-funded. We'd all like to see that - but it isn't the point). //
That is absolutely the point!!! What on earth else is the point if that is not the point?
Are you just wasting space on purpose?
Zacs-Master - //Come on Andy, if you don't think we live in an elitist society, you're living in denial. At least this way it gives the average Joe a chance to join / mix with them. //
I would not deny for a moment that we live in an elitist society.
But I happen to think that dismantling the elitist society - and education is an excellent place to start - is the solution, rather than perpetuating it by condoning the notion of some people being allowed to join in because they can play the system.
I would not deny for a moment that we live in an elitist society.
But I happen to think that dismantling the elitist society - and education is an excellent place to start - is the solution, rather than perpetuating it by condoning the notion of some people being allowed to join in because they can play the system.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, No need for rudeness. // Conceeded - I would apologise, but after your response last time ...
//The point is if every Grammar school disappeared the other schools would still be under-funded so the problem wouldn't be resolved. We would simply be failing the brightest as well as the rest. //
Does that mean that we shrug our shoulders and accept under-funding as an inevitability? I know that it is not - it simply looks that way because of the wilful elitism and political posturing by successive governments who will not put money into education because it's not sexy like, say, nuclear weapons, or invading other countries.
I will never accept that education is anything less than a major spending priority. Politiciains like to lump it in with health (fair enough) and defence (immoral) in as a spending priority for their soundbites, but the reality is that they invest as little as they can get away with while still appearing to care.
If they switched the defence budget to education and health, the country would improve overnight - but that is never going to happen.
//The point is if every Grammar school disappeared the other schools would still be under-funded so the problem wouldn't be resolved. We would simply be failing the brightest as well as the rest. //
Does that mean that we shrug our shoulders and accept under-funding as an inevitability? I know that it is not - it simply looks that way because of the wilful elitism and political posturing by successive governments who will not put money into education because it's not sexy like, say, nuclear weapons, or invading other countries.
I will never accept that education is anything less than a major spending priority. Politiciains like to lump it in with health (fair enough) and defence (immoral) in as a spending priority for their soundbites, but the reality is that they invest as little as they can get away with while still appearing to care.
If they switched the defence budget to education and health, the country would improve overnight - but that is never going to happen.
Andy-hughes at 14:00, that’s insulting. Poor kids who go to Grammar school don’t ‘join in’ because they can play the system – their own ability and effort allows them to ‘join in’. No one ever gave me anything – except a good education for which I shall be eternally grateful.
At 14:05: No, it doesn’t mean we shrug our shoulders – but two wrongs don’t make a right.
I’m pleased you remembered what I said about your apologies. You're right not to bother.
At 14:05: No, it doesn’t mean we shrug our shoulders – but two wrongs don’t make a right.
I’m pleased you remembered what I said about your apologies. You're right not to bother.
Naomi - //At 14:05: No, it doesn’t mean we shrug our shoulders – but two wrongs don’t make a right. //
Indeed they don't - so how about no wrongs at all?
A fair and funded education system, that gives opportunities to everyone?
It's only a matter of money - but then, you can't provide military aggression abroad and a billion pound 'deterrent' and have a decent education and / or health system.
It's all about priorities - which start with votes and ego, and go down from there.
Indeed they don't - so how about no wrongs at all?
A fair and funded education system, that gives opportunities to everyone?
It's only a matter of money - but then, you can't provide military aggression abroad and a billion pound 'deterrent' and have a decent education and / or health system.
It's all about priorities - which start with votes and ego, and go down from there.
Zacs-Master - //Dismantling the elitist society? You'living in cloud cuckoo land Andy. // No need to be offensive because you disagree with my point.
// An elitist society is a natural and 'un-dismantleable' facet of a capitalist society. //
Indeed it is - maybe we should be dialling down the 'capitalist' aspect of it them, and introducing a little equality and compassion here and there.
It's a thought ...
// An elitist society is a natural and 'un-dismantleable' facet of a capitalist society. //
Indeed it is - maybe we should be dialling down the 'capitalist' aspect of it them, and introducing a little equality and compassion here and there.
It's a thought ...
Naomi - //What Zacs-Master said at 14:17 - but I'll add a bit. Contrary to popular belief an elitist society is a also a natural and 'un-dismantleable' facet of a socialist society - and of a communist society. That's what happens in the real world. //
You seem to be fond of metaphorically shrugging your shoulders and saying - this is how society is, so we have to accept it.
A civilised society can, must, and indeed does, evolve.
That's why we don't bait bears with dogs in the street, or push children up chimneys or into factory machinery.
Just because society has to live with the baser aspects of human nature does not mean we simply say it's ok, and never try to make things better. If that was the attitude of the human race, we'd all still be living in caves.
You seem to be fond of metaphorically shrugging your shoulders and saying - this is how society is, so we have to accept it.
A civilised society can, must, and indeed does, evolve.
That's why we don't bait bears with dogs in the street, or push children up chimneys or into factory machinery.
Just because society has to live with the baser aspects of human nature does not mean we simply say it's ok, and never try to make things better. If that was the attitude of the human race, we'd all still be living in caves.
Lots of things are totally unrealistic, but there's no harm done in striving to achieve them anyway. I should have thought that striving to achieve high standards of education (academic or otherwise) available for all, or at least for as many as possible, is one such goal. It's clearly totally unrealistic, but who cares? Even if you make it half the way closer that's still millions of children given a better start in life.
Just to clarify -- although it should be obvious anyway -- that that's equal availability rather than equal outcome, which is not only impossible but also undesirable anyway. Some children either won't or -- more likely -- can't quite make the most of the opportunities given, although this is certainly not always their fault. Responsibility should ultimately fall on the teachers, staff and parents to find the way through to the disruptive or the not-so-academically-minded.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.