Not sure if this has been brought up but I can't find it if it has...

 

Where do we all stand on this??

 

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, when I went to school (1995-2000) we were split into different sets for subjects based on ability. I.e maths set 1-7 (1 being the best and 7 the worst) so that you didn't have someone really good being held back by being in the same class as someone poor at it (and visa versa)

 

Surely grammar schools are just the same but grouping by district as appose to just within a school?

 

Also, as it stands to get into the best high school in Chorley (St Micheals) you have to go to church every week ffs. Same with the best primary schools. It doesn't matter if your Catholic, Jewish, Muslim etc etc as long as you attend every week and get your stamps

 

They are only doing this as they know a parent willing to go to church every week will also put a shift in teaching at home

 

I'd rather have an 11+ system / Grammar schools than the current system of faith taking precedence

Edited September 9, 20169 yr by birch-chorley

"They don't like me; they all went to Oxbridge University, wherever that is, and all go poncing round in their great big suits going "Ooh look at me I work for BBC2 do you like my glasses they're like John Lennon's. I loath these people."

Edited September 14, 20169 yr by RoadRunnerFan

Fucking hell Kent, you are the same age as me and I went to Rivi - I was in top set for maths but struggled with my mock exam and just scraped a C. So I was the only one in our top set to do the lower paper. I got a B in the end which was the highest available which I was well chuffed with.

Not all schools or teachers are the same.

"They don't like me; they all went to Oxbridge University, wherever that is, and all go poncing round in their great big suits going "Ooh look at me I work for BBC2 do you like my glasses they're like John Lennon's. I loath these people."

Partridge?

Partridge?

 

The very same.

I mentioned that to show that whilst I don't agree with the current system I fully understand why people do what they do and invest in it - that's also human nature: I also said I would consider it

 

I also hear your point and agree to some extent - it certainly seems idealistic but to quote some graffiti I saw earlier (not a Banksy as far as I am aware) "No one ever got anywhere by thinking small" If we accept that things are unfair they will always remain so. I still stand by my opinion that kids are discriminated against in financial/educational terms.

 

We don't accept racial discrimination now, but we used to . . .

 

Hmm

 

Do "we" discriminate against other people's kids or pull for our own?

Someone has likened kids not being arsed in school to racism.. belting..

Someone has likened kids not being arsed in school to racism.. belting..

or their parents not being arsed.

I studied for the Oxbridge exam whilst at sixth form. On top of a levels it became too much. Its important to be honest with yourself beforehand.

Sister in law went to Cambridge and did bloody well and she's Bolton born and bred.

 

 

What would you have studied?

Hmm

 

Do "we" discriminate against other people's kids or pull for our own?

 

What do you think? - serious question.

 

 I would say it's more the status quo that is weighted to always favour the more wealthy.  I could live with that if we all started on an even playing field but we don't.  In the case of education, I don't think it's fair on those from lower income families to be effectively penalised for this or have reduced opportunities due to a circumstance that is out of their control - like race or gender; as examples of what are considered characteristics to be protected against from discrimination by current law.

 

If I did send my kids to private school then I would do so knowing that the above is the case, but as I alone can't very well change the SQ it would have to be a decision that would ultimately require putting my children's future above my own beliefs/views.  I could potentially live with that which is why I wouldn't judge others for doing so.  Corbyn didn't, for example, and was labelled a hard-liner, left wing loony by some, including his now ex-wife . . .

What do you think? - serious question.

 

 I would say it's more the status quo that is weighted to always favour the more wealthy.  I could live with that if we all started on an even playing field but we don't.  In the case of education, I don't think it's fair on those from lower income families to be effectively penalised for this or have reduced opportunities due to a circumstance that is out of their control - like race or gender; as examples of what are considered characteristics to be protected against from discrimination by current law.

 

If I did send my kids to private school then I would do so knowing that the above is the case, but as I alone can't very well change the SQ it would have to be a decision that would ultimately require putting my children's future above my own beliefs/views.  I could potentially live with that which is why I wouldn't judge others for doing so.  Corbyn didn't, for example, and was labelled a hard-liner, left wing loony by some, including his now ex-wife . . .

 

 

We need to maximise the potential for every child, not equal.

 

The best kids need to be with each other, be that intellectually, practically or otherwise.

 

Collaboration and competition are good life skills.

 

Money wouldn't come in the way of that, really.

 

Grammar schools have helped children of all backgrounds up the ladder.

 

Corbyn went to a grammar, for example.

 

 

We need to deploliticise the teaching "profession", who are in the way of progress.

Whereas Corbyn had the luxury of a grammar school education. Playing politics with ones own children is pretty low.

Anyway, the school aspect for lower income families is taking it in isolation. Are the children at a disadvantage before they even enter the system? If so, why? Parents must take some if not a lot of responsibility.

What do you think? - serious question.

 

 I would say it's more the status quo that is weighted to always favour the more wealthy.  I could live with that if we all started on an even playing field but we don't.  In the case of education, I don't think it's fair on those from lower income families to be effectively penalised for this or have reduced opportunities due to a circumstance that is out of their control - like race or gender; as examples of what are considered characteristics to be protected against from discrimination by current law.

 

If I did send my kids to private school then I would do so knowing that the above is the case, but as I alone can't very well change the SQ it would have to be a decision that would ultimately require putting my children's future above my own beliefs/views.  I could potentially live with that which is why I wouldn't judge others for doing so.  Corbyn didn't, for example, and was labelled a hard-liner, left wing loony by some, including his now ex-wife . . .

 

The idea of grammar schools is to give those kids the chance that private schools offer..

 

the tutoring, catchment area, going to church are just abuse of the system.. the same way that Jo down the council estate claims she doesn't live with her partner so she can get more benefits..

I went to Deane and left in 94. We were the first year to do GCSE's so we were the guinea pigs.

 

Not wanting to sound like an arse - but I was bright at school, never out of a top set throughout my 5 years.

 

When it came to the Maths GCSE's there were two papers you could attempt. A higher paper which meant the you could get an A* but needed to get 80%, or a lower paper where the maximum grade you could achieve was a C but you only needed 60% to do it. The entire top set for maths was entered for the lower paper - on the rationale that you only needed a C to get into college.

 

It's thinking like that which is the problem for me. If you have low hopes and expectations for kids then that's what you'll churn out.

 

Now I (probably) could have got into a grammar - but I don't understand why that would necessarily have been any better given the fact that we were put into sets anyway? A modern school should be able to cope with kids of differing ability levels - but they should also be pushing their kids to be as successful as they can - not settling for second best like mine did.

 

Maybe things have changed now? Who knows.

 

We've got an 18 month old and if he's academic we'll do our best to encourage him as much as we can. But we're in a fortunate position - or rather he is. Although we're not rich - we've enough money to move closer to a decent primary school and hire a personal tutor for him by the age he'll be coming up for selection to his secondary school. But there's a lot of kids around this area (Halliwell) who will no doubt be at least as bright but who's parents won't be able to offer their kids the same chance because they're poor. That's what the problem with grammar schools is. It's never going to make the worst off more upwardly mobile. And it's the worst off who really need the leg up.

I was GCSE in 94 too

 

I was in an advanced Maths set throughout the 5 years

 

I was made to do the higher paper

 

And at the last I'd heard (a long time ago mind) I was the only one to ever hold the distinction of being in that group throughout and not getting an A or a B

 

Fair to say my Mam still hasn't forgiven me

The idea of grammar schools is to give those kids the chance that private schools offer..

 

the tutoring, catchment area, going to church are just abuse of the system.. the same way that Jo down the council estate claims she doesn't live with her partner so she can get more benefits..

I don't believe i abused the system when my two girls were accepted for a Grammar school, if anything my mrs and i sacrificed so much to give them the chance of a better education. I tutored them both for a year each and once they had passed the 11+ and the entrance exam we had 60 mile round trips every school day for 6 years or so to get them to school and back. Needless to say the church bit wasn't a problem either. There were lots of parents like ourselves but no doubt the odd one did abuse the system but it certainly wasn't as rife as you suggest

I don't believe i abused the system when my two girls were accepted for a Grammar school, if anything my mrs and i sacrificed so much to give them the chance of a better education. I tutored them both for a year each and once they had passed the 11+ and the entrance exam we had 60 mile round trips every school day for 6 years or so to get them to school and back. Needless to say the church bit wasn't a problem either. There were lots of parents like ourselves but no doubt the odd one did abuse the system but it certainly wasn't as rife as you suggest

 

i'M not suggesting it is, Others are, I'm actually pro grammar school.

 

If a parent wants to do everything they can for their kids, then that's good parenting... I cant see how people can have issue with that.. they would do the same..

i'M not suggesting it is, Others are, I'm actually pro grammar school.

 

If a parent wants to do everything they can for their kids, then that's good parenting... I cant see how people can have issue with that.. they would do the same..

Sorry mate, i misread the inference

Someone has likened kids not being arsed in school to racism.. belting..

That's nowt, I once saw a paedophile claim that him being called a small-bean regarder, a bunty man and a bent ref was a form of racism.

And a shrub-rocketeer.

That's nowt, I once saw a paedophile claim that him being called a small-bean regarder, a bunty man and a bent ref was a form of racism.

 

I once saw a paedophile disguise himself as a school. O yes, he really was a sh1t.

Edited September 15, 20169 yr by RoadRunnerFan

Kent- an interesting comment about modern schools being able to cope with all types of kids.

Problem is it doesn't seem to work.

As be says give kids with similar abilities environments which suit them. We've got teachers effectively having to teach subjects to different levels and environments not helping any one.

Academia is not for everyone; there's nothing wrong with accepting that some kids will out perform others and providing systems to suit so that they all get what's best for them. Whether its more vocational type schools etc for those less academically minded we should leave for the so called experts.

If brexit is going to increase the need for home manufacturing then we should be looking at creating more engineers, machine operators, builders etc instead of hearing there is a shortage of skills.

These are arguably more important than pushing everyone into exams so that schools can claim great statistics but are churning out uninspired kids with no real direction. This carries on into universities.

If we want the best for everyone we should respect differences and not try to homogenise all academically.

Quote from The West Wing....

 

....education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defence. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.....

 

Quote from The West Wing....

 

....education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defence. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.....[/quoted]good job it's just a show then eh

Whereas Corbyn had the luxury of a grammar school education. Playing politics with ones own children is pretty low.

Anyway, the school aspect for lower income families is taking it in isolation. Are the children at a disadvantage before they even enter the system? If so, why? Parents must take some if not a lot of responsibility.

 

Totally agree about the last part!  And about playing politics with kids - I wasn't saying I agreed or disagreed with his decision mind, just using it as an example in response to BDs post.

 

Personally, I do think some kids are at a disadvantage, yes.  But I think it's more that some are at more of an advantage what bugs me.  No system is perfect, I know, but I just think it odd that such an unfair advantage, and something that the kids can't control - unlike their actual ability, is deemed to be 'just the way it is' by the majority of people.  Still, we all have opinions.  We wont all agree.

Edited September 15, 20169 yr by madthatter

The idea of grammar schools is to give those kids the chance that private schools offer..

 

the tutoring, catchment area, going to church are just abuse of the system.. the same way that Jo down the council estate claims she doesn't live with her partner so she can get more benefits..

 

Agree.  My point about Equality is more of a side issue that relates to Elitism in education generally.

 

My issue with grammar schools is the selection process.  I haven't seen what is proposed for this but the old way had many pitfalls imo.  If kids today took an 11 plus you'd probably find that 70% of kids making the grade would be female.  It's known that girls generally develop faster than boys - I have seen this in my work.  Also, as you will know, some kids don't really 'come on' until they are mid-teens or later.

 

Taking an entry exam as a one off is archaic and would be a waste of time imo.  Not to mention the stigma of not attending a Grammar school.  To be fair, I don't know what the answer is . . .

Edited September 15, 20169 yr by madthatter

We need to maximise the potential for every child, not equal.  - Agree.  I never  said children were all equal, just that they should be given an equal opportunity to maximise their potential.

 

The best kids need to be with each other, be that intellectually, practically or otherwise.  - agree, in the main.

 

Collaboration and competition are good life skills.  - agree

 

Money wouldn't come in the way of that, really. - not so sure about that . . .

 

Grammar schools have helped children of all backgrounds up the ladder.  - yes, possibly

 

Corbyn went to a grammar, for example.

 

 

We need to deploliticise the teaching "profession", who are in the way of progress. - On this I couldn't agree more!    I find it odd to say the least that politicians, and all that goes with that, ruin run education.  It should be left primarily to educators imo.  Constant moving of goal posts for political votes is unwise and will continue to disrupt and damage the system.

Edited September 15, 20169 yr by madthatter