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

Faith schools, grammar schools, whatever, lets get to the fucking point.

 

Kids will get out of their education what their whole surroundings provide. Given they're only at school 7 hours a day 38 weeks a year, it suggests the home life is just as crucial as their schooling.

 

Shit parents taking zero responsibility and blaming schools for their feral fuck up of a child, need drowning.

 

If that home life is dysfunctional social fuck up of ale, fags, 24hr tv, uninterested parents, and space raiders for tea, then I reckon there is a pretty high chance they'll grow up a bit numb nomatter what school they go to.

That's sent the Alf Garnett meter off the scale.

 

 

??? Well, i am sure you get what you are on about ???

 

Inscrutable.

I see Labour have voted to make it policy to phase out all Grammar schools

I saw a women on Sky News this morning talking like children would be labelled failures if they didn't make it into a Grammar school, what a load of nonsense

 

As long as the schools get the same funding and its just a case of grouping children by educational ability then I really don't see how it holds anyone back

 

If they really do believe that all children should be taught equally then they should abolish having different sets in schools for each subject based on ability. Start putting the brightest kids in with the slowest and they can both learn at a pace that isn't right for them, lets see how that works, at least they can say that everyone is treated the same then though

 

At my school separating by ability really worked, you ended up in a class of similar standard and worked through everything at a relatively equal speed

And we were moaning about religious schools over here. Welcome to after school Satan club, kids

http://tgr.ph/mid11H

 

Turns out it's just a great catchy name and it's really science school with no known association with our infamous poster. Boo, boring!

I saw a women on Sky News this morning talking like children would be labelled failures if they didn't make it into a Grammar school, what a load of nonsense

 

As long as the schools get the same funding and its just a case of grouping children by educational ability then I really don't see how it holds anyone back

 

If they really do believe that all children should be taught equally then they should abolish having different sets in schools for each subject based on ability. Start putting the brightest kids in with the slowest and they can both learn at a pace that isn't right for them, lets see how that works, at least they can say that everyone is treated the same then though

 

At my school separating by ability really worked, you ended up in a class of similar standard and worked through everything at a relatively equal speed

It's not nonsense. You get a letter saying you have failed. When you are 11. You could be the brightest kid in your school and you have a shit morning. Game over. You've failed. And you're told you failed.

 

Having different sets and different schools is totally different.

It's not nonsense. You get a letter saying you have failed. When you are 11. You could be the brightest kid in your school and you have a shit morning. Game over. You've failed. And you're told you failed.

 

Having different sets and different schools is totally different.

To be honest, I was more upset that I didn't get into the school football team. A failure at 11. Decided I wasn't, after all, going to play for BWFC. I got over it.

It's not nonsense. You get a letter saying you have failed. When you are 11. You could be the brightest kid in your school and you have a shit morning. Game over. You've failed. And you're told you failed.

 

Having different sets and different schools is totally different.

 

Life training at an early age!

It's not nonsense. You get a letter saying you have failed. When you are 11. You could be the brightest kid in your school and you have a shit morning. Game over. You've failed. And you're told you failed.

Having different sets and different schools is totally different.

Nowt to say that entrance method can't be modernised to allow for this. Why not allow children to switch at a later date if it becomes apparent they warrant it.

Nowt to say that entrance method can't be modernised to allow for this. Why not allow children to switch at a later date if it becomes apparent they warrant it.

I suppose by that point they've made friends and settled and might not want to be uprooted to another school. I know I wouldn't have at 13.

Nowt to say that entrance method can't be modernised to allow for this. Why not allow children to switch at a later date if it becomes apparent they warrant it.

 

I'd say entry at 13, process driven by the child applying, with the former school to receive a payment equivalent to the pupil allowance for each future year's attendance as a reward/encouragement.

Nowt to say that entrance method can't be modernised to allow for this. Why not allow children to switch at a later date if it becomes apparent they warrant it.

What happens now is you can retake the exam a year later, sort of a 12+. Pass that and you're then on the waiting list where the normal over subscribed school criteria apply. A kid needs to leave first, then it's whoever lives closest who is on the waiting list gets that place.

 

I imagine it'd have to something similar in your system, unless you're going to allow the school to kick out underperforming kids to make room.

Edited September 30, 20169 yr by mickbrown

I suppose by that point they've made friends and settled and might not want to be uprooted to another school. I know I wouldn't have at 13.

Fair point; though I'd guess they'd show their worth fairly soon in the first year.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-09/shami-chakrabarti-defends-sending-son-to-18-000-private-school-while-criticising-selective-education/

Hypocrisy. Rich Socialists can afford private education whilst trying to deny the opportunity of a better education to less privileged children.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-09/shami-chakrabarti-defends-sending-son-to-18-000-private-school-while-criticising-selective-education/

Hypocrisy. Rich Socialists can afford private education whilst trying to deny the opportunity of a better education to less privileged children.

Corbyn went to a grammar school and his former lover Diane Abbott sent her child to a private school too...it's rank hypocrisy if you ask me. Irrespective of whether you agree with grammar schools or not how can Labour keep a straight face when they crticise this policy?

ann taylor was another one

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-09/shami-chakrabarti-defends-sending-son-to-18-000-private-school-while-criticising-selective-education/

Hypocrisy. Rich Socialists can afford private education whilst trying to deny the opportunity of a better education to less privileged children.

 

 

They treat "Animal Farm" as a textbook

Corbyn went to a grammar school and his former lover Diane Abbott sent her child to a private school too...it's rank hypocrisy if you ask me. Irrespective of whether you agree with grammar schools or not how can Labour keep a straight face when they crticise this policy?

 

Yes, but.

 

At the time that Corbyn went to GS the alternatives were very poor. It is more telling that he went to a private convent school rather than the village primary (and the family was not RC). By the way his mother taught in a (separate) GS.

 

It is all too easy for those Labour politicians living in well-heeled North London suburbs such as Holland Park to make a point of using the local comp when it is far from typical - indeed rather more like a GS.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-09/shami-chakrabarti-defends-sending-son-to-18-000-private-school-while-criticising-selective-education/

Hypocrisy. Rich Socialists can afford private education whilst trying to deny the opportunity of a better education to less privileged children.

 

Presumably selection by financial wherewithal is better than selection by merit?

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-09/shami-chakrabarti-defends-sending-son-to-18-000-private-school-while-criticising-selective-education/

Hypocrisy. Rich Socialists can afford private education whilst trying to deny the opportunity of a better education to less privileged children.

 

 

Looks like defending the rights of terrorists at the taxpayers expense pays exceedingly well.

It is indeed hypocrisy. Fucking disgraceful.

 

However don't kid yourself the other side give a flying fuck about our kids education.

Do you really believe that mick?

 

Politicians and the establishment need the general populous to have a basic level of education to allow them to function in society and contribute to the nations (and their) wealth. A load of illiterate and innumerate kids growing up serves no one well.

Do you really believe that mick?

 

Politicians and the establishment need the general populous to have a basic level of education to allow them to function in society and contribute to the nations (and their) wealth. A load of illiterate and innumerate kids growing up serves no one well.

 

A basic level of education absolutely, but the establishment don't want our kids to have the same education as their kids.

 

Hence they send the little fuckers to Eton, Westminster or in this case Dulwich

 

They need us in our place.

A basic level of education absolutely, but the establishment don't want our kids to have the same education as their kids.

 

Hence they send the little fuckers to Eton, Westminster or in this case Dulwich

 

They need us in our place.

I don't see why that bothers you. The mega rich choosing to pay for kids to go to Eton etc, fine let them. No problem with it.

If post brexit is going to be difficult then we'll need more industry and entrepreneurial types to get business going.

Tories have a good opportunity to reshape things at the moment, but if they fuck up on education and a weak brexit they won't last long

If someone works their way up, and wants to pay money for their kids to go to a certain school..

 

feck it..

 

let them

 

My daughter will be sitting the exams for Bolton School, that's why I work my arse off every day, to get the best for my kids..