And if you had succeeded in getting into that grammar school, your opinion on all this would magically be different I assume?
General Election 2010 Page 39
Quote: Timbo @ April 18 2010, 8:30 PM BSTIf at all, at fourteen would be preferable. But there is no objection to banding children within comprehensives, what is important is that children should not feel that they have been written off and that there is sufficient fluidity in the system for children to be re-evaluated as they develop. That did not happen under the old grammar school/secondary modern dichotomy.
I didn't feel written off. If anything I was glad of a bit less pressure.
Quote: zooo @ April 18 2010, 8:34 PM BSTAnd if you had succeeded in getting into that grammar school, your opinion on all this would magically be different I assume?
Why would you assume that?
Well I was mostly joking.
But you must admit it sounds a bit like sour grapes!
Quote: Timbo @ April 18 2010, 8:09 PM BSTBecause it is unfair to disadvantage children based on perceptions of their ability at age eleven.
Is it disadvantaging the 'less able' kids, or is it giving them a normal playing-field whilst pushing the 'more able'?
And does the opposite - non-selective schooling - not disadvantage those who are more able?
Childrens' aptitudes are pretty clear by the time they're 11, I think; and there are still opportunities (although there should be more) for those initially deemed as 'less able' to bring themselves up, so to speak.
From The Sun's website .
And Mr Clegg's party would end up with just 134 seats - which would still leave them as the powerbrokers in a badly hung parliament.
How do they know that?
I don't know how anybody can know anything.
It all comes down to that one day on May 6th when people vote.
Hopefully not Labour.
It's absolutely wrong to divide children at 11 - there are a whole host of reasons why a child of that age might not be fulfilling its potential. I went to what was desribed as a comprehensive school in the 60's (Scotland). we were streamed according to ability, which mean the 'brainy' weans could get on with the studies but if there were any in the lower streams who wanted to have a bash at higher things, they could transfer to an academic stream. The result was that there were 2 girls transferred into my class who became primary teachers and one who became an art teacher. These girls would have had no chance if they'd been cast into the so-called junior secondary of the time.
And going off at a tangent - there are many 'gifted' children who perform very badly in primary school - they're not 'stretched' and become bored so don't bother their arses to work. I once ran a Saturday morning family club for gifted children and it would make your hair stand on end how they were treated and misunderstood in school - not surprisingly many of them massively underachieve and can seem 'thick' to the average primary teacher.
Quote: zooo @ April 18 2010, 8:43 PM BSTWell I was mostly joking.
But you must admit it sounds a bit like sour grapes!
No just a personal perspective. I have had sufficient opportunities my life, and am big enough to take some personal responsibility for the way things have turned out, and wise enough to know that if I had got what I wished for they could very well have tuned out worse.
But the 'politics of envy' is always the accusation thrown at anyone who suggests society could be a little fairer.
It was mainly the way you worded it, to be honest.
Quote: Timbo @ April 18 2010, 8:03 PM BSTHaving failed to get into a grammar school I am not hugely in favour of that proposition.
It may not have even occured to me had you not tied the two issues together yourself in that first post on the subject.
Quote: Oldrocker @ April 18 2010, 9:06 PM BSTFrom The Sun's website .
And Mr Clegg's party would end up with just 134 seats - which would still leave them as the powerbrokers in a badly hung parliament.
How do they know that?
Without seeing the article or contexts it's hard to say, but probably by analysing voting patterns and the likely outcomes of the various marginals.
Quote: keewik @ April 18 2010, 9:16 PM BSTIt's absolutely wrong to divide children at 11 - there are a whole host of reasons why a child of that age might not be fulfilling its potential. I went to what was desribed as a comprehensive school in the 60's (Scotland). we were streamed according to ability, which mean the 'brainy' weans could get on with the studies but if there were any in the lower streams who wanted to have a bash at higher things, they could transfer to an academic stream. The result was that there were 2 girls transferred into my class who became primary teachers and one who became an art teacher. These girls would have had no chance if they'd been cast into the so-called junior secondary of the time.
And going off at a tangent - there are many 'gifted' children who perform very badly in primary school - they're not 'stretched' and become bored so don't bother their arses to work. I once ran a Saturday morning family club for gifted children and it would make your hair stand on end how they were treated and misunderstood in school - not surprisingly many of them massively underachieve and can seem 'thick' to the average primary teacher.
But the idea levelling the playing field and devaluing exams will help them is bogus.
Already parents are using religious schools as alternate grammers and the Baclareat, US exam systems etc are becoming popular with those who can afford them.
Identifying gifts may need more work. But so does allowing people back into education at a later stage.
Quote: zooo @ April 18 2010, 9:26 PM BSTIt was mainly the way you worded it, to be honest.
It may not have even occured to me had you not tied the two issues together yourself in that first post on the subject.
Perhaps, but I was just trying to offer a different perspective. The praises of grammar schools are always being sung by those who went to them, no-one asks those who failed to get in how they felt about it.
And I confess I exaggerated a little for effect. It was my elder brother who failed to get in (who is actually very bright). By the time my turn came my parents had bought the uniform to hand down, and they would not in any case have chosen to stigmatise my brother as the 'thick one' by sending me to the grammar, so the issue never came up. The school had by then in any case become a comprehensive, at least notionally. In reality there were still two grammars in the borough, so the comp was not getting the children of whom much was expected, and with the same deadbeat teachers from the secondary modern days that lack of expectations was generally fulfilled. But I was an odd child, and by some chance became the only pupil in my year to get to University - quite a good one in fact - and when I got there I was a little disappointed to discover that my fellow students were no brighter than my old classmates had been.
Quote: Aaron @ April 18 2010, 9:28 PM BSTWithout seeing the article or contexts it's hard to say, but probably by analysing voting patterns and the likely outcomes of the various marginals.
Aaron !
Badly hung ?
Quote: sootyj @ April 18 2010, 9:29 PM BSTBut the idea levelling the playing field and devaluing exams will help them is bogus.
Identifying gifts may need more work. But so does allowing people back into education at a later stage.
I agree about devaluing exams and allowing people back into education. New Labour have sucked on education.
That is a different discussion though to selection at 11.