FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What's the problem...
What's the problem...
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Beats me. Other than maybe left wing types don't want people to do well for themselves, they'd rather drag people down than lift them up"
Surely not? Surely the days of "Ideas above your station" are passed? Must we all be dumbed down to be ruled over by the affluent who can afford public schooling? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Beats me. Other than maybe left wing types don't want people to do well for themselves, they'd rather drag people down than lift them up"
You really do have a strange view of politics. The 'left' generally (in this country) want equality, ie. help everyone to do well, not let some people exploit others in order to do better at the expense of others.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All the kids are cunts called Sebastian and Daphne!.
What makes you think that? "
Dunno, i just had a rough guesstimate but it seems fine for everybody else when discussing politics  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Beats me. Other than maybe left wing types don't want people to do well for themselves, they'd rather drag people down than lift them up
You really do have a strange view of politics. The 'left' generally (in this country) want equality, ie. help everyone to do well, not let some people exploit others in order to do better at the expense of others.
-Matt"
How are people being exploited by grammar schools? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
I went to a grammar school by passing the eleven plus.The school had people of all classes and economic background.
I had a friend whos dad owned a large national company which I will not name,I had another friend who lived in a two up two down the worst housing in the area.
The boy who achieved the best results was the lad in the two up two down house because he saw what he might make of himself.He went in for medicine and moved overseas,we have lost touch now but I admired him greatly.
It was the grammar school system that opened his eyes and made him an achiever,so I think the system works. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I went to a grammar school. It was very old fashioned, very old buildings with some of the classes in sort of shack things and the gym was literally built in the 13th century and consisted of a few monkey bars and some ropes at one end.
We were taught how to play rugby rather than football. Mum and Dad didn't have to pay to send us there because I passed my 11 plus. And so I can't really understand what all the fuss is about.
Strikes me that the grammar school I went to was pretty poor money wise and the secondary modern in the town always looked far better resourced than ours with modern buildings and facilities. But it had a good attitude to bettering oneself and didn't do me or the other members of my family that went there any harm.
I wish I could have sent my kids to a school like it tbh but they've all gone comprehensive 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue? "
encourage all children or half of them or what percentage of children are encouraged by the 11+ ? and how are they encouraged more by an 11+ than they are by gcse's and a levels? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
encourage all children or half of them or what percentage of children are encouraged by the 11+ ? and how are they encouraged more by an 11+ than they are by gcse's and a levels?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school. "
Do you really think that people who didn't get into grammars didn't go to university? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school. "
Erm, just because you don't pass the 11+ doesn't mean you can't go to uni. You know this. I don't get your point? Alerted irreparably!? Really? And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school.
Erm, just because you don't pass the 11+ doesn't mean you can't go to uni. You know this. I don't get your point? Alerted irreparably!? Really? And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?"
Once you fail the 11+ it is very hard to succeed at that level - It can be done (ask someone who went to one), whereas grammar schools are aligned to prepare children for university. A child would have to leave school at 11 anyway -my point was to which school they then attended for the next 5 years.
I'm not saying that talent should not be encouraged and children should not be grouped according to abiility, but academic ability does not develop at the same rate in all children. It is really not possible, for example, to attend a grammar school after failing the 11+, even if your academic performnce picks up at 13 or 14, say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school.
Erm, just because you don't pass the 11+ doesn't mean you can't go to uni. You know this. I don't get your point? Alerted irreparably!? Really? And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
Once you fail the 11+ it is very hard to succeed at that level - It can be done (ask someone who went to one), whereas grammar schools are aligned to prepare children for university. A child would have to leave school at 11 anyway -my point was to which school they then attended for the next 5 years.
I'm not saying that talent should not be encouraged and children should not be grouped according to abiility, but academic ability does not develop at the same rate in all children. It is really not possible, for example, to attend a grammar school after failing the 11+, even if your academic performnce picks up at 13 or 14, say. "
So........ its the same ultimate qualification? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have mixed feelings about grammar schools. I failed the 11+ but, because my parents were quite rich, I was educated privately and I've done pretty well for myself. However if my parents hadn't been able to afford a private education I'm not sure I'd have done so well at the local secondary modern. Clearly the 11+ did not reflect my true potential.
On the other hand I definitely remember in the 70's, 80's and early 90's most leading politicians like Harrold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callahan, John Major were grammar school educated were as now, including Jeremy Corbyn, they are mostly privately educated. Seems like somethings gone wrong somewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
why do you think there should be an 11+ then? what is it's point?
To qualify for a grammar school place......."
and other than a bunch of gcse's what will these expensive to set up grammar schools offer that other schools don't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
why do you think there should be an 11+ then? what is it's point?
To qualify for a grammar school place.......
and other than a bunch of gcse's what will these expensive to set up grammar schools offer that other schools don't?"
You know grammar schools already exist don't you? "a bunch of GCSEs"! How about helping kids really excel? Would you rather everyone was average? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue? "
Especially open to those whose parents can afford a private tutor to coach them through the 11+ (it's called the Kent test nowadays). An A student will be an A student whatever school they attend so this idea that grammars enable social mobility is misguided at best, they are no more than private education on the taxpayer for the middle class who can't afford private fees but who will fork out for a tutor for 6 months, and as pointed out above it's a one off snapshot of ability at the age of 10. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have mixed feelings about grammar schools. I failed the 11+ but, because my parents were quite rich, I was educated privately and I've done pretty well for myself. However if my parents hadn't been able to afford a private education I'm not sure I'd have done so well at the local secondary modern. Clearly the 11+ did not reflect my true potential.
On the other hand I definitely remember in the 70's, 80's and early 90's most leading politicians like Harrold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callahan, John Major were grammar school educated were as now, including Jeremy Corbyn, they are mostly privately educated. Seems like somethings gone wrong somewhere."
Nigel Farage went to a grammar school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
why do you think there should be an 11+ then? what is it's point?
To qualify for a grammar school place.......
and other than a bunch of gcse's what will these expensive to set up grammar schools offer that other schools don't?
You know grammar schools already exist don't you? "a bunch of GCSEs"! How about helping kids really excel? Would you rather everyone was average? "
so you didn't answer the question .... nevermind .... in what way does going to existing schools make kids average, how are you measuring your perception of average? average height? average weight? average what? .... with far more people getting degrees after existing methods of secondry education, how exactly does that mean that people are unable to excel unless they go to grammar schools. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it"
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?"
Well that's rather confusing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do."
My son's school had an 11+ after school club. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do.
My son's school had an 11+ after school club. "
Oooh you must be rich  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do.
My son's school had an 11+ after school club. "
That's great and i applaud the school my daughters and my sons school dont offer this.I'd like all junior schools to offer preparation for the 11+. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do.
My son's school had an 11+ after school club.
Oooh you must be rich "
yeah, about that.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
Well that's rather confusing"
Not really, there's no point coaching a kid just to pass an exam if they're not going to cope with the work after. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do.
My son's school had an 11+ after school club. That's great and i applaud the school my daughters and my sons school dont offer this.I'd like all junior schools to offer preparation for the 11+."
Is there a grammar school in Bournemouth? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue? "
labour don't like them as it encourages kids to strive to better themselves !
They don't like this ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
Well that's rather confusing
Not really, there's no point coaching a kid just to pass an exam if they're not going to cope with the work after. "
Take your pick
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11933970/The-horror-of-11-plus-exam-season-has-to-change.html
http://m.kentlive.news/call-to-ban-11-plus-coaching-in-kent-s-prep-schools/story-29794217-detail/story.html
There's a whole industry built around it
www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/services/11plus-tutors
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do.
My son's school had an 11+ after school club. That's great and i applaud the school my daughters and my sons school dont offer this.I'd like all junior schools to offer preparation for the 11+.
Is there a grammar school in Bournemouth? "
Yeah. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem with grammar schools is that junior schools dont teach kids to take the 11+ .They teach the english and maths part but neglect the non verbal reasoning part.Private education focuses on passing the 11+.The only way around the state system is private tutoring from about 10 years old.This what many mums and dads i know do.
My son's school had an 11+ after school club. That's great and i applaud the school my daughters and my sons school dont offer this.I'd like all junior schools to offer preparation for the 11+.
Is there a grammar school in Bournemouth? Yeah."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
Well that's rather confusing
Not really, there's no point coaching a kid just to pass an exam if they're not going to cope with the work after.
Take your pick
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11933970/The-horror-of-11-plus-exam-season-has-to-change.html
http://m.kentlive.news/call-to-ban-11-plus-coaching-in-kent-s-prep-schools/story-29794217-detail/story.html
There's a whole industry built around it
www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/services/11plus-tutors
"
Aren't you 2 just arguing the same point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
Well that's rather confusing
Not really, there's no point coaching a kid just to pass an exam if they're not going to cope with the work after.
Take your pick
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11933970/The-horror-of-11-plus-exam-season-has-to-change.html
http://m.kentlive.news/call-to-ban-11-plus-coaching-in-kent-s-prep-schools/story-29794217-detail/story.html
There's a whole industry built around it
www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/services/11plus-tutors
Aren't you 2 just arguing the same point?"
Nope |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
Well that's rather confusing
Not really, there's no point coaching a kid just to pass an exam if they're not going to cope with the work after.
Take your pick
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11933970/The-horror-of-11-plus-exam-season-has-to-change.html
http://m.kentlive.news/call-to-ban-11-plus-coaching-in-kent-s-prep-schools/story-29794217-detail/story.html
There's a whole industry built around it
www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/services/11plus-tutors
Aren't you 2 just arguing the same point?"
I think so and if there were more grammars there wouldn't be any need for the industry. I took the 1!+ and passed along with 30 odd % of they year and we were all skint. Even though the grammars had changed to comprehensives a couple of years earlier the test was still used to determine which class you went in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
Well that's rather confusing
Not really, there's no point coaching a kid just to pass an exam if they're not going to cope with the work after.
Take your pick
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11933970/The-horror-of-11-plus-exam-season-has-to-change.html
http://m.kentlive.news/call-to-ban-11-plus-coaching-in-kent-s-prep-schools/story-29794217-detail/story.html
There's a whole industry built around it
www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/services/11plus-tutors
Aren't you 2 just arguing the same point?
Nope"
CandM seem to be asking the question "is it right to inflate a child's abilities to pass an exam, when they may well go on to struggle at a grammar school". So What are you talking about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
I know of one local primary school that used a private tutor to coach the children in passing the 11 plus. Obviously the more passes they got, the more popular the school became.
We have two grammar schools here and they bus children in from upto 35 miles away from neighbouring counties.
The problem with education is its not a "one size fits all" commodity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?"
I'll have to ask my dad.
Passed his 11+ because he's quite bright. Left school at 14 to get a job because incredibly poor, turned up to sit his 0-levels for some reason (don't ask me how he did that), passed one. English. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
I'll have to ask my dad.
Passed his 11+ because he's quite bright. Left school at 14 to get a job because incredibly poor, turned up to sit his 0-levels for some reason (don't ask me how he did that), passed one. English. "
So are you saying your dad was out of his depth? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
I'll have to ask my dad.
Passed his 11+ because he's quite bright. Left school at 14 to get a job because incredibly poor, turned up to sit his 0-levels for some reason (don't ask me how he did that), passed one. English.
So are you saying your dad was out of his depth?"
Something ike that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
I'll have to ask my dad.
Passed his 11+ because he's quite bright. Left school at 14 to get a job because incredibly poor, turned up to sit his 0-levels for some reason (don't ask me how he did that), passed one. English.
So are you saying your dad was out of his depth?
Something ike that. "
...... right.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"How do you tutor a kid to be intelligent?
Have you seen the Kent test?, it's not a measure of intelligence is it
No I haven't. But what good does it do a child to pass the 11+ then go to a school where he is out of his depth and bottom of the class?
I'll have to ask my dad.
Passed his 11+ because he's quite bright. Left school at 14 to get a job because incredibly poor, turned up to sit his 0-levels for some reason (don't ask me how he did that), passed one. English.
So are you saying your dad was out of his depth?
Something ike that.
...... right.."
In all honesty, I have a feeling that it was because the pastoral care element was lacking both at home and at school, and possibly not because he wasn't bright. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
failing to prove the things you've claimed in your opening post seems to be the only problem on this thread .... dodging or ignoring the tough questions altogether seems to be the political zeitgeist these days |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"failing to prove the things you've claimed in your opening post seems to be the only problem on this thread .... dodging or ignoring the tough questions altogether seems to be the political zeitgeist these days "
I find it slightly bizarre that people want to go backwards, to be honest. IF the comprehensive system is failing, then replace it with something better, that has learned the lessons of education systems of the past. Perhaps listen to teachers, whose job it is..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"failing to prove the things you've claimed in your opening post seems to be the only problem on this thread .... dodging or ignoring the tough questions altogether seems to be the political zeitgeist these days
I find it slightly bizarre that people want to go backwards, to be honest. IF the comprehensive system is failing, then replace it with something better, that has learned the lessons of education systems of the past. Perhaps listen to teachers, whose job it is....."
The way i see it the grammar schools complimented the comprehensive and Academy system, rather than try and replace them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
don't confuse me for someone who gives a shit either way ... i've finished my stint at secondry school. i'm just asking for clarification on the theory behind this proposed educational experiment.... however it seems those who went to grammar schools, when that kind of education was prolific, are the ones who have been dumbing people down all this time and if that's the case then more grammar schools will just as likely mean more dumbing down to be ruled over by yet more ex-grammar school students |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" don't confuse me for someone who gives a shit either way ... i've finished my stint at secondry school. i'm just asking for clarification on the theory behind this proposed educational experiment.... however it seems those who went to grammar schools, when that kind of education was prolific, are the ones who have been dumbing people down all this time and if that's the case then more grammar schools will just as likely mean more dumbing down to be ruled over by yet more ex-grammar school students "
Oh. I thought that was the people who'd gone to public school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
why do you think there should be an 11+ then? what is it's point?"
Yes, in fact, why have SATS....
Or GCSEs
Or A levels
Or degrees
Or any tests or qualifications whatsoever.! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" don't confuse me for someone who gives a shit either way ... i've finished my stint at secondry school. i'm just asking for clarification on the theory behind this proposed educational experiment.... however it seems those who went to grammar schools, when that kind of education was prolific, are the ones who have been dumbing people down all this time and if that's the case then more grammar schools will just as likely mean more dumbing down to be ruled over by yet more ex-grammar school students
Oh. I thought that was the people who'd gone to public school. "
when it comes to the ruling classes, i don't think it matters an awful lot which kind of secondry schooling the cunts had.... they are still cunts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
why do you think there should be an 11+ then? what is it's point?
Yes, in fact, why have SATS....
Or GCSEs
Or A levels
Or degrees
Or any tests or qualifications whatsoever.!"
You say that as some kind of ridiculous notion, but I have a feeling that qualifications based on one exam are not really much good.
All they test is your ability to memorise stuff - which I was extroadinarily bad at in my early adolescence, but extroadinarily good at thereafter. I flew through my GCSEs with lierally no revision, I got one of the highest marks in the country (apparently, according to my teacher) in my A-Level history with no real effort at all. Obviously, assessment at degree level is a bit different, but managed a first class hounours degree and a masters (although there were no exams at all in that).
I really think that qualifications need to change to reflect the actual abilities of the individual, rather than their performance over three hours in an examination room. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
why do you think there should be an 11+ then? what is it's point?
Yes, in fact, why have SATS....
Or GCSEs
Or A levels
Or degrees
Or any tests or qualifications whatsoever.!"
so if there are all these tests and exams what's the point of another one exactly, other than as an entrance exam to a more elitist education than what is currently being offered? it's been mentioned in the thread that elitism is a problem in this country ... it's just more expense again and the less liberal minded want less expense so they say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
Especially open to those whose parents can afford a private tutor to coach them through the 11+ (it's called the Kent test nowadays). An A student will be an A student whatever school they attend so this idea that grammars enable social mobility is misguided at best, they are no more than private education on the taxpayer for the middle class who can't afford private fees but who will fork out for a tutor for 6 months, and as pointed out above it's a one off snapshot of ability at the age of 10."
Both myself and my brother went to Grammar School. We both passed our 11 plus. Council estate background, no private tuition at all. As were probably about 90% or more of my mates at Grammar.
It's a left wing ultra socialist lie that people who go to grammar school are all from middle / upper class families that have private tuition for their children to pass the 11+.
I had a friend who couldn't read or write until he was 14. He obviously didn't go to Grammar school. But at 14 a switch in his brain turned on, and he suddenly learnt to read and write. By 23 he'd got a degree in engineering. Not going to grammar didn't hold him back at all. But I know if I'd gone to the comprehensive, I wouldn't have done as well as I have done. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" don't confuse me for someone who gives a shit either way ... i've finished my stint at secondry school. i'm just asking for clarification on the theory behind this proposed educational experiment.... however it seems those who went to grammar schools, when that kind of education was prolific, are the ones who have been dumbing people down all this time and if that's the case then more grammar schools will just as likely mean more dumbing down to be ruled over by yet more ex-grammar school students
Oh. I thought that was the people who'd gone to public school.
when it comes to the ruling classes, i don't think it matters an awful lot which kind of secondry schooling the cunts had.... they are still cunts"
I see.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
Especially open to those whose parents can afford a private tutor to coach them through the 11+ (it's called the Kent test nowadays). An A student will be an A student whatever school they attend so this idea that grammars enable social mobility is misguided at best, they are no more than private education on the taxpayer for the middle class who can't afford private fees but who will fork out for a tutor for 6 months, and as pointed out above it's a one off snapshot of ability at the age of 10.
Both myself and my brother went to Grammar School. We both passed our 11 plus. Council estate background, no private tuition at all. As were probably about 90% or more of my mates at Grammar.
It's a left wing ultra socialist lie that people who go to grammar school are all from middle / upper class families that have private tuition for their children to pass the 11+.
I had a friend who couldn't read or write until he was 14. He obviously didn't go to Grammar school. But at 14 a switch in his brain turned on, and he suddenly learnt to read and write. By 23 he'd got a degree in engineering. Not going to grammar didn't hold him back at all. But I know if I'd gone to the comprehensive, I wouldn't have done as well as I have done."
I'm pretty certain that you have misunderstood the "Ultra Socialist" () position on them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Where I grew up there was one local school and everyone went there. For some people there is choice, but for some there is no choice.
I have always believed that all schools should be good, not just 20% of them.
I think the school system in the UK is already too complicated with faith schools, academies, free schools, local authority schools, specialist schools such as sports or languages etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I see.
i think you're just saying that
Then you've found the one thing on this thread that you actually understand. "
back to the playground with you ... infants not secondry |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I knew a boy who was far more intelligent than most who took the test ,and strangly he didnt pass . Is there another agenda here and hasnt there always been one ?
I certainly think palms might be of been greased and backhanders exchanged in the day.Im not so sure things have changed much now either .If anything there is a lot more corruption now days .I really have my doubts about the fairness of these tests in some schools especially with such a need for school funding |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have mixed feelings about grammar schools. I failed the 11+ but, because my parents were quite rich, I was educated privately and I've done pretty well for myself. However if my parents hadn't been able to afford a private education I'm not sure I'd have done so well at the local secondary modern. Clearly the 11+ did not reflect my true potential.
On the other hand I definitely remember in the 70's, 80's and early 90's most leading politicians like Harrold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callahan, John Major were grammar school educated were as now, including Jeremy Corbyn, they are mostly privately educated. Seems like somethings gone wrong somewhere.
Nigel Farage went to a grammar school. "
No. Farage did not go to a Grammar School he went to Dulwich College which is an independent school. I suspect he was too dim to pass the 11+ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school.
Do you really think that people who didn't get into grammars didn't go to university?"
Back when GS were universal, virtually no-one who failed the 11+ went to University. Secondary Mods in the 50s and 60s didnt have any sixth forms for a kick off. In those days fewer than 10% went to university anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
Especially open to those whose parents can afford a private tutor to coach them through the 11+ (it's called the Kent test nowadays). An A student will be an A student whatever school they attend so this idea that grammars enable social mobility is misguided at best, they are no more than private education on the taxpayer for the middle class who can't afford private fees but who will fork out for a tutor for 6 months, and as pointed out above it's a one off snapshot of ability at the age of 10.
Both myself and my brother went to Grammar School. We both passed our 11 plus. Council estate background, no private tuition at all. As were probably about 90% or more of my mates at Grammar.
It's a left wing ultra socialist lie that people who go to grammar school are all from middle / upper class families that have private tuition for their children to pass the 11+.
I had a friend who couldn't read or write until he was 14. He obviously didn't go to Grammar school. But at 14 a switch in his brain turned on, and he suddenly learnt to read and write. By 23 he'd got a degree in engineering. Not going to grammar didn't hold him back at all. But I know if I'd gone to the comprehensive, I wouldn't have done as well as I have done."
But your anecdotal assertions aren't borne out by the numbers
Quoting from the Guardian link
"Local Equal Excellent began investigating the impact of the 11-plus in Buckinghamshire after grammar schools there said they were introducing a new test that was “resistant to coaching”. The provider of the “tutor-proof” test, the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University (CEM), claimed that the new assessment, consisting of literacy, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning tests, would test “natural ability” and counter allegations that selection discriminates against children whose parents can’t afford coaching. A detailed analysis of the first year’s entry patterns, pass rates and applicants’ family backgrounds was covered by the Guardian at the time. It showed that children from local state primary schools had been less successful than in previous years, while a higher proportion of privately educated pupils had passed.With two more years of test data and further evidence from CEM released under the Freedom of Information Act, the group claims the evidence against the test is stronger than ever. It shows a continuing strong bias against children from the most deprived postcodes (measured by the government’s income deprivation affecting children – IDACI)."
Your own friends experience bears out the fallacy of determining 5yrs of education on solely the basis of one test. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *isandreTV/TS
over a year ago
Hartlepool |
"I have mixed feelings about grammar schools. I failed the 11+ but, because my parents were quite rich, I was educated privately and I've done pretty well for myself. However if my parents hadn't been able to afford a private education I'm not sure I'd have done so well at the local secondary modern. Clearly the 11+ did not reflect my true potential.
On the other hand I definitely remember in the 70's, 80's and early 90's most leading politicians like Harrold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callahan, John Major were grammar school educated were as now, including Jeremy Corbyn, they are mostly privately educated. Seems like somethings gone wrong somewhere.
Nigel Farage went to a grammar school. "
Is that the school where his teachers objected to him being made prefect because he was a racist fond of singing hitler youth songs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school.
Do you really think that people who didn't get into grammars didn't go to university?
Back when GS were universal, virtually no-one who failed the 11+ went to University. Secondary Mods in the 50s and 60s didnt have any sixth forms for a kick off. In those days fewer than 10% went to university anyway"
My ex gf's dad went to the secondary modern, and managed to get himself to Bath to study chemistry, was an analytical chemist and then a teacher. He reckoned it was virtually unheard of for anyone in his locality (Nottingham) to go to uni from the secondary modern school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
Especially open to those whose parents can afford a private tutor to coach them through the 11+ (it's called the Kent test nowadays). An A student will be an A student whatever school they attend so this idea that grammars enable social mobility is misguided at best, they are no more than private education on the taxpayer for the middle class who can't afford private fees but who will fork out for a tutor for 6 months, and as pointed out above it's a one off snapshot of ability at the age of 10.
Both myself and my brother went to Grammar School. We both passed our 11 plus. Council estate background, no private tuition at all. As were probably about 90% or more of my mates at Grammar.
It's a left wing ultra socialist lie that people who go to grammar school are all from middle / upper class families that have private tuition for their children to pass the 11+.
I had a friend who couldn't read or write until he was 14. He obviously didn't go to Grammar school. But at 14 a switch in his brain turned on, and he suddenly learnt to read and write. By 23 he'd got a degree in engineering. Not going to grammar didn't hold him back at all. But I know if I'd gone to the comprehensive, I wouldn't have done as well as I have done.
But your anecdotal assertions aren't borne out by the numbers
Quoting from the Guardian link
"Local Equal Excellent began investigating the impact of the 11-plus in Buckinghamshire after grammar schools there said they were introducing a new test that was “resistant to coaching”. The provider of the “tutor-proof” test, the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University (CEM), claimed that the new assessment, consisting of literacy, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning tests, would test “natural ability” and counter allegations that selection discriminates against children whose parents can’t afford coaching. A detailed analysis of the first year’s entry patterns, pass rates and applicants’ family backgrounds was covered by the Guardian at the time. It showed that children from local state primary schools had been less successful than in previous years, while a higher proportion of privately educated pupils had passed.With two more years of test data and further evidence from CEM released under the Freedom of Information Act, the group claims the evidence against the test is stronger than ever. It shows a continuing strong bias against children from the most deprived postcodes (measured by the government’s income deprivation affecting children – IDACI)."
Your own friends experience bears out the fallacy of determining 5yrs of education on solely the basis of one test."
Did they take into account the fact that the majority of parents of children from deprived areas don't give a toss about their children's education?
One of our daughters is a secondary school teacher, and she can tell which children's parents never spend any time with their children helping them to learn... Generally within 5 minutes of being with that child.
And it's the worst performing children, whose parents she needs to talk to, that never turn up to parents evenings.
Very many parents nowadays don't spend time with their children even reading a story at bed time when they're young.
Unfortunately, most parents nowadays see the education of their children as completely the responsibility of the education system, and offer their children sweet fa in support. And its these parents that are generally more vocal in their condemnation of the education system, not accepting any responsibility in having played their part in fucking up their children's futures. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have mixed feelings about grammar schools. I failed the 11+ but, because my parents were quite rich, I was educated privately and I've done pretty well for myself. However if my parents hadn't been able to afford a private education I'm not sure I'd have done so well at the local secondary modern. Clearly the 11+ did not reflect my true potential.
On the other hand I definitely remember in the 70's, 80's and early 90's most leading politicians like Harrold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callahan, John Major were grammar school educated were as now, including Jeremy Corbyn, they are mostly privately educated. Seems like somethings gone wrong somewhere.
Nigel Farage went to a grammar school.
No. Farage did not go to a Grammar School he went to Dulwich College which is an independent school. I suspect he was too dim to pass the 11+"
Its a private school private education etc its a massive step up and doesnt make him dim just privileged  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I went to a grammar school by passing the eleven plus.The school had people of all classes and economic background.
I had a friend whos dad owned a large national company which I will not name,I had another friend who lived in a two up two down the worst housing in the area.
The boy who achieved the best results was the lad in the two up two down house because he saw what he might make of himself.He went in for medicine and moved overseas,we have lost touch now but I admired him greatly.
It was the grammar school system that opened his eyes and made him an achiever,so I think the system works."
What a nice post
We are all in charge of our own destiny and it looks like your friend applied hard work & study to get where he is now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
Especially open to those whose parents can afford a private tutor to coach them through the 11+ (it's called the Kent test nowadays). An A student will be an A student whatever school they attend so this idea that grammars enable social mobility is misguided at best, they are no more than private education on the taxpayer for the middle class who can't afford private fees but who will fork out for a tutor for 6 months, and as pointed out above it's a one off snapshot of ability at the age of 10.
Both myself and my brother went to Grammar School. We both passed our 11 plus. Council estate background, no private tuition at all. As were probably about 90% or more of my mates at Grammar.
It's a left wing ultra socialist lie that people who go to grammar school are all from middle / upper class families that have private tuition for their children to pass the 11+.
I had a friend who couldn't read or write until he was 14. He obviously didn't go to Grammar school. But at 14 a switch in his brain turned on, and he suddenly learnt to read and write. By 23 he'd got a degree in engineering. Not going to grammar didn't hold him back at all. But I know if I'd gone to the comprehensive, I wouldn't have done as well as I have done.
But your anecdotal assertions aren't borne out by the numbers
Quoting from the Guardian link
"Local Equal Excellent began investigating the impact of the 11-plus in Buckinghamshire after grammar schools there said they were introducing a new test that was “resistant to coaching”. The provider of the “tutor-proof” test, the Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring at Durham University (CEM), claimed that the new assessment, consisting of literacy, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning tests, would test “natural ability” and counter allegations that selection discriminates against children whose parents can’t afford coaching. A detailed analysis of the first year’s entry patterns, pass rates and applicants’ family backgrounds was covered by the Guardian at the time. It showed that children from local state primary schools had been less successful than in previous years, while a higher proportion of privately educated pupils had passed.With two more years of test data and further evidence from CEM released under the Freedom of Information Act, the group claims the evidence against the test is stronger than ever. It shows a continuing strong bias against children from the most deprived postcodes (measured by the government’s income deprivation affecting children – IDACI)."
Your own friends experience bears out the fallacy of determining 5yrs of education on solely the basis of one test.
Did they take into account the fact that the majority of parents of children from deprived areas don't give a toss about their children's education?
One of our daughters is a secondary school teacher, and she can tell which children's parents never spend any time with their children helping them to learn... Generally within 5 minutes of being with that child.
And it's the worst performing children, whose parents she needs to talk to, that never turn up to parents evenings.
Very many parents nowadays don't spend time with their children even reading a story at bed time when they're young.
Unfortunately, most parents nowadays see the education of their children as completely the responsibility of the education system, and offer their children sweet fa in support. And its these parents that are generally more vocal in their condemnation of the education system, not accepting any responsibility in having played their part in fucking up their children's futures. "
True. We live on a housing association estate. I was having a conversation with the mother next door. She mentioned her daughter had been offered the 11+, but she had declined on her daughter's behalf. "She's going to be drop out like her mum!" She informed me laughing..... good old welfare state eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue? "
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school."
That's scandalous. .... Mind you, I went to school in the late 70s and remember the school bus being stopped and having to catch the public bus service - the No 10 or the 501 it was. And that was under Labour.
I also remember cycling the 6 miles to school instead of taking the bus. The same as I did to college and work before I got a moped. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That's scandalous. .... "
If you like scandalous how about this...
The secretary of State for the Environment has applied to the High Court for a pre-election purda injunction forbidding the media reporting the publication of a report into 44,000 deaths a year being caused by nitrous oxide (given off by diesel engines) pollution and the government refusing to publish its proposals to deal with the problem until after the general election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
That's scandalous. .... Mind you, I went to school in the late 70s and remember the school bus being stopped and having to catch the public bus service - the No 10 or the 501 it was. And that was under Labour.
I also remember cycling the 6 miles to school instead of taking the bus. The same as I did to college and work before I got a moped. "
.
Thats nowt, i walked over two miles to school everyday because there were no buses ever and still arent  .. Thats when i could be arsed turning up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!"
If you quoted that from memory, you're more intelligent than you give yourself credit for.
On a more serious note, what steps do people think the government should be taking for education, baring in mind that manufacturing jobs will continue to move abroad or be automated and that more jobs based on mental rather than physical ability need be created in this country? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school."
Can you provide any links to support that comment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment."
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!"
.
Pah, luxury!!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”"
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The actual problem with grammar schools has nothing to do with class or privelidge.
The problem, is that it is not fair on the child to stream them into schools based on ability based on one arbitary test at age 11.
I don't think anyone is saying that streaming is wrong, but to have the course of ones life altered irrepearably at 11 isn't the best course of action.
Streaming can be done in a multitude of ways including teacher assesment. The advantages of a comprehensice system is that children to not have to change schools if their academic performance increases.
We didn't have grammar schooln in my county when I was growing up, but I was definitley nervous of tests and performed badly in them until my teens. I hate to think that the opportunity to go to university would have denied to me based on a fuck up at age 11.
On the other hand, some sort of streaming is a good idea, I was definitley put in sets for subjects at school.
Erm, just because you don't pass the 11+ doesn't mean you can't go to uni. You know this. I don't get your point? Alerted irreparably!? Really? And why would a child have to leave a school because of the 11+?
Once you fail the 11+ it is very hard to succeed at that level - It can be done (ask someone who went to one), whereas grammar schools are aligned to prepare children for university. A child would have to leave school at 11 anyway -my point was to which school they then attended for the next 5 years.
I'm not saying that talent should not be encouraged and children should not be grouped according to abiility, but academic ability does not develop at the same rate in all children. It is really not possible, for example, to attend a grammar school after failing the 11+, even if your academic performnce picks up at 13 or 14, say. "
I went to a comprehensive and got to uni, but this this probably because I went to a school with 3000 students or so. Some o us were bound to go.
In addition I had always had a good skill with sciences and humanities, so up until my A Levels I didn't really struggle with much academically.
During GCSE's we pretty much were told at age 14/15 to start contemplating what you would like to do with your life as a career objective.
Very few of us at that point admitted to wanting to go to uni, do something in science or such. A few wanted to do teaching and nursing and so were put in the same group as those who wanted to go to uni anyway.
This group of people in our year, of maybe 30 people, were at that point kind of told who to think more academically and tailor ourselves to fit that criteria. It only got more intense into our A levels.
I found out at uni first hand that myself and my classmates were the anomalies at uni.
Most people I went to uni with came from grammar school backgrounds, or state schools in affluent areas, with far smaller class sizes. Or openly admitted their parents could payfor additional private tuition.
I think selection is good, people have different talents, but I do think if we are going to want greater social mobility we have to push based this utdated grammar vs comprehensive school debate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school."
So the obvious answer is then - open more grammars - ta da, sorted |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school."
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school."
And if they fail the 11+ they can still go to these wonderful schools right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school.
And if they fail the 11+ they can still go to these wonderful schools right?"
Which schools are you talking about? Grammars or comprehensives? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
So the obvious answer is then - open more grammars - ta da, sorted"
Following your logic, for all to get into a Grammar School, every school would have to be a GS....brilliant thinking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school."
Did all the kids who failed the 11+ choose a secondary modern education? I rather doubt it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
So the obvious answer is then - open more grammars - ta da, sorted
Following your logic, for all to get into a Grammar School, every school would have to be a GS....brilliant thinking"
 , no. For all who are capable of getting into a grammar school there would be a place for them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school.
Did all the kids who failed the 11+ choose a secondary modern education? I rather doubt it"
What was wrong with secondary moderns? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school.
Did all the kids who failed the 11+ choose a secondary modern education? I rather doubt it
What was wrong with secondary moderns?"
Some people think there is nothing wrong with them, and everyone should go. Some people think there is something wrong with them, and that 20% should go to a different school. Which one are you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school."
Absolute bollox,i had 2 choices of grammar schools,ichose the one my mates wenn to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.Absolute bollox,i had 2 choices of grammar schools,ichose the one my mates wenn to "
I assume you passed the 11+, so you had the choice at that point. If you hadnt have passed youd have had a choice of secondary moderns. My point remains: Grammar Schools choose the kids not vice versa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
So the obvious answer is then - open more grammars - ta da, sorted
Following your logic, for all to get into a Grammar School, every school would have to be a GS....brilliant thinking
, no. For all who are capable of getting into a grammar school there would be a place for them"
So what proportion of kids should go to Grammar School? 10%, 20% 90%? The thing is that in theory people love the idea of GS until their kids fail the 11+ and dont get in. At that point a good idea becomes a very bad idea...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.Absolute bollox,i had 2 choices of grammar schools,ichose the one my mates wenn to
I assume you passed the 11+, so you had the choice at that point. If you hadnt have passed youd have had a choice of secondary moderns. My point remains: Grammar Schools choose the kids not vice versa."
So are you against streaming by academic ability? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
not everyone is capable of learning at a higher level, not social conditioning just ability.
You will always get the ones that shine and learn faster and go on to be academics so why not have schools that are capable of teaching them?
Even the richest kids don't quite make it and go on to do other things later on in life so I don't see any problem with grammar schools |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" With grammar schools? They are open to all classes of society, and encourage children to work hard to pass the 11+. So, what's the issue?
The problem is that opening a few new Grammar schools will not make a Grammar education available to all, but will increase the number of children from privileged backgrounds who will take a disproportionately larger slice of the already shrinking education budget that children from poor or poorer backgrounds. As a little aside but linked to this subject, how many here know that last month the government announced massive cuts to funding of 11 - 18 school bus services for those attending comprehensives that will remove local authority school busses on some 150+ routes and deprive thousands living in rural communities of their means of getting to and from school. But at the same time the government announced millions of pounds of funding for taxis to take grammar pupils living outside the schools normal catchment area to take them too and from school.
Can you provide any links to osupport that comment.
It's not quite right. The poster makes it sound like it's for all grammar school children, irrespective of means. People complain that grammar schools are only for the 'privileged with money'. I found this report.
The government has said it would invest £5m a year to fund transport for the poorest pupils to reach grammar schools so costs were not a barrier to a selective education for pupils who received free school meals or whose parents claimed maximum working tax credits.
"We recognise that for many parents the cost of travel can be a barrier to exercising that choice,” the chancellor, Philip Hammond, said in his budget speech.
“Pupils typically travel three times as far to attend selective schools, so we will extend free school transport to include all children on free school meals who attend a selective school because we are resolved that talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys.”
The idea that parents choose a Grammar School place for their kids is of course nonsense - the school chooses the child, not vice versa. That's why it's called a selective school.
But if a child from a less privileged background were to pass the 11+, then the parents have a choice!....
If that choice is not able to be exercised because the grammar school is outside of their catchments area, and there's no school transport service, then the government gave said they are providing transport to the less privileged in order that the parents would be able to exercise that choice.
When I took my eleven plus, there was no-one that passed that was denied a place at grammar school.
Did all the kids who failed the 11+ choose a secondary modern education? I rather doubt it
What was wrong with secondary moderns?
Some people think there is nothing wrong with them, and everyone should go. Some people think there is something wrong with them, and that 20% should go to a different school. Which one are you? "
Neither |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"not everyone is capable of learning at a higher level, not social conditioning just ability.
You will always get the ones that shine and learn faster and go on to be academics so why not have schools that are capable of teaching them?
Even the richest kids don't quite make it and go on to do other things later on in life so I don't see any problem with grammar schools"
This. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?"
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!"
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts. "
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps? "
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes"
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts. "
.
Everybody loves a nice yacht..did you hear the one about the socialist the Tory the banker and the Russian?.
They all make a killing
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-corfu-controversy-how-the-world-really-works-973817.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?"
No. But they could all be better educated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?
No. But they could all be better educated"
Stephen Hawking votes Labour, next time I'll see him I'll be sure to tell him how uneducated you believe him to be |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?
No. But they could all be better educated
Stephen Hawking votes Labour, next time I'll see him I'll be sure to tell him how uneducated you believe him to be "
Ok thanks.
Of course there are always exceptions but on the whole who benefits from keeping people down and poor? The Conservative party or the Labour party? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?
No. But they could all be better educated
Stephen Hawking votes Labour, next time I'll see him I'll be sure to tell him how uneducated you believe him to be "
Didn't Stephen Hawking go to St Albans, a fee paying school (about £18K p.a.), and then go on to University College, Oxford (where his father went) before finishing up at Cambridge?
So he'll be one of the 'privileged' then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?
No. But they could all be better educated
Stephen Hawking votes Labour, next time I'll see him I'll be sure to tell him how uneducated you believe him to be
Didn't Stephen Hawking go to St Albans, a fee paying school (about £18K p.a.), and then go on to University College, Oxford (where his father went) before finishing up at Cambridge?
So he'll be one of the 'privileged' then?"
Yet CandM were suggesting he was poorly educated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?
No. But they could all be better educated
Stephen Hawking votes Labour, next time I'll see him I'll be sure to tell him how uneducated you believe him to be
Didn't Stephen Hawking go to St Albans, a fee paying school (about £18K p.a.), and then go on to University College, Oxford (where his father went) before finishing up at Cambridge?
So he'll be one of the 'privileged' then?
Yet CandM were suggesting he pwas poorly educated. "
How? I've not seen them mention him in their posts. Maybe I've missed something.
But Hawking went an independent, fee paying school, not a comprehensive, didn't he? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
So you think people who attend comprehensive are poorly educated?
No. But they could all be better educated
Stephen Hawking votes Labour, next time I'll see him I'll be sure to tell him how uneducated you believe him to be
Didn't Stephen Hawking go to St Albans, a fee paying school (about £18K p.a.), and then go on to University College, Oxford (where his father went) before finishing up at Cambridge?
So he'll be one of the 'privileged' then?
Yet CandM were suggesting he was poorly educated. "
No I wasn't, I was suggesting they relied on the poorly educated for votes. If they relied on the likes of Hawkings they wouldn't get very far would they?
Two questions? Is Hawkings against grammar schools? And why are so many Labour MP's who went to grammar schools so against them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps? "
I prefer my pro Labour force politicians to be of the work force, rather than of the student union. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Do grammer schools have better teachers or more resources?"
I can't say that ours didn't. But neither can I say that ours did, either.
Ours was more academic, and the comprehensive was more practical.
I'm not sure that the class sizes were any different ( we had 30 odd to a class generally), and I can't say that the quamity of teachers was any different . What was the difference was probably that all the children in the grammar were more academically able, all of a similar ability and aptitude in each class, and so the quality of what was taught was probably higher.
In comprehensives today, children tend to get 'lumped together', and even though classes are 'streamed' of a fashion, teachers end up teaching to the lowest ability in the class. One of our daughters is a teacher at a comprehensive, and she says it's like trying to teach 6 different classes at the same time sometimes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes"
Educationalists are against GS because they do not create a better educated population and do not facilitate social mobility. Educational attainment across all kids in Kent ( a selective authority) is poorer than in Essex for example which is largely a comprehensive school based authority. Those are facts.
Given your analysis which suggests that Labour rely on the poorly educated, does that mean that the people of the NW and NE of England are poorly educated because they return Labour MPs? Your analysis doesnt even stand up to the most cursory of glances does it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Didn't Jeremy Corbyn's son go to a grammar school?
So did Jeremy Corbyn...... and I think his chum a Diane did too?
But it's a favourite socialist trick....climb to the top...and pull the ladder up after you. Hypocrites!
Champagne socialists, preaching to the workers, from the back of their yachts.
Do you prefer millionaire Tories telling people to pull themselves up by their boot staps?
I do, at least there's no hypocrisy. But it seems pretty obvious to me why socialists/Labour are against grammars. They rely on the poorly educated for votes
Educationalists are against GS because they do not create a better educated population and do not facilitate social mobility. Educational attainment across all kids in Kent ( a selective authority) is poorer than in Essex for example which is largely a comprehensive school based authority. Those are facts.
Given your analysis which suggests that Labour rely on the poorly educated, does that mean that the people of the NW and NE of England are poorly educated because they return Labour MPs? Your analysis doesnt even stand up to the most cursory of glances does it?"
Yes it does. The bulk of the Labour vote has traditionally come from the lower paid working class and I would suggest that people are lower paid working class partly down to ability but partly down to the education, or lack of it, they have received. Why would they want to change that? The problem for Labour though is that people are starting to realise that Labour hold them back and destroy jobs and more information/education is available to people as they grow and things are changing. Where once the dividing line was 'class' it is now age. Younger people will vote Labour but the tipping point comes at age 34 where after more people vote Conservative. So what do Labour do now? Unless they can create more people who are less well educated or are in some way reliant on the State they will never get into power again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Do you think that the more benefits you claim equates to likely hood of voting Labour? "
There was a study carried out in parliament in 2009 on the 200 constituencies with the highest proportion of benefits claimants. 189 of them were Labour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think that the more benefits you claim equates to likely hood of voting Labour?
There was a study carried out in parliament in 2009 on the 200 constituencies with the highest proportion of benefits claimants. 189 of them were Labour. "
So Labour voters are now thick and lazy? You couldnt make up this nonsense......oh, you just did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think that the more benefits you claim equates to likely hood of voting Labour?
There was a study carried out in parliament in 2009 on the 200 constituencies with the highest proportion of benefits claimants. 189 of them were Labour.
So Labour voters are now thick and lazy? You couldnt make up this nonsense......oh, you just did."
Can't be true can it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Do you think that the more benefits you claim equates to likely hood of voting Labour?
There was a study carried out in parliament in 2009 on the 200 constituencies with the highest proportion of benefits claimants. 189 of them were Labour.
So Labour voters are now thick and lazy? You couldnt make up this nonsense......oh, you just did."
Did I say that? I think you've just made that up actually.
You asked if benefits claimants were more likely to vote Labour. I gave you an answer. Where have I said, anywhere, that Labour voters are thick and lazy? Please point this out or STFU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think that the more benefits you claim equates to likely hood of voting Labour?
There was a study carried out in parliament in 2009 on the 200 constituencies with the highest proportion of benefits claimants. 189 of them were Labour.
So Labour voters are now thick and lazy? You couldnt make up this nonsense......oh, you just did.
Did I say that? I think you've just made that up actually.
You asked if benefits claimants were more likely to vote Labour. I gave you an answer. Where have I said, anywhere, that Labour voters are thick and lazy? Please point this out or STFU. "
I didnt ask anything about benefits claimants actually and it isnt your place to tell me to STFU is it???? Stop being a clown |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Do you think that the more benefits you claim equates to likely hood of voting Labour?
There was a study carried out in parliament in 2009 on the 200 constituencies with the highest proportion of benefits claimants. 189 of them were Labour.
So Labour voters are now thick and lazy? You couldnt make up this nonsense......oh, you just did.
Did I say that? I think you've just made that up actually.
You asked if benefits claimants were more likely to vote Labour. I gave you an answer. Where have I said, anywhere, that Labour voters are thick and lazy? Please point this out or STFU.
I didnt ask anything about benefits claimants actually and it isnt your place to tell me to STFU is it???? Stop being a clown"
Sorry, you're right, it wasn't you that asked. However, it was you that stated I said Labour voters are thick and lazy, wasn't it? And I haven't said that anywhere, have I? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
