[ Parent ]

So in your view there are no basic principles in Labour policy?

Being against grammar schools is A BASIC TENET OF TRUE LABOUR POLICY.

I did not use the statement lightly. Adonis is clearly in the wrong party.

He will have to be gone by Monday.

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

I think every sensible person is in favour of Universities being open to all of the brightest people from all backgrounds at a not prohibitive cost.

What is the moral difference between grammar schools for the brightest children and universities for the brightest young adults?

That does not mean that not-so-bright children get dumped in bad schools, just that the emphasis is a bit different. Also no reason to assume that grammar schools should get more funding, quite possibly comprehensives should get more because teaching slower children requires a higher teacher-pupil ratio.

[ Parent ]

What these figures indicates above all is that academic selection at aged 11 does not work. Selective schools fail in two key areas: they do not help raise standards and they do not promote social inclusion. Unlike Adonis (for whom I have great respect - I just think he is wrong)many progressive commentators are now of the view that it is time to address the archaic and socially exclusive policy of academic selection.

The study in 2005 by Professor David Jesson - a statistical comparison of the GCSE and GNVQ results of all grammar school pupils with those of the top 25% (of 'grammar school ability') in comprehensive schools - indicated that the comprehensive schools had done slightly better overall. There is also evidence that fully comprehensive systems reduce the gaps in attainment between children of different abilities and between children from different social class backgrounds. Selective systems cost more to run, increase social exclusion and limit choice of schools for parents and pupils. The long - term effects on pupils failed by the system cannot be quantified. It is often forgotten that all primary schools are comprehensive as are all FE institutions.

In 2006 over half of all 15-16 year olds in maintained schools achieved five or more 'higher passes' at the end of compulsory schooling. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools, one which many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970, 47% of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2002 that figure was down to 4% Between 1989 and 2004, the percentage of 16-18 year olds in full time education rose from 37.6 to 80.3. In 1971-72 14% of under 21 year olds entered higher education, in 2003-2004 42% entered. Over a third of the age group entering higher education is an aim which would have seemed impossibly ambitious a generation ago. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s this remarkable increase in productivity as measured by qualifications is attributable, in large part, to the removal of the barrier of the 11-plus for some four-fifths of the population.
The idea of `choice' in education is all too often ill-defined. Parents can exercise a preference in terms of schools: few can exercise any real choice. A selective system of schooling does not lead to diversity of provision it simply leads to division. Selection is not the creation of choice rather it is the denial of choice for the many. A selective system (be it based on ability or aptitude) does not help promote a diverse system of schooling; it simply helps perpetuate division in society as a whole. Getting rid of selection in England's schools (there is no selection in Wales or Scotland and it is on the way out in Northern Ireland) would produce an immediate improvement in the overall exam performance of the nation's children, reduce poverty and inequality in many of our most deprived inner-city areas and overtly and transparently attack privilege that all too often masquerades as excellence. Selective schools are not escape routes from poverty, they do not offer good value for money and they do not help raise standards overall? Gordon Brown is already looking for some passion-rousing policies that will unite the progressive movement and reach out to the Labour party's natural supporters: policies that will signal a shift towards a more radical and egalitarian agenda. The Tories do not want a return to selection and the Lib Dems are opposed in principle. This is why a Brown led Government should seek to end selection in the state sector once and for all.

[ Parent ]

Nobody says the government should "map out the future" that's the problem with this bloody government they WANT to map out everybody's future (and ignore the present and the recent past).

Shoving all kids into what is for many an inappropriate environment is "mapping out their future" just as much as streaming by ability. Some kids are clever, some kids are good at football ,some kids are good looking, and some aren't so gifted at anything, that is a harsh fact of life that we are all a little bit different WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME.

[ Parent ]

Sensible people are beginning to realise that the one-size-fits-all education system isn't working and has dramatically reduced social mobility.

Let's tailor-make our education system to suit each child's talents - not lump them all together and pretend that this is some noble cause.

Bog standard comprehensives do not work. Selective education (not necessarily at 11 - it could be at a later age) - is the way forward.

[ Parent ]

Selective education denies valuable experiences to those who 'pass' and those who 'fail' the eleven plus.

[ Parent ]