Schoolzone: May's grammar ideas - what teachers think

May's grammar ideas - teachers' own words

 

13 Sept 2016


Search previous posts:

 

 

In response to May's proposals for grammar expansion, here's what teachers had to say...

Secondary teachers' comments

  • Primary teachers' comments here

Those who said they were generally in favour:

  •  A good idea
  • 20% minimum from lower income and 20% minimum from higher income to maintain a social mix. Would not be good to have too high a percentage of less able pupils who struggled to keep up with the work - no matter what their background.
  • Access should be by non-tutorable aptitude tests rather than with quotas
  • as long as it raises the average achievement of children across the country
  • As long as they are of Grammar school potential then it is a positive step
  • As we are already in a several tier system of academies, LEA schools, faith schools and free schools - this will just be another choice for parents. However the new grammar schools will need to support the lower income families with help for uniform, equal opportunities to go on trips etc. If that happened, it would be great...I just don't think  that it would happen and those children could become really disenchanted with the schools and leave. Also, working in a Pupil Referral Unit - would these new grammar schools be part of the sharing panels to take in permanently excluded pupils for a fresh start?
  • depends how it is implemented -could be good or NOT!!
  • Every child should have the opportunity to go to a grammar school if they have the ability so that they are taught and challenged to achieve their full potential.
  • Excellent if they do so by taking children of the approriate adademic potential
  • Family income shouldn't come into it
  • Fine, but it needs to be fair to all children.
  • gives them a chance!
  • Good
  • Good idea all children should have equal opportunities
  • good idea but should be on ability
  • Good in theory, although complications could arise.
  • great idea - grammar school education shouldn't just be for the pupils whose parents can afford it.
  • I agree that pupils from deprived areas should access high quality education that might be outside their geographical area.
  • I have concerns about the children from middle income families then losing out - the ones that cannot afford private education but would not get the chance of a grammar school place.
  • I like the idea of increasing the number of places at grammar schools in order to cater to a wider range of children, but I believe that it will quickly deteriorate into another system that can be abused by parents 'playing the system'.

  • Places should be based on whole-school attainment, rather than just what can be done in the last couple of the years with extra tuition and throwing money on prepping them for tests.
  • I see no need for it. There arealready pupils at my school who are from low income families. Members of my family who attended grammar school did not come from a wealthy background. Parents with a low income can be just as supportive of their children's education as wealthy ones, sometimes more so.
  • I think the issue should be ability not income.  The present 11+ gets trained for by many and so is not a fair exam.
  • If selection is to be by ability income should not be a factor
  • I'm torn.  I think it is important to ensure that not only pupils who have access to paid for tuition are able to pass the entrance criteria.  It may well be better to avoid it being an exam system, and actually liaise directly with primary school where teachers can accurately identify those pupils who would benefit from being in a grammar school based on ability, not on extra tuition coaching.
  • Income doesn't always dictate intellect but is a strong indicator. Will the 'chosen poor'  thrive in an unfamiliar social environment
  • Interesting but the devil is in the detail
  • It depends entirely on the ability of the children - if there are a lot of able pupils from poorer areas they should all have access to the school.
  • It is a great show of equality in the education sector.
  • It is already happening and has been so for three years in the Birmingham Grammar schools. The aim of our school is to take 25 such pupils each year out of 120.
  • It should be fully in ability regardless of social background. 
  • low income families should be encouraged to enrol their children into Grammar Schools as it is important that they are not ssen to be elitist.
  • Proportion taken should be the same as the ability proportion in the whole population - no positive or negative discrimination
  • Schools have a responsibility to support and develop pupil premium students and give them opportunities they might not otherwise get
  • Should be on academic potential
  • Something needs to be done to balance the current unfair selective system; this may be the answer.
  • there will always be a proportion of underachievers who will catch up before GCSEs and therefore if grammar schools are aiming higher academically then a selection will be given the opportunity to achieve their potential.
  • We should not identify such children. Fine a better way to assess their potential, not just VR tests but a whole range of criteria: games, conversation, observations in classes, teacher assessment.  And make all schools better.
  • A brilliant idea. I do not understand why Governments abandoned Grammar Schools. I attended one in p**s poor Liverpool during the 70s and 80s.  We had an excellent academic tradition. Students including me loved the place as it was a haven and a pinnacle of academic excellence with clear and positive connections to university education and the Armed Services who would have recruited and funded degrees.  Mr Hatton - universally despised by all and sundry - destroyed my school in the name of egalitarianism. He is now a millionaire living in Hale Barnes. I am not. Pseudo egalitarianism and Champagne Socialism as per Blairs is not the answer. 
  • A good way of ensuring that proposed new grammar schools do not perpetuate inequality.
  • ABLE pupils should go to grammar - there should be no test for wealth or privilege - one size fits all is a utopian dream, what we need is right size for each group
  • Absolutely fabulous - can't come soon enough
  • entrance should be based on intelligence regardless of income levels
  • Entry should be based on intelligence. I do not think that grammar schools should have to take in any % of low income students.
  • Excellent idea as long as it is correctly implemented. Those students on FSM needs to access the papers first.
  • Excellent. The only way that social mobility has improved in the years since the war has been through grammar school education, which is now in reverse.
  • Fantastic opportunity for lower income children to have a chance in life
  • Good idea in principle provided you don't have to lower the selection criteria too much to do so (otherwise you lose the point of selection)
  • Good in principle. There is no reason why the higher ability students - whatever their economic background -should not have access to grammar education.
  • Grammar schools should be selective on ability not income!  If a child is academically bright enough they should get a place.  A bright higher income student should not have to relinquish a place in favour of a less bright lower income student, and the same should be true in reverse!
  • great
  • Great idea - we do it already
  • Great idea!
  • Great opportunity for able students 
  • I am a strong believer in Grammar school idea
  • I quite like it but am concerned about the quality of education for those who don't get in. 
  • I think it is a good idea to make it fair for everyone. BUt they do have to be able to make the standard set by the school.
  • I welcome the idea of grammar schools taking in more pupils from less privileged backgrounds. I work in a school where we are privileged to participate in a scheme which ensures that a proportion of pupils go on to attend private schools (with full bursaries/scholarships) post 16. This had been a driver in ensuring we, as a school reach 'good' with many 'outstanding' features in January this year. The scheme has driven the majority of pupils to strive for excellence and raised the overall attainment of the school. Making pupils from less privileged backgrounds understand that there is something better for them out there (by whatever means) can only be a good thing! 
  • is a silly idea: and not one based on evidence
  • It is the method by which we have been able to increase our intake from 154 to 180. by having a lower pass mark/threshold for the first (top by exam mark) 36 Pupil Premium students then the remaining 154 places are the first past the post based on ability to pass the CEM centre test we use.  
  • It needs the be based on ability and a n testing which is designed to be fair. 
  • It's brilliant.
  • its not to do with the socio-economic of the child's background, it should be on academic ability only.
  • Should be on ability only with tests that can't be coached.
  • Still think it should be selection based on ability not income
  • The proportion will need to be linked to the specific circumstances of the school.  If there are very low percentages of low income families anywhere near the new school, it would seem silly to set a high recruitment requirement.
  • The school should take the most suitable students, regardless of background.
  • Think it is an excellent idea as it will enable the most able to fly

 

Those who said they were generally against:

  •  If this is to be a criteria, it should be significantly above the average % of PP pupils in the area. In some areas this could be 50%+
  •  it is a good ideas as fairer-lower income pupils have not the opportunity to have paid coaching like middle class kids or come from a private prep or primary school with small classes.  
  • A fair comment as ability is often camouflaged by class but difficult to enforce - how would they be selected?
  • A good idea if they can make this happen, however at present the % of low income households at grammar schools is way below the average of a comprehensive.
  • A good idea in theory, but in practice the concept is flawed
  • A retrograde step and disastrous for nearby comprehensive style schools. 
  • A smoke screen. It simply won't happen. 
  • Absolutely essential but I totally disagree with grammar expansion 
  • Another bonkers idea from the ideas factory that is the Tory-led, clueless DoE. 
  • Any opportunity to expand grammar schools is a bad one.
  • Anyone can enter for the tests. Why is there a need for a proportion of children from lower income households? Publicise the tests and offer to pay for LIH fees (if any).
  • Appalled. Grammar schools are socially very divisive, a backwards move. Most gifted teachers attracted to deliver to most able when we need them for all. Government should get  out and visit the best on offer in comprehensives and apply to all. 
  • At the moment grammar schools have a large proportion of middle class families because they pay for tutors to get in. Grammar schools should use SATs and recruit using that data
  • Barmy! You either select by ability or you don't. I was a working class pupil who got to grammar school by ability in the 1960s. The problem is that middle class children with limited ability are traned to play the entrance tests.
  • depending on how the system worked, and how the students would be selected this could cause problems for the individual students within school
  • Difficult to implement but essential if grammar schools are going to be available to non-affluent pupils
  • disagree, it is P.M. May trying to get her party behind her, using a big dog whistle
  • divisive 
  • Divisive and unwise. Research suggests that it would only serve to aggravate and widen social divides.
  • divisive



    We take children from the local area regardless of background
  • Don't agree with Grammar Schools on any level
  • Don't like the idea
  • Don't really agree with introducing more grammar schools but good idea to guarantee proportion of pupils from lower income.
  • Dreadful segregation at the age of 11 is appalling
  • Dreadful. Either make it equally accessible to all based on ability or not have at all. I went to grammar when ALL children had 11+ coaching in primary, no private tuition. Ban private tutor access to 11+ materials and prepare ALL primary children for 11+ to give COMPLETELY equal access to all. Why have a 'QUOTA' for poor kids??!! What if 100% of the poor kids were better than the rich kids, what then????
  • Fundamentally disagree with the Grammar school idea so as they shouldn't exist it's a non question
  • good if grammar schools are going to be set up but I don't agree with state funded grammar schools as i think it is wrong to separate children on ability. comprehensive schools allow fore movement up and down as children develop. Schools left as non-grammar become sink schools
  • Grammar schols will not take up this option.
  • Grammar school are selective based on academic ability so you are still creaming off the top leaving other schools in that are not selective to take in the rest of the pupil population
  • Grammar schools - nonsense.

    Taking lower income - a must.

    Not sure which question I'm being asked
  • Grammar schools are absolutely wrong.  There is plenty of research which shows that they further disadvantage poorer students.   I am totally against Grammar schools as a whole, no matter what the attached policies are.
  • Grammar schools are divisive and will not encourage social mobility. They will achieve quite the opposite !
  • Great for the students who get into a grammar school, awful for those who don't. 
  • Highly divisive, unthought through, not in the Tory manifesto so unrequested, likely to have a severely detrimental effect on other schools in areas if introduced, demotivating for those not getting in
  • history shows that middle-class parents will find a way to subvert the system to their advantage
  • How would this work when the selection is supposed to be by ability?
  • I am not convinced this will allow for really equality of opportunity.
  • I am skeptical that it will work in practice.  Lower income students may still struggle with transport, uniform costs, cost of any trips or equipment they need
  • I am totally against the idea of grammar schools
  • I believe it is an ill-conceived plan to appease the many who oppose grammar schools.
  • I believe students and parents should have a number of options open to them depending on interests and ability. However Grammar schools impact on other schools by taking the upper ability students away so remaining students do not see what they can aspire to achieve. Making judgements about schools will be impacted and any 'assessment' of a schools worth must be designed to cater for all types of school.
  • I disagree with selective schools - and if they're selective it should be on merit - in spite of background or household income.
  • I don't agree with grammar schools, but if they were imposed they should also take pupils from less affluent backgrounds. 
  • I don't agree with grammar schools. If they are to go ahead, I suppose a quota is better than nothing 
  • I don't think it will work.
  • I fundamentally disagree with it as it will not help social mobility
  • I hate it.  Children should not be failed at 11.  My granddaughter has just gone through the 11+ exams and the additional school tests - she will pass and is relaxed about it - some of her friends have been stressed and upset for weeks.   They are all children who can achieve and should not be told they are different.
  • I hate the idea of schools becoming selective based on ability; I believe very strongly in the comprehensive system and worry that reintroducing grammar schools will result in a battle over more able pupils with less able left to attend schools that will become a modern equivalent of the secondary modern. While some choices in education should be linked to ability, making 11 year olds jump through even more strenuous hoops is ridiculous. Yet again, like the current SATS, those that can afford extra coaching will benefit and those who can't will find it even more difficult to be classified as successful. 
  • I think it another blow in lessening the gap between rich and poor. It's a very poor idea. 
  • I think it doesn't help - these students fall behind at every stage of their lives - being at a selective school, surrounded by wealthier people is not necessarily going to help them.  I also think it has an extremely damaging effect on those students 'left behind.'  It does not improve outcomes for all which is what the government should be focusing on.
  • I think it is a positively evil idea: divisive, limiting and designed to enshrine current social inequality. It is a sop to ignorant or selfish wealthy voters to keep them onside. It is driven by a disdain for the poor and disadvantaged and an absurd believe in a magical version of the past. It is the worst idea that I have heard in a long time. Those behind it should be ashamed.
  • I think it is backward looking and ignores all social and education thinking of the last 50 years.
  • I think it is lip-service to sound like they are doing their bit. 
  • I think it is pointless. I went to a grammar school so understand the system quite well. The teaching is not any better in grammar schools in my opinion. The only reason for their high achievement is the standard of the pupils, the support from parents and the aspiration levels. If the proportion of pupils who do not fit that criteria is too high, then grammar schools will become exactly the same as high performing comprehensives. If the proportion is not too high then why do it? It will just divide society even more.

    The school system is facing absolute collapse in the next 5 years of conditions of employment don't improve - the government will find they own the worst legacy in the history of education unless they stop obsessing with structure and start dealing with the issues that matter!!
  • I think it is ridiculous- academies will lose their top end and results will plummet 
  • I think it is very difficult in practice to define a 'lower income household' and there would be some parents who could mask their true income in a variety of ways in order to qualify for some of the places if they perceive selective education as a distinct advantage
  • I think it leads to an unfair educational system, all students should have equal opportunity
  • I think it will cause an even wider gap between pupil premium student and non pupil premium. I think these gramma schools will cream of the naturally talented students from state schools. The government should face up to the teacher retention te ructions crisis that is happening. Would they allow the new apprentice scheme to get into teaching ins gramma school? I think not. More investment is needed in education this is easily found by getting rid of OFSTED. Let local authorities and local schools work together to raise standards. 
  • I think it will further disadvantage families from poorer backgrounds and create sink schools.
  • I think it would be much better to improve all school to ensure all children are able to achieve their potential.
  • I think its appalling - writing young people off before being given an opportunity to develop
  • I think schools should not be selective but comprehensive. It's down to leadership and staff to create a successful school
  • I think selection is appalling
  • I think that grammar schools will build walls that education seeks to knock down and enforce cycles of depravation. 
  • I think there should be no selection on ability and all schools should be comprehensive. This will create sink schools and a two tier system.
  • I totally oppose the introduction of selection.  I have worked in comprehensive education for my entire 23 year career.  I was educated in a comprehensive school and so were both my children.  I also oppose social engineering in any form.  Re-introducing grammars is pandering to the middle classes and will result in a two tier education system.  Non-selective schools will just become the schools no-one wants to attend.
  • I would need to know more about whether other selection criteria would also be applied before making a judgement.
  • I would prefer a voucher system and students could go to the school that fits there learning style.
  • If a grammar is based on ability it cannot then select on economic status..you are either clever enough to go or not..the issue is that Grammar's are divisive, they split students into clever or not at a single point of time. The assumption is that Grammars are better schools than non selective, and that in order to get a better education system you just add more grammars. Tosh.
  • If it helps disadvantaged kids - great
  • If new grammar schools are tasked with this challenge then existing grammars should have to also abide by the same principles. The law that will have to be changed to create new grammars should reflect a change to existing grammars and their selection criteria.
  • If the point of grammar schools is to increase social mobility then the proportion of children from disadvantaged backgrounds should be as high as possible or middle class parents will ensure their offspring takes the places.
  • If there must be grammar schools it is crucial that they target pupils from poorer households . 
  • If they are selective they should just take the academic top , background is irrelevant . 
  • I'm concerned about the idea because so many children are tutored to get into grammar schools that it doesn't reward children irrespective of income.
  • I'm very much against it
  • Inadequate
  • Intake should match the proportion of lower income households in the area
  • Irrelevant to the debate.  The whole idea of grammar schools is based on the assumption that 'general academic ability' is some kind of fixed property of the individual.  I am unconvinced of that assumption therefore all subsequent grammar school questions are ephemeral
  • It ignores a great deal of other information and is a coarse measure rather late in the day. I don't think it will actually help those from low income families to obtain a place at grammar school as their disadvantage may make it less likely that they reach the required standard anyway.
  • It is a bad idea to have grammar schools as it divides society into the academically bright and not bright at the age of 11. This process Labels a significant proportion of students as thick, denies them the opportunity to mix with more able students and will probably limit the quality of their learning experience and future prospects. 
  • It is a good idea in theory
  • it is a ridiculous idea as it Just spreads the school funding into another branch. the money would be better spent on improving the existing school provision. it will be the biggest waste of school funding since free schools. how many Grammars will be opened to be shut once some organisation as made enough money. stop treating education as a business.
  • It is a sound idea but not sure it is conceived in the best possible way
  • It is an absolutely ridiculous idea that against the concept of reducing social discrepancies. Theresa May is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes suggesting that you can create social equality whilst trying to create a two tier educational system that will leave low income and low ability students struggling in a second class system.
  • It is an absolutely terrible idea. Having worked in a secondary modern it was clear to me that bright students didn't get into grammar schools, grammar schools did not deliver real value added (when you consider progress levels generally of the poor, etc.) and that you didn't get into a grammar school because of: physical health issues; mental health issues; parents' education; parents' attitudes; ethnicity; wealth; and a number of other significant attributes that won't be addressed by the government.
  • It is difficult to ascertain who is eligible.

    I am not in favour of this idea.

  • It is likely to disappear after a few years. 
  • It is ridiculous 
  • It is utterly feeble and shows what a joke the whole idea is.  How is low income going to be defined? How will this be verified? Ridiculous. 
  • It is wrong - devisive and it will not increase social mobility. 
  • It may go some way towards dealing with the issue of grammar school places for those who are financially able to provide additional tutoring for their children prior to the eleven plus.
  • It may well be better for the top 15% ability but destroys the chances of the rest.  EVERY child matters and every school should be about helping EVERY child achieve the best they can and that wont happen by selection.  Also pupils benefit by seeing the whole spectrum of abilities, personalities etc
  • It needs to be at the heart of the system - not just something that looks good on paper but is ignored later. I am all in favour of promoting brighter 'poorer' students ahead of equivalent performing middle class ones. 
  • It will help a very small proportion of disadvantaged students but will significantly widen disadvantage who the majority who will not been able to gain a place in grammar schools. 
  • It won't work, comprehensive education is the only way to ensure equal opportunities for all students. 
  • It would better to spend money on making the existing schools in that area be the best they can be by providing sufficient funding and support for school staff
  • It would make selective schools fairer
  • It's a terrible idea that will hamper social mobility for years to come. This will create a two-tier system of education where those who attend grammar schools are seen as 'a cut above', whilst those that attend non-grammar schools are seen as failures. 
  • It's regressive. Selection is divisive across the whole of our society though it may benefit a minority.  This isn't the way to improve education and learning for all young people. 
  • Lame. They will ease back on it until it is irrelevant 
  • Let the grammar schools take the BOTTOM 20% of attainers based upon ks2 sats results. Most schools do well with the top 20% but its the low achievers that worry me more
  • Merit doesn't have a %age

  • More change but this time to front May's need to cut a dash. It is so neanderthal to defy description. The Tories have no concept of one nation despite the rhetoric. Nor are they patriots.This is nonsense. May was a disaster at the Home Office ; now she will start to rubbish the country for Tory unity purposes. Business as usual but Cameron was sl. easier on the eye. 
  • More than 25% so that opportunity and aspiration is spread among all social groups
  • Most government initiatives have failed - free schools.  This is just another waste of money
  • Not comfortable with the whole concept of selective schools without good provision for pupils not selected.
  • Not feasible
  • Not necessarily a good idea - depends if the students have support at home to do well.
  • Not thought through
  • Nothing to be gained by going backwards. Grammar schools work for the minority art the expense of the majority.
  • OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
  • Poor.

    I think comprehensive system is good. Taking the top performers out of this system will be detrimental. How will they identify which pupils to take from low income families
  • Pupils from lower income families have equal access to a good education in a comprehensive, unlike in the old days where they would have gone to a secondary modern and not been able to do O levels.
  • Pupils should be accepted on many criteria of which income should not be a factor- I won a Grammar school place on merit (entrance exam) but my parents would not have been able to afford fees.
  • Quotas would seem to risk making the system irrelevant
  • Ridiculous!
  • rubbish
  • Seems like another archaic idea so that they are seemed to be doing something. Why academies? What has happened to inclusion? Where is the support for the students who don't do so well and struggle with the school system? 
  • Selective schools are both divisive and restrictive. Not so much for those that are selected, but more for the ones who are not. If selected schools are so good, the teachers and teaching staff should be seconded to comprehensives to see what really makes the difference to success. Learn from our education history - what started as parity of esteem very quickly turned into successes and failures.
  • shocking. 
  • Shocking.This would lead to a two tier system of education, where the middle class children would succeed and the working class children would be left to rot as was the system in the past.Wealthy parents will pay for their children to be coached for the exam to grammar schools.Worki class children will be left behind.For every grammar school there was a secondary modern school.Just watch Kes.
  • Shouldn't have grammar schools in first palce
  • Stigmatise kids first by ability, then do it again by income. No to any grammars.
  • Stupid question, what proportion of children are from lower income?  49%?  Different parts of country have different proportions
  • Stupid. Divisive. Creates a two tier system and everyone knows that those who don't get selected are going to be labeled as failures for life 
  • Terrible idea.  A quick way to further social division.  This will only help to leave pupils from poorer/less supportive backgrounds behind.  How on earth can you tell at 11 years old whether a pupil will thrive in an academic or technical environment anyway?  I's nonsense!  To separate pupils at this age, especially when grammar school entrance tests will favour those pupils whose parents can afford the extra tuition usually required, is certain block to social mobility and will only lead to a more divided, damaged society.  Simply an awful decision by out-of-touch politicians once again demonstrating utter ignorance of the reality in Britain's schools.
  • Terrible.....regressive ....will produce sink schools in poor areas . 
  • The proportion will depend on the context of the school, but in any event if improving the life chances of disadvantaged pupils is the aim, then opening more grammar schools is not the way to achieve it
  • There should be no reintroduction of grammar schools. 
  • There will always be children who lose out. There will be greater inequality. The idea is deeply offensive and shameful.
  • They are trying to make controversial idea more palatable 
  • They should be 100% from low income families or not at all. Do not like the idea of Grammar Schools. Socially devicive. 
  • They should take the best pupils regardless but sadly that will only deepen the social and economic divide.
  • They will just sift out the clever pupil premium kids and take the money that comes with them and use it elswhere.This would leave less cash for the other local schools who will struggle as they will have the kids who do need the intervention and less money
  • This a very divisive bad idea. I went to a grammar school and was reasonably successful however I left school feeling that I was not clever. It was only when I started teaching I realised what a negative effect the selection process had had on my life experience I was not thick just at the lower end of the grammar spectrum. I never went back to Bucks to teach as I didn't want to teach in the system. Education should promote an inclusive society and all should be encourage not just to learn together but to understand each other the 12 plus was very divisive. As I have watched the system evolve over the last 30 years I now see an even more corrupt system where very few local primary school children can access their local grammar school. I went with about 40 per cent of my class to grammar schools there were 3 options. Now the same primary sends about 4 or 5 pupils. Of a class of 35 . To grammar because they cream off from an amazingly large area. This sense of failure does not go at the age of 12 it lives on. The new Are system is also going to have an impact which creates pass and fail. Showing no understanding of people and how to create community just a binary system of pass/ fail. There is a need for depth and understanding of people not separation in my opinion.
  • This definitely needs to happen as in my area, many Grammar School places are taken up by middle class families who can afford to send their child to a private school but instead want the free education of a grammar. They can afford tutors and coaching to get them to pass the entrance tests; disadvantaged students' parents cannot. Places in grammar schools should facilitate social mobility, not restrict it.
  • This policy will create a two tier discriminatory system. What happens to those schools where bright children are creamed off, and what teachers will wish to work in more stressful secondary modern schools?

    'In an age advancing progressively backward!

  • This would need to ensure that it was not abused or manipulated and that it did not adversely a affect existing schools. 
  • Totally disagree with grammar schools.  How can there be a quota if you are selecting from students who will have been privately coached/tutored for the 11+ none of which will be from lower income households.  Not all lower income more-able students will fall into the disadvantaged category and some will miss out on any funding support.

    Ridiculous!!!
  • Utterly idiotic. Without substantive evidential basis.
  • very bad , we should be concentrating on improving all schooks
  • What's the point in regressing back to the past

    ..we need to move forwards to the future.
  • Whole thing is a terrible idea
  • Will lead to worse results for less academic pupils.
  • Will make rest of country as divisive as Kent.Tories cut the 1 to 1 funding scheme which Labour introduced to improve standards of disadvantaged.
  • Will make them feel like the poor relative having a favour done for them out of pity.

    They will be labelled and pitied or patronised throughout their early life.

    Academic selection should not consider economic background. All should be given the same chances -and NO rode training beforehand.
  • You will never weed out selection due to background by test alone.  Low income families bring other disadvantage as well. Education needs to be valued. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HTML Comment Box is loading comments...