Thankfully making a return. Let's get back to creating environments where the brightest kids can flourish and achieve there potential.

And the 'less bright' kids get to work in factories or pick up for a living. Great stuff

Which is what they would have achieved anyway without holding the smart kids back.



Horses for courses. Let the bright kids push on and run the country/business, be inventors .........

So what you're saying is you want to determine whether someone gets to become a toilet cleaner or an 'inventor' based on an arbitrary test at age 11.

Did I say secondary schools should limit teaching to toilet cleaning??



Potential can be seen early. There's no reason why kids cant move either way post 11 years old.

Exactly, which is why segregating them is ing stupid.

Even if its only 80% correct its better than the failing system we have now.



You cant hold a generation back for a few late developers

Do they teach grammar at these schools?

I'm not sure what they teach but i'm sure we will see some great leaders come out the other end in the fullness of time.



Selection by ability a moot point within Labour currently.

Utter balls. Grammar schools merely help the better off. There's plenty of studies and research to back this up. But then I suppose we're in a post-expert age now aren't we.

Why if you established a Grammar in a less than 'better off' area could it not succeed?

Because they are an inherent failure in an education policy. Ergo...

It frustrates me that we don't look at successful systems implemented by other nations, and try and implement them ourselves. Finland has been one of the world leaders in education for years, why don't we ask 'why?'. An interesting article from a US maths teacher seems to suggest that we wouldn't have to change that much to improve things. https://fillingmymap.com/2015/04/15/11- ... s-is-more/

It frustrates me that we don't look at successful systems implemented by other nations, and try and implement them ourselves. Finland has been one of the world leaders in education for years, why don't we ask 'why?'. An interesting article from a US maths teacher seems to suggest that we wouldn't have to change that much to improve things. https://fillingmymap.com/2015/04/15/11- ... s-is-more/

SHould have a 3 tier system:

1. Grammar

2. Intermediate academic - with meaningful qualifications at end.

3. Vocational - to train for much need trades such as plumbers, electricians, brickliayers, etc

Nice, elitist class system you have going on there.





You are a moron from Victorian Britain and I claim my £5.

Good idea. This way a concerned parent gets to put as much effort into parenting as they currently do secure in the knowledge that their child is isolated from undue influences and they get to grow up in fear of everyone mummy and daddy always warned them about. And after all, isn't that what it's really all about? We really do need to shift back to some more traditional targets now that this bothersome Europe business is settled.

We need a system that prizes excellence for long-term economic prosperity. It is also important in order to undermine the public school dominance at the head of media, government and industry that we now have.

The true problems with public schools with regard to governance of the nation and its institutions is the isolation of their students from the world as it is. What you are proposing is a mechanism of turning that isolation into a state mandated production line. This raises an obvious question: WTF?

May be an obvious question for a pleb.

Finnfsckinland? "Leaders"? By what definition?



Well, er there was the guy who invented Linux, and ...

Did you get caned at school for asking questions teacher couldn't answer? Add that to your list of bring-backables.

Compared with what we have now where a country has a political upheaval based on hatred for immigrants doing those jobs, and a classless set of gobes all ing about with a media studies degree.

Indeed - the BBC reality check website is full of those pesky facts, which we now seem able to ignore and discredit, because we're "sick of experts."



Such as:



"children from prosperous families in Kent (the biggest area for selective schools in England) are more likely to get into grammar schools and also that in selective areas, poorer children overall get relatively worse GCSE results than they do in comprehensive areas."



"Another important piece of research is this work from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which found in 2013 that grammar schools were disproportionately unlikely to admit bright students who were eligible for free school meals or from poorer neighbourhoods and disproportionately likely to admit children from private primary schools."



So - if you're a Tory and you want to perpetuate the status quo of the well off being given a huge leg up in life, it's a good idea; if you have any decency or a sense of social justice, you will see it for what it is - a further attempt to ensure that bothersome working class kids don't get ideas above their station.

So let's analyse one of those pesky "facts". Children from more prosperous families are more likely to get into grammar and poorer children overall get relatively worse GCSE results than in comprehensive areas. That suggests what the US social scientists used to call the "neighbourhood (translated to English!) effect" is at work as one would anticipate. In other words, if there were no grammars the poorer kids would do a bit better because they are mixing with some more highly motivated kids in their comprehensives. What the bias reporting is not saying is how they perform relative to those poorer kids that do get into grammars in those areas that have them. Neither does it say how those more prosperous kids fare in comprehensive's relative to those in grammars. To survive as an independent country in economic terms we need to foster academic excellence for the few in order to drive advances; and good schools for the many. To do otherwise benefits nobody long-term. Grammar schools provide the opportunity for excellence for bright, poorer kids and the fact that more prosperous kids also benefit should not be seen as a reason for not having them. They also help undermine the private sector - where ability to pay is all that counts.

As to the 'IFS' report, it states they have no evidence as to why kids on free school meals with a specified level of attainment are less likely to go to grammars (40% go as against c.66% without free school meals). I would again posit that a / the major part of reason would be the "neighbourhood effect" - the kids would not apply if their mates are unlikely to go / their parents didn't drive the issue. In any event, I think this is a red herring because May's proposal was that this issue should be addressed, perhaps even by positive discrimination as understood the tentative announcement. If that were the case and entry became independent of parental prosperity, what is there to object to?