Michael Gove

Any situation where one single government figure can be allowed to impose his own opinions on the entire sector for which his responsible, with the slightest hint of consultation with those who actually know what they are talking about, should be a cause of great concern to us all.

Spot on.

I think in future years an interesting and very challenging final year question in a philosophy degree would be,

"Michael Gove, Explain"

Any situation where one single government figure can be allowed to impose his own opinions on the entire sector for which his responsible, with the slightest hint of consultation with those who actually know what they are talking about, should be a cause of great concern to us all. If Cameron can allow his education secretary to impose his ideology unchecked on his department, then what is stopping him from doing the same with defence or home affairs?

 

Imagine if Theresa May was allowed to introduce sweeping reforms to the justice system, based on her own opinions and without consultation. The British people simply wouldn't allow that, so why should we accept it when it comes to the education of our children?

 

Gove's ideology is a danger to society, because his simplistic, statistic-based policies will leave an entire generation of kids feeling completely betrayed by an education system that has failed them.

What changes has he made that are so dangerous and such a concern for all of our futures?

The free for all in school management and the direction of funds from the many to the few for ideological reasons. The mass exodus of experienced staff to be replaced with cheap non-qualified staff who then damage progress. The constant f**king about of curriculum which give professionals no chance to adapt before they are changed again. The ripping apart the funding for FE whilst expecting every 16-19 to be in work/training/FE. The attempts to make nursery "school" for 2 year olds. The inability to understand that we aren't Singapore.

But hey, what would I know.

The free for all in school management and the direction of funds from the many to the few for ideological reasons. The mass exodus of experienced staff to be replaced with cheap non-qualified staff who then damage progress. The constant f**king about of curriculum which give professionals no chance to adapt before they are changed again. The ripping apart the funding for FE whilst expecting every 16-19 to be in work/training/FE. The attempts to make nursery "school" for 2 year olds. The inability to understand that we aren't Singapore.

 

But hey, what would I know.

The free for all in school management and the direction of funds from the many to the few for ideological reasons. The mass exodus of experienced staff to be replaced with cheap non-qualified staff who then damage progress. The constant f**king about of curriculum which give professionals no chance to adapt before they are changed again. The ripping apart the funding for FE whilst expecting every 16-19 to be in work/training/FE. The attempts to make nursery "school" for 2 year olds. The inability to understand that we aren't Singapore.

 

But hey, what would I know.

TBF it is Elizabeth truss in charge of the nursery debacle. Other than that I agree.

TBF it is Elizabeth truss in charge of the nursery debacle. Other than that I agree.

True, but she is Gove's underling and nothing happens in that dept without Gove's say so.

You'll know that the changes in early years are nuts as is the way the changes to staff qualification for new entrants has been managed. None of it makes any sense at all.

What changes has he made that are so dangerous and such a concern for all of our futures?

Maybe you missed my previous post about the likely effect of his GCSE reforms.

Another bright idea, private companies to be allowed to make a profit from child protection :

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/privatise-child-protection-services-department-for-education-proposes

Given the recent history of G4S and SERCO with public service contracts, is this even worth proposing ?

Another bright idea, private companies to be allowed to make a profit from child protection :

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/privatise-child-protection-services-department-for-education-proposes

 

Given the recent history of G4S and SERCO with public service contracts, is this even worth proposing ?

Yeah I saw this. Given the competence record of companies like G4S and ATOS, this has to be one of the worst ideas that this Tory party has ever come up with.

Gove has been moved on in the reshuffle

WOOT !!!

Believe the correct term here would be 'kicked upstairs'

First time I've ever taken notice of a reshuffle and actually been happy about it.

I get a lot of people will be happy about it. But, I would be careful about celebrating too soon. Nicky Morgan is quite a scary prospect herself.

That said, it is most likely just an emergency female appointment designed to look good til the election. Can't imagine she'll get up to much (which is probably for the best).

Basically, I pretty much just automatically detest anyone that voted against equal marriage.

Imagine if Theresa May was allowed to introduce sweeping reforms to the justice system, based on her own opinions and without consultation

Poor choice of analogy - because she's done exactly that via her twin lapdogs of Winsor and Hogan-Howe

I for one dont understand why so much oppobrium is directed at Gove.

You might not have liked the direction he was taking education (but who is to say it is going to change under the new face ?), but in my opinion he was one of the few ministers in this cluster-f**k of a coallition government that actually believed in something and was doing what he felt was genuinely for the best, rather than having one eye on his career and the other over his shoulder.

I for one dont understand why so much oppobrium is directed at Gove.

 

You might not have liked the direction he was taking education (but who is to say it is going to change under the new face ?), but in my opinion he was one of the few ministers in this cluster-f**k of a coallition government that actually believed in something and was doing what he felt was genuinely for the best, rather than having one eye on his career and the other over his shoulder.

Have you spoken to a teacher over here?

Have you spoken to a teacher over here?

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Yet more evidence that your opinions - if that's the word - are worthless. Rants are okay if they make some kind of sense, but when they consist entirely of screaming hysterical, irrational hatred, they say one hell of a lot more about you than anyone else really wants to know.

Seek help.

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Every single teacher?

Teachers:

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Michael Gove:

in my opinion he was one of the few ministers in this cluster-f**k of a coallition government that actually believed in something and was doing what he felt was genuinely for the best

Wow.

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Christ, so he doesn't spout ignorant twaddlle only on the football threads then?

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

And you sir are a kingsize tw @t.

Michael Gove on his first day as Chief Whip got stuck in a toilet. Shame they got him out, he'd finally found his spiritual home.

Michael Gove on his first day as Chief Whip got stuck in a toilet. Shame they got him out, he'd finally found his spiritual home.

And in his confusion he nearly voted AGAINST the government! Not bad for a Chief Whip eh

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/17/michael-gove-got-stuck-in-a-toilet_n_5594598.html?1405598858

I for one dont understand why so much oppobrium is directed at Gove.

 

You might not have liked the direction he was taking education (but who is to say it is going to change under the new face ?), but in my opinion he was one of the few ministers in this cluster-f**k of a coallition government that actually believed in something and was doing what he felt was genuinely for the best, rather than having one eye on his career and the other over his shoulder.

Believing in something makes absolutely no difference to how good he did his job. Hitler and Gandhi both stuck to their guns without looking at their career. You can't use that to judge, only look at the outcomes.

Alan Johnson , portillio and some funny looking lib/dem bird on " this week" last night. The main thrust of the conversation was that Gove was just carrying on labour's reforms and that there's not a great deal of difference between the parties. One thing perfectly clear is that every party accepts educational standards are not what they should be, but trying to get reform past the education establishment ( their words not mine) is pretty much impossible.

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Yours possibly were... how else do we explain the fact that you ended up with such a basic lack of respect and tolerance for anything other than your own narrow views? Or that, when challenged on your views, you do not possess a single brain cell which has the ability to debate things in a reasonable and cogent manner, and must resort to these kinds of sweeping judgements.

On Saints stuff I can actually cut you some slack - but if this is your true colours, then I actually pity you.

Alan Johnson , portillio and some funny looking lib/dem bird on " this week" last night. The main thrust of the conversation was that Gove was just carrying on labour's reforms and that there's not a great deal of difference between the parties. One thing perfectly clear is that every party accepts educational standards are not what they should be, but trying to get reform past the education establishment ( their words not mine) is pretty much impossible.

Referring to the educational establishment as 'the Blob' didn't endear him to teaching staff across the entire scope of the profession. The issue with reform in education is that every year brings something new, and quite often a complete change of direction at a whim, or based on the latest Ivory Tower generated theory. Neither of the major parties has had the balls / gumption to actually leave well alone for a couple of years to allow time for a change to fully percolate and take effect. Education is such a high profile portfolio that they have to be seen to be doing something.

Michael Gove's greatest achievement was to manage to unite all teaching and FE/HE unions in their attitude toward central Government.

Yours possibly were... how else do we explain the fact that you ended up with such a basic lack of respect and tolerance for anything other than your own narrow views? Or that, when challenged on your views, you do not possess a single brain cell which has the ability to debate things in a reasonable and cogent manner, and must resort to these kinds of sweeping judgements.

 

On Saints stuff I can actually cut you some slack - but if this is your true colours, then I actually pity you.

It's those around him I pity. Could you imagine that 24/7?

Alan Johnson , portillio and some funny looking lib/dem bird on " this week" last night. The main thrust of the conversation was that Gove was just carrying on labour's reforms and that there's not a great deal of difference between the parties. One thing perfectly clear is that every party accepts educational standards are not what they should be, but trying to get reform past the education establishment ( their words not mine) is pretty much impossible.

I have been critical of teachers in the past. But given the almost totally unanimous distaste for Gove and what he was trying to achieve I figured there must be something in it.

Having spoken to a number of teachers the pressure they are under is shocking, I simply cannot believe the conditions in which they work under. 70+ Hour weeks are the norm, goal posts are constantly being moved and they get crap whatever happens. Results go up, exams are to easy, results go down teachers aren't good enough. Discipline is gone, and if teachers try and tell kids off/or kids don't perform well parents will come in and blame it solely on them. I have spoken to female teachers that have been left in tears because fathers have come in and threatened them. I simply do not know how teachers do it.

There definitely needs to be some changes in education, but Michael Gove was not doing the right things or going about it the right way. I've never known a cabinet minister be so universally disliked by a profession (yes, granted I'm younger than some on here so it may have happened previously that I haven't seen) that includes teachers that are Tories. That can't simply be dismissed as just the establishment resisting change.

My understanding is that they want changes too, they agree the current systems aren't ideal. They take exception to being blamed for everything from every angle, when they do work their arses off and are in the profession because they care about what they do. Most are intelligent and capable enough to have jobs that would be less stressful and time consuming and probably pay them better too. They also get wound up at their suggestion for improvement being ignored or just not being consulted. Though, I may be guilty of generalising based on some limited research and a small sample group of teachers.

I have been critical of teachers in the past. But given the almost totally unanimous distaste for Gove and what he was trying to achieve I figured there must be something in it.

 

Having spoken to a number of teachers the pressure they are under is shocking, I simply cannot believe the conditions in which they work under. 70+ Hour weeks are the norm, goal posts are constantly being moved and they get crap whatever happens. Results go up, exams are to easy, results go down teachers aren't good enough. Discipline is gone, and if teachers try and tell kids off/or kids don't perform well parents will come in and blame it solely on them. I have spoken to female teachers that have been left in tears because fathers have come in and threatened them. I simply do not know how teachers do it.

 

There definitely needs to be some changes in education, but Michael Gove was not doing the right things or going about it the right way. I've never known a cabinet minister be so universally disliked by a profession (yes, granted I'm younger than some on here so it may have happened previously that I haven't seen) that includes teachers that are Tories. That can't simply be dismissed as just the establishment resisting change.

 

My understanding is that they want changes too, they agree the current systems aren't ideal. They take exception to being blamed for everything from every angle, when they do work their arses off and are in the profession because they care about what they do. Most are intelligent and capable enough to have jobs that would be less stressful and time consuming and probably pay them better too. They also get wound up at their suggestion for improvement being ignored or just not being consulted. Though, I may be guilty of generalising based on some limited research and a small sample group of teachers.

Your 'small sample group' is perfectly reflective of the consensus view.

Have you spoken to a teacher over here?

Alpine, whilst obvious being an obese useless c**t does have a point. Gove did believe what he was doing was for the best, however, things like free schools were purely driven by ideology and having non trained teachers in the classroom has proven to be a clusterf**k of epic proportions. Alpine, we know, prefers epic portions.

Alpine, whilst obvious being an obese useless c**t does have a point. Gove did believe what he was doing was for the best, however, things like free schools were purely driven by ideology and having non trained teachers in the classroom has proven to be a clusterf**k of epic proportions. Alpine, we know, prefers epic portions.

The point about not thinking about his career. It's pretty well known him and May fancy themselves as potential leaders should Cameron balls up the election next year. The Tories do not stand for defeat. This was a pretty big factor in the recent public falling out between the two.

Alan Johnson , portillio and some funny looking lib/dem bird on " this week" last night. The main thrust of the conversation was that Gove was just carrying on labour's reforms and that there's not a great deal of difference between the parties. One thing perfectly clear is that every party accepts educational standards are not what they should be, but trying to get reform past the education establishment ( their words not mine) is pretty much impossible.

If it were just the NUT throwing a strop I'd agree. However, when it's all facets of the educational establishment, from exam boards, to ITT, to the very, very, very moderate ATL saying it's nuts, then, just maybe, it is.

The changes to GCSE, A levels etc were not oppossed by anyone really, but we could all see the way/timeframe they wanted it done was impossible and insane and low and behold, it gets change when those in Whitehall finally understand that, yes, it was impossible.

It's not change teachers don't want, but they want change thought through.

The point about not thinking about his career. It's pretty well known him and May fancy themselves as potential leaders should Cameron balls up the election next year. The Tories do not stand for defeat. This was a pretty big factor in the recent public falling out between the two.

I agree totally.

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

Unbelievable. Well, actually, no it's not considering the nonsense you spout usually. And to think we all thought you were mental just coz of your views on football, never mind the real world.

I think you need some mental help to get over the obvious issues your teachers caused you when you were at school.

It goes without saying, but as for an example of one, my wife is a teacher and works far longer hours than I do, all year round, and most weekends too. Dunno why I bother to be honest, not like anything anyone says would ever change Alpine's mind! You're a freak.

It goes without saying, but as for an example of one, my wife is a teacher and works far longer hours than I do, all year round, and most weekends too.

So, like me, you're married to a lazy arrogant, patronising Trotskyite !

So, like me, you're married to a lazy arrogant, patronising Trotskyite !

As am I. Mine is so lazy that she had the nerve to switch her work laptop off at 21.00 last night & has the brass balls to be in at work next week (and the last week of the holidays) despite the kids finishing today. How dare she.

Nope. I think teachers are a bunch of arrogant, patronising Trotskyite w**nkers, of whatever nationality........

 

EDIT: I forgot lazy.

I'll certainly be enjoying the next 6 weeks or so off Alps, that's for sure.

If it were just the NUT throwing a strop I'd agree. However, when it's all facets of the educational establishment, from exam boards, to ITT, to the very, very, very moderate ATL saying it's nuts, then, just maybe, it is.

 

The changes to GCSE, A levels etc were not oppossed by anyone really, but we could all see the way/timeframe they wanted it done was impossible and insane and low and behold, it gets change when those in Whitehall finally understand that, yes, it was impossible.

 

It's not change teachers don't want, but they want change thought through.

Johnson did say that not " taking head teachers with him" was a mistake. But tellingly , he did not say that the reforms were a mistake.

My personal opinion as a parent of 4 is that all parties, together with " the blob" have got us in a mess. There is no doubt that Blair's and now Goves reforms have made some progress , but it is still bright pupils from poor backgrounds that are suffering. I just fail to see why Grammar schools can not be part of the " choice" that parents have now. Once you allow " choice" you are effectively admitting the failure of the comprehensive system. We are luckly enough to have grammar schools here in Poole and 2 of mine went and 2 didn't. It was part of our choice as to whether they took the entrance exam. My sisters kid is extremely bright , but my sister is passionately against the principle of selective education, so therefore her choice was her local comprehensive. Why on earth parents in other areas are denied that choice is beyond me. It is to their shame that gove and the Tories will allow free schools to be part of any choice, but not new grammar schools.

J..... will allow free schools to be part of any choice, but not new grammar schools.

My son's Grammar has had to become an Academy to survive - still keeps itself as a boys only selective entry school however. I agree with you, I cannot understand why Grammars are so unacceptable to the Educational theorists.

There's no doubt that, in the 50s and 60s, the Grammar Schools gave a lot of working-class kids the chance of a very good education (I was one of them).

If we are going to return to selection then the choices must have equal value in the eyes of the parents and of the professions and industry. You choose the one that you are most suited to and get an different but equally good education at both.

There was always a bit of "them and us" about the old system and I would not like to see Grammar Schools being filled with the offspring of pushy middle-class parents to the exclusion of bright poorer kids whose parents maybe don't value education as much as they should (that's not the kids' fault).

My son's Grammar has had to become an Academy to survive - still keeps itself as a boys only selective entry school however. I agree with you, I cannot understand why Grammars are so unacceptable to the Educational theorists.

Nor do I as we have one in my town as well. However, we are also blessed with excellent secondary schools. We offered my son the opportunity to sit the entry exam for the grammar but he didn't want to go the the "knobs school". He'll walk away with straight A's at A-level anyway.

My daughters will also be given the opportunity to sit the grammar entrance exam or the exam for the selective girls school in Newport but I would NEVER pay for my kid to go to a school.

There's no doubt that, in the 50s and 60s, the Grammar Schools gave a lot of working-class kids the chance of a very good education (I was one of them).

 

If we are going to return to selection then the choices must have equal value in the eyes of the parents and of the professions and industry. You choose the one that you are most suited to and get an different but equally good education at both.

 

There was always a bit of "them and us" about the old system and I would not like to see Grammar Schools being filled with the offspring of pushy middle-class parents to the exclusion of bright poorer kids whose parents maybe don't value education as much as they should (that's not the kids' fault).

That's bound to be the case. The grammar school in Newport (Shropshire) is solely admission by exam and parents pay thousands in cramming fees, extra lessons etc and are, in the main, Land Rover/Merc driving professionals from a 70mile radius.

Working class parents can't compete.

That's bound to be the case. The grammar school in Newport (Shropshire) is solely admission by exam and parents pay thousands in cramming fees, extra lessons etc and are, in the main, Land Rover/Merc driving professionals from a 70mile radius.

 

Working class parents can't compete.

This is the case in Buckinghamshire too. The grammar schools are disproportionately filled with children from private schools and from out of county. The test was changed to exclude cramming but as the grammar schools are all academies they're accountable to no-one except themselves about their admissions policies.

Buckinghamshire is thought to be an affluent county but the percentage of children falling below standard at GCSE level is the worst in the country even though the number of primary school children exceeding standards at age 11 is higher than average.

The number of grammar school children in receipt of free school meals has fallen dramatically since the schools became academies. The County Council commissioned a report to look at the low achievement levels at age 16 but report was highly critical of the system in place and the Council sat on it.

You're getting as bad as pap, b. Idiots make rules, clever people find ways around them. It will always be that way, because clever people don't go into government.

Anyway I've got four who all got a very good education at the Royal Latin, thank you very much.

That's bound to be the case. The grammar school in Newport (Shropshire) is solely admission by exam and parents pay thousands in cramming fees, extra lessons etc and are, in the main, Land Rover/Merc driving professionals from a 70mile radius.

 

Working class parents can't compete.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the grammar system, just that it should be an option.

I live in an area that is extremely mixed social class wise. The catchment for our local school ranges from one of the roughest council estates in Dorset ( although a lot better than it was) to millionaire property. The comprehensive system was meant to mean everybody went to their local school, but because of " choice" this doesn't happen. The richest pay to go private, the middle class pay for tuition or are able to work the system and pay the transport costs which means their kids go out of the catchment, or if the worst comes to the worst , they could set up a free school. The local comp ends up with the rest and because of this it sinks into the bottom 10% of schools. This then becomes a cycle and the school gets worse ( because only the poorest use it) , which means more middle class flight from it. The Grammar school has such a good reputation that rich parents send their kids private and then send them there, depriving poorer people a place. At the selection tests it was full of working class kids tasking the tests ( my kids went to middle school with them), so the poorest do want this opportunity for their offspring, its just that they're up against people sophisticated in maximising their kids chances.

Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom of people nowadays to devise an entrance test weighted towards social groups ( they do it for kids born later in the school year) which also takes in assessment of previous sats,as well as a pure exam. They have non verbal reasoning, which it is claimed can not be taught.

There are no easy answers, but my 2 that went to Grammar ( both untutored, BTW) got such a superior education than the 2 that didn't . I feel that this opportunity should form part of an education system.

For the people like Crossman who wanted all Grammar Schools abolished , the way to do it was not by legislation, but by making the comprehensive schools as good. I would much rather my children mixed with the other sex and went to school with pupils from all backgrounds, but the difference in schools is too marked, I felt the educational benefits outweighed the social ones.

Lord D - it just doesn't work to have Grammar Schools alongside comprehensive. The whole point of comprehensive education was to provide teaching across the spectrum. If you take out the 'clever' kids, the comprehensive's results are bound to fall. Simple logic. And you miss the point about grammar schools (in my area at least) being academies. It used to be the case that if a child scored 123 (not sure what that actually means) then they go to the gr'ammar school. Here, many children have achieved 123 but, it seems, because they're not from private schools in the county and in Middlesex and Hertfordshire then they're not admitted. When these schools were accountable to the local electorate there would have been an outcry. But there's sod all that can be done about this blatant unfairness.

Incidentally, there's a secondary academy very close to me that also picks and chooses its pupils. So it's not even a local school anymore. And the town gets totally clogged up morning and afternoon with buses criss-crossing kids to school. Crazy!

The ironic thing is that some of the grammar school pupils really struggle because they've been coached to pass the test but then can't cope with the real academic work.

BTW I went to a grammar school (back in the day when children WERE admitted on merit) and all my children did too. My grandson has been selected for a grammar school to start in September and, unusually, he went to a state primary and had no extra tuition. But he's an exception.

Lord D - it just doesn't work to have Grammar Schools alongside comprehensive. The whole point of comprehensive education was to provide teaching across the spectrum. If you take out the 'clever' kids, the comprehensive's results are bound to fall. Simple logic. And you miss the point about grammar schools (in my area at least) being academies. It used to be the case that if a child scored 123 (not sure what that actually means) then they go to the gr'ammar school. Here, many children have achieved 123 but, it seems, because they're not from private schools in the county and in Middlesex and Hertfordshire then they're not admitted. When these schools were accountable to the local electorate there would have been an outcry. But there's sod all that can be done about this blatant unfairness.

 

Incidentally, there's a secondary academy very close to me that also picks and chooses its pupils. So it's not even a local school anymore. And the town gets totally clogged up morning and afternoon with buses criss-crossing kids to school. Crazy!

 

The ironic thing is that some of the grammar school pupils really struggle because they've been coached to pass the test but then can't cope with the real academic work.

 

BTW I went to a grammar school (back in the day when children WERE admitted on merit) and all my children did too. My grandson has been selected for a grammar school to start in September and, unusually, he went to a state primary and had no extra tuition. But he's an exception.

My wife teaches (SENCO) at an academy, new build, very nice it is as well, serves a very, very challenging environment.

However, the Principal decided that he didn't want that client base and planned to effectively bus in a higher calibre standard of pupils in from outside the area thus removing a fantastic resource from the local community; a community who really need it.

All perfectly legal. Immoral, but legal.

Thankfully he's just been ousted in a SMT coup.

Lord D - it just doesn't work to have Grammar Schools alongside comprehensive. The whole point of comprehensive education was to provide teaching across the spectrum. If you take out the 'clever' kids, the comprehensive's results are bound to fall. Simple logic. And you miss the point about grammar schools (in my area at least) being academies. It used to be the case that if a child scored 123 (not sure what that actually means) then they go to the gr'ammar school. Here, many children have achieved 123 but, it seems, because they're not from private schools in the county and in Middlesex and Hertfordshire then they're not admitted. When these schools were accountable to the local electorate there would have been an outcry. But there's sod all that can be done about this blatant unfairness.

 

Incidentally, there's a secondary academy very close to me that also picks and chooses its pupils. So it's not even a local school anymore. And the town gets totally clogged up morning and afternoon with buses criss-crossing kids to school. Crazy!

 

The ironic thing is that some of the grammar school pupils really struggle because they've been coached to pass the test but then can't cope with the real academic work.

 

BTW I went to a grammar school (back in the day when children WERE admitted on merit) and all my children did too. My grandson has been selected for a grammar school to start in September and, unusually, he went to a state primary and had no extra tuition. But he's an exception.

Our Grammar schools in Poole take all kids in care that pass the exam regardless of where they live, followed by all kids who pass and live in the catchment area. If there are any spaces left they go to kids from outside catchment in order of results. So if you live in the catchment and pass, you go to the school. Don't know how they do this, they must set the pass mark at a level to do this. I haven't heard any case of somebody passing exam and not getting a place, in fact at the open day prior to the exam the head master was very clear. It is a school for brightest Poole children and if you pass the exam and live in Poole, you will get a place. It is an academy as well.

My basic point is that once you allow " choice" it seems really strange that you deny vast areas of the country a grammar school as part of that choice. You can choose a faith school, set up a free school, send your child past 2 local schools to take somebody elses place at their local school, yet can't go to a Grammar school. Surely there's something wrong with a system that allows entrance based on religious grounds but not on academic grounds, where any tom **** or harry can set up a school as long as its not a grammar school. Once you have choice the comprehensive system as it was intended is no more.

Our Grammar schools in Poole take all kids in care that pass the exam regardless of where they live, followed by all kids who pass and live in the catchment area. If there are any spaces left they go to kids from outside catchment in order of results. So if you live in the catchment and pass, you go to the school. Don't know how they do this, they must set the pass mark at a level to do this. I haven't heard any case of somebody passing exam and not getting a place, in fact at the open day prior to the exam the head master was very clear. It is a school for brightest Poole children and if you pass the exam and live in Poole, you will get a place. It is an academy as well.

 

My basic point is that once you allow " choice" it seems really strange that you deny vast areas of the country a grammar school as part of that choice. You can choose a faith school, set up a free school, send your child past 2 local schools to take somebody elses place at their local school, yet can't go to a Grammar school. Surely there's something wrong with a system that allows entrance based on religious grounds but not on academic grounds, where any tom **** or harry can set up a school as long as its not a grammar school. Once you have choice the comprehensive system as it was intended is no more.

I went to a grammar school and benefitted from it. I never really considered the imapct of being labelled second rate until recently.

Both my kids go to the local junior school. My son (11) is doing just fine - he's really bright and is made more confident by being one of the cleverest in his class. My daughter (9) is funny, witty and a joy to be with but academically she's behind and her confidence is being eroded by being on the "thickies" table. She already is starting to believe she can't learn whats necessary and as her expectations of herself fall so does her achievement. Her previous bouyant joy in life is being eroded. Her mum wants her to go to a local fee paying school which doesn't focus on high pressure hot housing for high exam results like most private schools but instead on small classes of 15 developing each child from whatever standard they're at. I never thought I would, but I'm coming round to the idea. As a parent you do whats best for your child but as a Government you (should) do whats best for a generation.