|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 14:53:23 GMT
Notice you 'overlooked' tuition fees brought in by Blair.... the party for the poor ......... LOL Thatcher left the majority of state schools falling apart due to her Selective 'Grant Maintained' system of funding. The overwhelming majority of children go to state schools, so seeing state schools being properly funded IS certainly looking after the poor .... LOL And this requires a answer, not your usual cop out..
Grammar Schools were introduced to give those less well off children with ability, who's parents couldn't afford to pay for private education the chance to have funded private education .... and guess what
Labour the party for the poor
the Blair government
In 1998, the Blair government passed the 'School Standards and Framework Act' which forbade the establishment of new all-selective schools, and made provisions for local ballots to be held on the future of grammar schools
Labour have always wanted to abolish Grammar schools, robbing less well off children the advantage of free private education, while Blair and the rest of double standard Labour hypocrites have the luxury of affording paid for private education, then have the fuckin cheek to claim the fees back off the tax payers.
Don't talk to me about 'Labour the party of the poor' .... are they fuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2023 15:07:34 GMT
Why have different schools for different levels of atainment or achievement ?
Why cannot we have just one school which caters for pupils of all levels ?
We could call such schools "Comprehensive Schools" and they could deliver Comprehensive education for all, whether you are not capable of huge educational achievements, or whether you show huge potential.
Oh ! I forgot, thats actually what we did have, and it worked, it kept children from the same streets and communities together instead of separating them into "The Best" and "The Second Rate Kids".
There is, and never has been any need, or any relevant argument in favour of selective education
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 7, 2023 15:13:02 GMT
Why have different schools for different levels of atainment or achievement ? Why cannot we have just one school which caters for pupils of all levels ? We could call such schools "Comprehensive Schools" and they could deliver Comprehensive education for all, whether you are not capable of huge educational achievements, or whether you show huge potential. Oh ! I forgot, thats actually what we did have, and it worked, it kept children from the same streets and communities together instead of separating them into "The Best" and "The Second Rate Kids". There is, and never has been any need, or any relevant argument in favour of selective education Why not just bolt on universities on the end of comprehensive schools ? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 15:18:33 GMT
Why have different schools for different levels of atainment or achievement ? Why cannot we have just one school which caters for pupils of all levels ? We could call such schools "Comprehensive Schools" and they could deliver Comprehensive education for all, whether you are not capable of huge educational achievements, or whether you show huge potential. Oh ! I forgot, thats actually what we did have, and it worked, it kept children from the same streets and communities together instead of separating them into "The Best" and "The Second Rate Kids". There is, and never has been any need, or any relevant argument in favour of selective education Because only selfish twats would deny high academics from poor backrounds the chance to excel to their best ability.
I went to a ordinary state school, but some of my mates were brainy, and they passed the Eleven-plus for grammar, not once did I think 'that's not fair, why should they get a better education than me'? Those good 'mates' one is a solicitor and one is a Consultant, and thank goodness they got the chance that they wouldn't have got if Labour had their way.
Even as a kid I wasn't a selfish twat, I was made up they got the chance that only kids from well-to-do parents could afford, and Labour want to take that away .... nasty twats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 7, 2023 15:24:28 GMT
Why have different schools for different levels of atainment or achievement ? Why cannot we have just one school which caters for pupils of all levels ? We could call such schools "Comprehensive Schools" and they could deliver Comprehensive education for all, whether you are not capable of huge educational achievements, or whether you show huge potential. Oh ! I forgot, thats actually what we did have, and it worked, it kept children from the same streets and communities together instead of separating them into "The Best" and "The Second Rate Kids". There is, and never has been any need, or any relevant argument in favour of selective education Because only selfish twats would deny high academics from poor backrounds the chance to excel to their best ability.
I went to a ordinary state school, but some of my mates were brainy, and they passed the Eleven-plus for grammar, not once did I think 'that's not fair, why should they get a better education than me'? Those good 'mates' one is a solicitor and one is a Consultant, and thank goodness they got the chance that they wouldn't have got if Labour had their way.
Even as a kid I wasn't a selfish twat, I was made up they got the chance that only kids from well-to-do parents could afford, and Labour want to take that away .... nasty twats.
Indeed. Labour and it’s cronies want to take away the centre of excellence that Grammar schools provide to working class kids . Even though the likes of Starmer benefitted from them . |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 15:29:55 GMT
Because only selfish twats would deny high academics from poor backrounds the chance to excel to their best ability.
I went to a ordinary state school, but some of my mates were brainy, and they passed the Eleven-plus for grammar, not once did I think 'that's not fair, why should they get a better education than me'? Those good 'mates' one is a solicitor and one is a Consultant, and thank goodness they got the chance that they wouldn't have got if Labour had their way.
Even as a kid I wasn't a selfish twat, I was made up they got the chance that only kids from well-to-do parents could afford, and Labour want to take that away .... nasty twats.
Indeed. Labour and it’s cronies want to take away the centre of excellence that Grammar schools provide to working class kids . Even though the likes of Starmer benefitted from them . I'll tell you another reason, they know that many Grammar schools will tend to be right wing, that's why they want to close them down, Labour rely on the less well off, the vulnerable, the uneducated, ethnic minorities, and the underdogs, they want to keep them there for 'votes'. Keep them down trodden, just like Kemi nailed, they want people suppressed, and to feel the world is against them .......... Vote Labour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2023 15:32:23 GMT
If you can give a kid a first class education in a classroom in a school called "A Grammar School"
Then, you can give that same kid the same excellent education in a classroom in a school called "A Comprehensive School"
Is there any argument which says that you couldn't ?
Why did this Comprehensive system work so well ?
Expain why you actually must have a completely separate school
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 15:36:50 GMT
If you can give a kid a first class education in a classroom in a school called "A Grammar School" Then, you can give that same kid the same excellent education in a classroom in a school called "A Comprehensive School" Is there any argument which says that you couldn't ? Why did this Comprehensive system work so well ? Expain why you actually must have a completely separate school Because brainy poor kids 'should' have the same chance as privately educated kids.
What sick person would deny a poor kid that chance?
What you are saying that the brainy poor kids should stay at Comprehensive schools because it's not fair on the dimwits.
Some on this forum could go to the best schools and have the best education money can buy, and they'd still be dimwits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 7, 2023 15:45:10 GMT
If you can give a kid a first class education in a classroom in a school called "A Grammar School" Then, you can give that same kid the same excellent education in a classroom in a school called "A Comprehensive School" Is there any argument which says that you couldn't ? Why did this Comprehensive system work so well ? Expain why you actually must have a completely separate school Did the comprehensive system work ‘ so well’? As I said before , why not bolt universities on to schools ? You can have adult remedial classes , special needs and vocational training in the same building . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2023 15:50:49 GMT
If you can give a kid a first class education in a classroom in a school called "A Grammar School" Then, you can give that same kid the same excellent education in a classroom in a school called "A Comprehensive School" Is there any argument which says that you couldn't ? Why did this Comprehensive system work so well ? Expain why you actually must have a completely separate school Because brainy poor kids 'should' have the same chance as privately educated kids.
What sick person would deny a poor kid that chance?
What you are saying that the brainy poor kids should stay at Comprehensive schools because it's not fair on the dimwits.
Some on this forum could go to the best schools and have the best education money can buy, and they'd still be dimwits.
So reading your post, you are implying that Comprehensive Schools do not offer a decent education, and you are concluding that ONLY a state owned "Grammar School" could offer the equiveland education as found in the best private schools, but NOT a state owned Comprehensive School. In the town where I live, there has not been a Grammar School for over 50 years, but educational atainment and achievement is not a problem. Kids from poorer backgrounds "get on" in comprehensive schools, and if they are capable of achieving things, they achieve them. The argument that only a SPECIAL school which caters ONLY for more capable children, can bring out the best in children, actually makes no sense. Its like saying that doing particular academic or vocational course in building A, will result in better marks than doing the same course in building B. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 15:51:00 GMT
If you can give a kid a first class education in a classroom in a school called "A Grammar School" Then, you can give that same kid the same excellent education in a classroom in a school called "A Comprehensive School" Is there any argument which says that you couldn't ? Why did this Comprehensive system work so well ? Expain why you actually must have a completely separate school Did the comprehensive system work ‘ so well’? As I said before , why not bolt universities on to schools ? You can have adult remedial classes , special needs and vocational training in the same building . If comprehensive schools are so good why do most of Labour kids have private education..
'One rule for them' Labour MP SQUIRMS over top schools chosen by party's senior figures
A LABOUR shadow minister was left squirming today after being asked to explain her opposition to new grammar schools despite top party figures choosing selective education for their own children.
Here is the double standard hypocrites at their finest ...
But, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Ms Rayner was grilled over the choice of Labour’s top brass to send their own children to selective schools.
The party’s shadow home secretary Diane Abbott and shadow attorney-general Baroness Shami Chakrabarti both sent their children to private schools while shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry and Labour’s director of communications Seumas Milne sent their children to selective state schools.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn divorced his second wife over her insistence their eldest son attend a grammar school.
hahahaha
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 7, 2023 15:54:12 GMT
Did the comprehensive system work ‘ so well’? As I said before , why not bolt universities on to schools ? You can have adult remedial classes , special needs and vocational training in the same building . If comprehensive schools are so good why do most of Labour kids have private education..
'One rule for them' Labour MP SQUIRMS over top schools chosen by party's senior figures
A LABOUR shadow minister was left squirming today after being asked to explain her opposition to new grammar schools despite top party figures choosing selective education for their own children.
Here is the double standard hypocrites at their finest ...
But, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Ms Rayner was grilled over the choice of Labour’s top brass to send their own children to selective schools.
The party’s shadow home secretary Diane Abbott and shadow attorney-general Baroness Shami Chakrabarti both sent their children to private schools while shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry and Labour’s director of communications Seumas Milne sent their children to selective state schools.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn divorced his second wife over her insistence their eldest son attend a grammar school.
hahahaha
“If comprehensive schools are so good why do most of Labour kids have private education..” Exactly . |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 16:07:26 GMT
Did the comprehensive system work ‘ so well’? As I said before , why not bolt universities on to schools ? You can have adult remedial classes , special needs and vocational training in the same building .
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn divorced his second wife over her insistence their eldest son attend a grammar school.
hahahaha
The pathetic idiot, imagine divorcing your wife over choice of schools for your child ..... FFS what a loser. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 7, 2023 16:10:31 GMT
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn divorced his second wife over her insistence their eldest son attend a grammar school.
hahahaha
The pathetic idiot, imagine divorcing your wife over choice of schools for your child ..... FFS what a loser. Pretty shoddy excuse if you ask me, just call her a bitch and move out. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 16:12:23 GMT
The pathetic idiot, imagine divorcing your wife over choice of schools for your child ..... FFS what a loser. Pretty shoddy excuse if you ask me, just call her a bitch and move out. I bet it was the only reason she could find to get shut of him  |
|
