Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
True! They are now starting to attract culpability also (IMO) - but not for the basic ideology and philosophy of comprehensive schools. That's 60s Labour, Shirley Williams et al.
I've been saying bring back (much better funded, more equitable) streamed and tripartite schools since forever, as even you would hopefully concede, for the precise reason that we do need far more upwards mobility among socially disadvantaged kids.
Grammar schools are shown to statistically favour richer families and to discriminate against poor people, in the main. The Tories are following an ideological path proven not to work for the socially disadvantaged kids.
It's fine to say get them better funded and more equitable, but that simply won't happen and is not in the Tory plans. The billions of pounds sunk into the failed Free Schools experiment whilst they cut comprehensive education funding is an absolute scandal, and aimed squarely at profit and benefiting the middle classes at the direct cost of the less well off.
I think Corbyn is a twat and that Labour's answers are probably shit (I have not examined them), but the current plans are a travesty.
I can't speak for the Tories' plans, I don't even know what they are; I'm talking about the basic principle of grammar schools - their (imperfect) ability, distinctly as compared to comprehensive schools in poor, disadvantaged areas - to provide upward mobility to intelligent, yet disadvantaged kids.
Of course, I'm not suggesting (nor have ever suggested) that grammar schools are not unfair; of course these still favour rich, educated parents who can provide their own time and/or money for extensive, extra-curricular tuition for the entry exams etc. But consider this: an intelligent child with none of these advantages still has SOME chance of success, whereas that same intelligent child whose parents live in a poor area with terrible State school as the only possible outcome has NO chance.
So really, it all comes down to some chance > no chance.
Politically, it's possible to work on the inequities of entry requirements, such as positively weighting poor kids' results and suchlike (which, btw, I'd be in favour of). Comprehensive schooling, for all its fine egalitarian ideals and good intentions which we can ALL sign up to, just hasn't worked. Because human nature and societal realities (see also: failure of Socialism for pretty much the same reasons/realities).
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong