Theresa May is heading for defeat

[Eloy]

Theresa May's Achilles' Heel is her insistence that only 20% of English children are to be selected at the tender age of 11 years for a college education while the other 80% are to be rejected. This was done during the 1950s and 1960s in England and it is a system which May herself benefited from. Like another Tory, Michael Gove, Theresa May somehow imagines a fifth of children are very much like herself and should be given the same support she received.

While is might very well be true that university is only meant for 20% of the English population and good vocational training should be made available to everyone else, there is not a single academic or education expert who thinks it makes sense to select those for university training at such a young age as 11 years. A good comprehensive education in English and mathematics, a foreign language and the sciences, music and the arts, should be taught at least until age 15 when some selection makes sense based on the interests and aptitude of students.

What Theresa May will soon find-out is that she will receive no support from opposition MPs and a good number of her own party which has, at any rate, a very small majority in parliament of merely 12. Resistance to selection at age 11 will surprise her and since it was not in her party's manifesto at the last general election, she is heading for a fall and a general election before Brexit is triggered.

 

[Moonglow]

At what age does a person in England start college?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Wouldn't high school be a better indicator of where a child is headed? Our high school had classes that those who planned to go to college would need, and vocational class too.
I don't know anything about your system, so bear with me. Do those 20% go for free? Why not allow colleges to accept applications, and determine who is the best qualified to attend their school? Gearing 80% toward blue collar work forces, doesn't that cause a glut of workers and a shortage of professionals? If you are 11, and planned to go to college, and was equally qualified, but wasn't chosen, do you just drop out from lack of incentive?

 

[Eloy]

At what age does a person in England start college?

About 18.

 

[Moonglow]

At what age does a person in England start college?

About 18.

Same here in the colonies...

 

[Eloy]

At what age does a person in England start college?

About 18.

Same here in the colonies...

Yes, but Americans would not tolerate selecting 20% of children in 6th Grade for college in the future and rejecting the other 80%.

 

[bodecea]

Tracking. Have no problem with it at 11....with the understanding that is someone in the vocational track starts to show college potential after 11, they can cross track.

We no longer track in America (everyone is supposedly going to college...ha ha ha...) but we should go back to it.

 

[Eloy]

Wouldn't high school be a better indicator of where a child is headed? Our high school had classes that those who planned to go to college would need, and vocational class too.
I don't know anything about your system, so bear with me. Do those 20% go for free? Why not allow colleges to accept applications, and determine who is the best qualified to attend their school? Gearing 80% toward blue collar work forces, doesn't that cause a glut of workers and a shortage of professionals? If you are 11, and planned to go to college, and was equally qualified, but wasn't chosen, do you just drop out from lack of incentive?

Indeed, access to higher education is far easier than in England. University students in England (the 20%) pay about £9,000 ($11,6000) per year except for those on scholarships. Yes, rationing university to 20% of the population means that England has to get professionals such as doctors and nurses for the National Health Service from overseas. The other 80% of English children are not prepared for good trade jobs either. If Theresa May gets her way, children who do not pass an examination at age 11 are left to sink or swim. Should she fail to get her legislation passed by the current parliament, that could trigger a general election.

 

[Eloy]

Tracking. Have no problem with it at 11....with the understanding that is someone in the vocational track starts to show college potential after 11, they can cross track.

We no longer track in America (everyone is supposedly going to college...ha ha ha...) but we should go back to it.

Failing to prepare all students for college would get an F from most American parents.

 

[Phoenall]

Theresa May's Achilles' Heel is her insistence that only 20% of English children are to be selected at the tender age of 11 years for a college education while the other 80% are to be rejected. This was done during the 1950s and 1960s in England and it is a system which May herself benefited from. Like another Tory, Michael Gove, Theresa May somehow imagines a fifth of children are very much like herself and should be given the same support she received.

While is might very well be true that university is only meant for 20% of the English population and good vocational training should be made available to everyone else, there is not a single academic or education expert who thinks it makes sense to select those for university training at such a young age as 11 years. A good comprehensive education in English and mathematics, a foreign language and the sciences, music and the arts, should be taught at least until age 15 when some selection makes sense based on the interests and aptitude of students.

What Theresa May will soon find-out is that she will receive no support from opposition MPs and a good number of her own party which has, at any rate, a very small majority in parliament of merely 12. Resistance to selection at age 11 will surprise her and since it was not in her party's manifesto at the last general election, she is heading for a fall and a general election before Brexit is triggered.

So you prefer the current system that plows 75% of the cash allocated for education into teaching migrants to read, write and speak English. A system that fails the bright intelligent pupils while pandering to the feckless and trouble makers who know they can exist on welfare and never work a day in their lives. I came through the Grammar school system that was 3 tier with the brightest going to schools that you worked long and hard in learning the most and being guaranteed a well paid job or a place at University. next were the half pass kids who had the brains but did not have the means to use them, they were the future tradesmen and first line supervisors. Lastly you had the kids who could read and write and do simple maths they were the doers of menial tasks like digging holes and carrying bricks.

What is the point in trying to educate a child who cant understand what you are talking about, or holding back a child who is streets ahead of the rest of the class. We saw this in the 1990's when 27 of 31 children in a class were told to "read the book" while the teachers taught the other 4 to speak English, resigning 27 kids to the scrap heap before they even started. The education system needs a massive overhaul and the first thing needed is to remove politics by the educators, they are either teachers or they are activists they cant be both. And imposing your political views on children is morally and ethically wrong.
The grammar school system if carried out correctly and fairly will produce a generation of well balanced, intelligent children with a work ethic to kickstart the economy. First we need to stop uneducated semi literate illegal immigrants from wanting to come to the UK so we can concentrate on our children's well being and welfare.

 

[Phoenall]

Wouldn't high school be a better indicator of where a child is headed? Our high school had classes that those who planned to go to college would need, and vocational class too.
I don't know anything about your system, so bear with me. Do those 20% go for free? Why not allow colleges to accept applications, and determine who is the best qualified to attend their school? Gearing 80% toward blue collar work forces, doesn't that cause a glut of workers and a shortage of professionals? If you are 11, and planned to go to college, and was equally qualified, but wasn't chosen, do you just drop out from lack of incentive?

Indeed, access to higher education is far easier than in England. University students in England (the 20%) pay about £9,000 ($11,6000) per year except for those on scholarships. Yes, rationing university to 20% of the population means that England has to get professionals such as doctors and nurses for the National Health Service from overseas. The other 80% of English children are not prepared for good trade jobs either. If Theresa May gets her way, children who do not pass an examination at age 11 are left to sink or swim. Should she fail to get her legislation passed by the current parliament, that could trigger a general election.

Is that why the NHS "sacked" 5000 doctors and nurses just out of their training as there were no places for them, but employed 10,000 immigrant's to do the work at higher wages and expensive relocation grants. Open the Universities to 100% of the people and you make the courses a mockery and you will end up with even less doctors and nurses.
Now you start the LIES as this is not the case at all, those who dont have the intelligence will be educated to the best of their abilities for the jobs they are suitable to do. You would not want a dunce to be the person to perform transplant surgery on you, because that is what you are saying. Ever hear of the phrase " horses for courses " well that is education.


You sound like just one of the many underachievers who believe they should be given the cream jobs because they are better than the rest, but want to be protected when things go wrong and it is their fault for being stupid

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Theresa May's Achilles' Heel is her insistence that only 20% of English children are to be selected at the tender age of 11 years for a college education while the other 80% are to be rejected. This was done during the 1950s and 1960s in England and it is a system which May herself benefited from. Like another Tory, Michael Gove, Theresa May somehow imagines a fifth of children are very much like herself and should be given the same support she received.

While is might very well be true that university is only meant for 20% of the English population and good vocational training should be made available to everyone else, there is not a single academic or education expert who thinks it makes sense to select those for university training at such a young age as 11 years. A good comprehensive education in English and mathematics, a foreign language and the sciences, music and the arts, should be taught at least until age 15 when some selection makes sense based on the interests and aptitude of students.

What Theresa May will soon find-out is that she will receive no support from opposition MPs and a good number of her own party which has, at any rate, a very small majority in parliament of merely 12. Resistance to selection at age 11 will surprise her and since it was not in her party's manifesto at the last general election, she is heading for a fall and a general election before Brexit is triggered.

Firstly this policy has come from nowhere. It wasnt in the last manifesto and she doesnt have a popular mandate to introduce it.

Grammar schools are an old idea and were phased out about 50 years ago.

They were very popular with those who attended them but not so much with the majority that were excluded and sentenced to the sink schools.

My Dad went to Grammar school and enjoyed himself there but thought they were a terrible idea that stigmatised the majority of children whose prospects were severely affected by failing an exam when they were aged ten.

Education in the UK has turned into a patchwork system that is good and bad.

Good - the standards in certain subjects are very high. I could not help my kids with their science homework.It was very advanced.

Bad - its a postcode lottery. Good schools can add thousands to the value of your property. If you live in the right area then you have nothing to worry about. However there is supposed to be choice for parents an in reality this is just a notion that is limited by capacity.

Labour introduced the wretched Academies (charter schools) which act as private businesses to the detriment of the kids. They are not answerable to the local community and can pretty much do what they want. We now also have Free schools which any nut job can set up anywhere. They tend to appeal to religious groups and do not support integration. They are very lightly regulated.

The schools have been a political playground as long as I have been an adult and Grammar Schools are just the latest manifestation of that. Its part of the tory philosophy of taking us back to the 50s.

Most of the new schools built in England were built under the wretched PFI scheme which pretty much ensures that a huge chunk of educational spending goes into the pockets of corporations.

Schools cannot afford to take on the best teachers because of cost implications. A friend who is a headmaster has told me that he always recruits newly qualified teachers because they are the cheapest to hire. As teachers go up the pay scale their opportunities decrease.

What is needed is properly funded schools with well qualified teachers. Not another half arsed initiative that will stigmatise 80% of our kids.

And I think that the OP has it right. This will not go through parliament and will cause May a lot of problems. Why she has done it is a cause for much speculation.

 

[Challenger]

Why she has done it is a cause for much speculation.

Could be a way round the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, if the opposition Parties call for a vote of no confidence which requirs a 2/3rd majority of the house to vote for and she allows her party to vote for the motion, she can call an election there and then.

 

[Phoenall]

Theresa May's Achilles' Heel is her insistence that only 20% of English children are to be selected at the tender age of 11 years for a college education while the other 80% are to be rejected. This was done during the 1950s and 1960s in England and it is a system which May herself benefited from. Like another Tory, Michael Gove, Theresa May somehow imagines a fifth of children are very much like herself and should be given the same support she received.

While is might very well be true that university is only meant for 20% of the English population and good vocational training should be made available to everyone else, there is not a single academic or education expert who thinks it makes sense to select those for university training at such a young age as 11 years. A good comprehensive education in English and mathematics, a foreign language and the sciences, music and the arts, should be taught at least until age 15 when some selection makes sense based on the interests and aptitude of students.

What Theresa May will soon find-out is that she will receive no support from opposition MPs and a good number of her own party which has, at any rate, a very small majority in parliament of merely 12. Resistance to selection at age 11 will surprise her and since it was not in her party's manifesto at the last general election, she is heading for a fall and a general election before Brexit is triggered.

Firstly this policy has come from nowhere. It wasnt in the last manifesto and she doesnt have a popular mandate to introduce it.

Grammar schools are an old idea and were phased out about 50 years ago.

They were very popular with those who attended them but not so much with the majority that were excluded and sentenced to the sink schools.

My Dad went to Grammar school and enjoyed himself there but thought they were a terrible idea that stigmatised the majority of children whose prospects were severely affected by failing an exam when they were aged ten.

Education in the UK has turned into a patchwork system that is good and bad.

Good - the standards in certain subjects are very high. I could not help my kids with their science homework.It was very advanced.

Bad - its a postcode lottery. Good schools can add thousands to the value of your property. If you live in the right area then you have nothing to worry about. However there is supposed to be choice for parents an in reality this is just a notion that is limited by capacity.

Labour introduced the wretched Academies (charter schools) which act as private businesses to the detriment of the kids. They are not answerable to the local community and can pretty much do what they want. We now also have Free schools which any nut job can set up anywhere. They tend to appeal to religious groups and do not support integration. They are very lightly regulated.

The schools have been a political playground as long as I have been an adult and Grammar Schools are just the latest manifestation of that. Its part of the tory philosophy of taking us back to the 50s.

Most of the new schools built in England were built under the wretched PFI scheme which pretty much ensures that a huge chunk of educational spending goes into the pockets of corporations.

Schools cannot afford to take on the best teachers because of cost implications. A friend who is a headmaster has told me that he always recruits newly qualified teachers because they are the cheapest to hire. As teachers go up the pay scale their opportunities decrease.

What is needed is properly funded schools with well qualified teachers. Not another half arsed initiative that will stigmatise 80% of our kids.

And I think that the OP has it right. This will not go through parliament and will cause May a lot of problems. Why she has done it is a cause for much speculation.

So you want to see the waster's gain the most again while the workers will be thrown on the scrap heap. How the socialists hated the 3 tier system that saw the cream rise to the top every time, while the shirkers and mediocre stayed at the bottom. No different in the workplace when the co-educational end up as labourers and shop assistants and the intelligent become managers and leaders. What will you demand next, the scrapping of in house testing and profiling to weed out the sub intelligent, brought in because of the failure of the UK education system over the last 50 years. It is as all decent teachers know you have 10% who want to learn, 10% who want to disrupt and be noisy leaving 80% that could go either way with the right nudge. Because of the lack of control we end up with 90% being disruptive and refusing to learn, destroying the hopes of the 10%. Under Grammar schools this would not happen and the bright kids would go on to University, and not the ones who can afford the fees

 

[Eloy]

Why she has done it is a cause for much speculation.

Could be a way round the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, if the opposition Parties call for a vote of no confidence which requirs a 2/3rd majority of the house to vote for and she allows her party to vote for the motion, she can call an election there and then.

I doubt that Theresa May is using her grammar school bill when it reaches the green paper stage as a stalking horse in the hope it will be rejected as a means of gauging parliamentary confidence for her government or a mechanism for countering the Fixed Term Parliaments Act which is a complicated hurdle. No, I think she honestly feels nostalgia for her own grammar schooling (in a similar fashion as Michael Gove) and she has a genuine desire to see such an education available for at least 20% of English children and, at the same time, other good schools where children are learning and taught by good teachers and in no way short-changing the 80% (more or less) but she has been vague on this. She will have quite a challenge persuading the entire opposition (with the exception of an Ulster Protestant or two) and some of her own backbenchers that the whole idea is not a return of the old 11+ and a yearning for a bygone time.

 

[StLucieBengal]

At what age does a person in England start college?

About 18.

Same here in the colonies...

Yes, but Americans would not tolerate selecting 20% of children in 6th Grade for college in the future and rejecting the other 80%.

We do that now.

They weed out kids to tech/vocational trades.

 

[Moonglow]

At what age does a person in England start college?

About 18.

Same here in the colonies...

Yes, but Americans would not tolerate selecting 20% of children in 6th Grade for college in the future and rejecting the other 80%.

That is early, but here the kids are tested and have clubs and organizations which attract them to what skill they may find interesting to slave at for 45-65 years....