Yes, I understand Labour’s (perhaps "the left’s" is better) hatred of private schools, I can even get my head around the dislike of Grammars (a single competetive exam at 11 years old might not be the very best way of predicting future academic success, for example) but this is astonishing:
However, the Department for Children, Schools and Families insisted that grammar schools left poor children behind. "The Government has never been in favour of academic selection and never will be," said a spokesman.
That’s vastly stronger and as such near insane. Not even selection within schools? A math prodigy is to be taught the same syllabus as someone who will never be more than marginally numerate? If we are to have no academic selection at all then I guess that means the end of special needs education, doesn’t it? The end of schools specialising in the arts? Stage schools and the like?
Am I reading too much into that one phrase or are they really that barkingly egalitarian?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Matthew // Oct 31, 2007 at 9:12 am
You’re reading too much into that phrase, particularly as it’s not even from the source itself.
2 Letters From A Tory // Oct 31, 2007 at 9:19 am
Labour really don’t have a clue what they’re doing. They’re just floundering around looking for some direction, and this kind of announcement will hardly impress people.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
3 Tristan Mills // Oct 31, 2007 at 10:00 am
A socialist of my acquaintance insists that grammar schools are bad as they leave poor people behind. He then claims that this is because poor people are stupid and don’t know any better than to try and get their children into a good school.
This then translates to we must have the same schools for everyone, they will all be good.
In practice of course it leads to failing schools.
4 Katherine // Oct 31, 2007 at 3:50 pm
You are reading too much into that phrase.
Leave a Comment