11 Plus Exams Forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28066081" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if Prince of Wales also expressed this desire to Conservative Secretaries for Education during Mrs. Thatcher premiership. Kenneths (Baker & Clarke) might have oblidged.

Thank heavens that he wasn't listened to! I cannot imagine for one moment that he has or had a cogent grasp of the issues around such a decision, and to allow him to interfere in education policy by accident of birth would be a travesty of democracy.

I wonder if he dared ask michael gove the same question in order to get pretty much the same answer.

It only seem to be some people in sevenoaks who are trying.

Amber wrote:Thank heavens that he wasn't listened to! I cannot imagine for one moment that he has or had a cogent grasp of the issues around such a decision, and to allow him to interfere in education policy by accident of birth would be a travesty of democracy.

It seems that those who claimed to have 'cogent grasp' and destroyed grammars had themselves came from private schools (Tony Crossland/Shirley Williams and also Tony Blair / Ruth Kelly) or sent their own children to private schools (Ruth Kelly / Diane Abott) or to the grammars (Shirley Williams / Harriet Harman). Why they didn't follow their conviction and send their children to their nearest comprehensive school, as 'others' are supposed to do. So much double standards. So sad

tiffinboys wrote:

Amber wrote:Thank heavens that he wasn't listened to! I cannot imagine for one moment that he has or had a cogent grasp of the issues around such a decision, and to allow him to interfere in education policy by accident of birth would be a travesty of democracy.

It seems that those who claimed to have 'cogent grasp' and destroyed grammars had themselves came from private schools (Tony Crossland/Shirley Williams and also Tony Blair / Ruth Kelly) or sent their own children to private schools (Ruth Kelly / Diane Abott) or to the grammars (Shirley Williams / Harriet Harman). Why they didn't follow their conviction and send their children to their nearest comprehensive school, as 'others' are supposed to do. So much double standards. So sad

It is only a double standard if their children had that same cogent grasp and agreed with the opinions of their parents, and despite this willingly trotted off to the grammar school.

Don't suppose young Prince George needs to worry too much about passing the 11 plus. Which may be just as well if he has inherited the brains of some of his ancestors.

It is only a double standard if their children had that same cogent grasp and agreed with the opinions of their parents, and despite this willingly trotted off to the grammar school.

Politicians would love such twists.

Don't suppose young Prince George needs to worry too much about passing the 11 plus. Which may be just as well if he has inherited the brains of some of his ancestors.

Perhaps not. But since Nick Clegg and Tony Blair had to find suitable state schools for their children, may be in time Prince Charles would choose a grammar for his great-grandson.

Amber wrote:Thank heavens that he wasn't listened to! I cannot imagine for one moment that he has or had a cogent grasp of the issues around such a decision, and to allow him to interfere in education policy by accident of birth would be a travesty of democracy.

I would have thought that anyone who is a fan of the 11+ ( as I assume you are ) would be very grateful of any support of it.

I for one believe that he definitely does have a 'cogent' grasp of such issues and I am thankful that such a high profile figure is trying to support the fact that Grammar schools are huge driver in social mobility.

kateJ wrote:

Amber wrote:Thank heavens that he wasn't listened to! I cannot imagine for one moment that he has or had a cogent grasp of the issues around such a decision, and to allow him to interfere in education policy by accident of birth would be a travesty of democracy.

I would have thought that anyone who is a fan of the 11+ ( as I assume you are ) would be very grateful of any support of it. .

I am not sure what made you assume that; but to say that I am not a fan of it would be understating the matter quite spectacularly.

The role of grammar schools in social mobility is now pretty much uncontested - they are great for reducing it. And what Prince Charles knows about social mobility will probably not push back the frontiers of scholarship.

Just my view.

I wonder if grammars are so bad then why even the people who are against these still send all their children to grammars. As regard to social mobility, grammars do provide the opportunity for it, but because silly politics resulted in reducing their numbers to mere 164 in over 16000 secondary schools, these are not as effective as before. Perhaps the best solution would be to increase their number to 1300 again. Margaret Thatcher and Vince Cable are good examples of social mobility. As I see it, Tiffin is full of children belonging to not wealthy families. Same seems to be case in all the grammars in greater London.

I don't get the whole grammar school is for toffs bit. I agree the pure VR type was very tutorable, but the CEM format I believe, isn't. It is purely made up of questions that would have been covered by the National Curriculum at any primary school. Children should have been taught fractions, punctuation, grammar, etc, by the time they reach that age. They are difficult questions because the point is they are trying to capture the most intelligent. There should be no social engineering in grammar schools - it HAS to be about capturing the brightest as the sole criteria and nothing else. Two of my daughter's friends have free school meals - they made it there because they are intelligent, just as one of the others from a privileged background did.