Breaking: Mark Reckless MP defects to Ukip

[-:Undertaker:-]

Majority of the population believe the same as me. Do you even read Ukips policies?

As I said, delusion. But that's only good for my cause which is why i'm confident.

Even Labour backbench MPs are warning the party it is losing touch with the working class, especially over the affects of mass immigration.

A return to grammar schools (yes, let's write off the poorer students, talk about stalling social mobility)

Grammar schools help the poorest by giving them a chance to go to better schools. Even Labour agree with me, hence why they all send their children to grammar schools (if they can get in the few that remain) or instead go private.

It was only after the grammars were abolished that the poor were left stuck in piss poor comprehensives.

massive public spending cuts

Large public spending cuts have to be made regardless of which party is in, look at the national debt. If you look at the spending plans of Labour and the Tories, they're virtually identical. Instead of cutting vital services though, Ukip will cut the likes of foreign aid, EU contributions.

lower tax rates for the rich

And the poor.

repeal the human rights act

Asolutely, we're sick of the ECHR keeping terrorists and foreign criminals here: taxpayers (including the poor) don't want to pay for it.

Foreign terrorists are granted human rights, what about our rights in this country?

and introduce a flat rate tax

The poor need jobs y'know.

[The Don]

Lol, Grammar schools are better for the poor? What nonsense. This article sums it up best.

It is impossible to be involved in the education debate without encountering passionate campaigners arguing in defence of grammar schools. In the past few days this issue has jumped to the forefront again after comments from the former Prime Minister John Major that he found the concentration of people from privately educated middle class people in the upper echelons of power “truly shocking”. If these voices focused their energies on demanding educational improvement for all then Michael Gove’s task of improving standards across the board would be markedly easier. Today grammar schools only educate around 4% of students, even less than Independent Schools. Yet they absorb a vastly disproportionate amount of airtime.

Prior to outlining why this is the case it must first be noted that this debate is overwhelmingly the preserve of politicians and campaigners, rather than educationalists. This may be because the facts of the matter, recognised by educationalists, are so at variance with the public perception and myths about grammar schools, which are adhered to by many in the political and chattering classes – especially on the right. These myths focus on the idealised notion that grammar schools are the ‘engine of social mobility’ and that they allowed bright working class boys and girls to get to Oxbridge, enter the professions and, so the tale goes, to become Prime Minister. It is an alluring tale.

Historical information about the social makeup of grammar schools is hard to find, which makes an analysis of whether this story was ever true somewhat difficult. It may be the case that in the 1940s and 50s that grammar schools lived up to their claims and that the likes of Heath and Thatcher truly were examples of working class kids who ‘made good’ – irrespective of the argument that Heath and Thatcher may well have been middle class themselves.

What we do have information for is that, irrespective of their history, grammar schools are not serving those needs today. Today they are overwhelmingly the preserve of middle class children. While around 18% of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), in grammar schools this falls to 2.7%, demonstrating in shocking fashion just how the poorest are being cut out of these ‘engines of social mobility’. The 2.7% pales to insignificance next to the more than 12% who come from outside the state sector, overwhelmingly from Independent Schools. On top of this even if you compare like with like; children on FSM with Level 5 in English and Maths are far less likely to go to grammar school than those not on FSM.

However, the truth of grammar schools is far wider than them only being middle class. They draw in resources, in money and good quality teachers, that otherwise could be working to secure true social mobility, rather than reinforcing the positions of middle class children whose parents can afford tutoring or private primary school. Beyond this however there is evidence to suggest that in selective counties an entire term of Year 6 is dedicated to preparation for the 11+ exam, at the cost of pupils making true academic progress.

Beyond even this however, there is one final problem with the notion of grammar schools. The implication that the most rigorous and academically challenging education should be open to only the 4% of students who attend Grammar Schools is both morally abhorrent and economically destructive. grammar schools may have suited the needs of the mid 20th Century economy, where fewer people needed an academic education for the jobs they would pursue – irrespective of its holistic benefit. Today however, our economy is dependent on high skilled industries, be they service-based, such as financial services, or high tech manufacturing as in the case of our defence industry. We need as many of our pupils as possible to benefit from a grammar schools style education, not just a tiny minority.

We have seen the benefit a traditional education and a commitment to high standards can bring to a community, yet we limit this chance to only the few. Toby Young’s West London Free School, founded as a ‘comprehensive grammar schools’ provides the model for the future, and demonstrates that a classical education and high standards benefit all kinds of pupils, not just the most academically gifted. The future of grammar schools must be that they open their doors to all pupils. In the short term they must do more to increase the number of FSM pupils they take in, the Sutton Trust recommendations form a sound basis for this. In the long term however, should see the conversion of grammar schools into Academies, their long and proud history allowed to continue and prosper as they serve the whole community, rather than a privileged section of it.

http://parliamentstreet.org/blog/201...ammar-schools/

Party for the poor, sure they are Dan... :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

What we do have information for is that, irrespective of their history, grammar schools are not serving those needs today. Today they are overwhelmingly the preserve of middle class children. While around 18% of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM), in grammar schools this falls to 2.7%, demonstrating in shocking fashion just how the poorest are being cut out of these ‘engines of social mobility’. The 2.7% pales to insignificance next to the more than 12% who come from outside the state sector, overwhelmingly from Independent Schools. On top of this even if you compare like with like; children on FSM with Level 5 in English and Maths are far less likely to go to grammar school than those not on FSM.

A complete false argument. The very few remaining grammar schools are those in the likes of Kent and the shires so of course the number of children on free school meals will be lower. That's like comparing wages between London and Liverpool: a huge difference.

They draw in resources, in money and good quality teachers, that otherwise could be working to secure true social mobility, rather than reinforcing the positions of middle class children whose parents can afford tutoring or private primary school.

Another void argument. This has always been the argument of the left, that - as Harriet Harman put it in an exchange with Peter Hitchens - she wanted to make every school a good school. But we know this cannot be achieved, every school cannot be a good school so the question is do we have some bad schools, some good schools (yes, we do and always will) therefore what is best to do with the poor? Is it better to leave the bright children of the working classes in failed comprehensives or is it better to have them go to grammar schools to better themselves?

With comprehensives we have selection by money, with grammars we had a system which selected by ability.

there is one final problem with the notion of grammar schools. The implication that the most rigorous and academically challenging education should be open to only the 4% of students who attend Grammar Schools is both morally abhorrent and economically destructive.

Which is why they need to be brought back nationwide.

Do you know one of the first things East German parents brought back after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Grammar schools.