Plenty of socialist logic here.
1. "Grammar schools in England fail to alleviate poverty". Er, schools are not there to "alleviate poverty" as such, they are there to provide an eduation and hopefully equip pupils to get more out of their later lives.
2. There are 164 grammar schools in England, as against just over 4,ooo,ooo children of school age, so what sort of overall impact can they possibly have anyway?
3. Grammar schools take a disproportionate number of children from fee-paying primaries. Yeah, and? Doesn't this go to show that fee-paying primaries provide a better education than State primaries, giving those kids a better chance of passing the entrance exam?
Er, isn't the real question "Would it help 'alleviate poverty' if we had more grammar schools?", as usual, it's the real question that these socialists refuse to answer.
The real answer is, of course, is 'vouchers for schools', it's that simple.
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 43:24-34
2 hours ago
3 comments:
"Would it help 'alleviate poverty' if we had more grammar schools?"
With 99.9999% of socialists, it's not the questions they refuse to answer, it's the ones they refuse to ask. That way there's no need to challenge any assumptions. Why do you think Frank Field was sacked by Blair? It was precisely because he did what he was asked to do ie "think the unthinkable".
What constantly beggars belief is that otherwise intelligent people still put forward the thought that less poor people excel at education as if it is just the "oppression" of being poor that is to blame.
Have they not heard that if you are not so well educated or capable of absorbing education you are more likely to be poor and that your kids often inherit such traits to some degree, ergo, poor people are often less well educated because they inherited the capacity for education from their parents.
Agreed.
Post a Comment