Talk:Grammar schools debate

message: The article said that grammar schools give the best education to the best pupils. This is very perjorative, and inaccurately describes the aim of the system. It is intended by the tripartite system, which includes the grammar school, that the grammar school gives an appropriate  education to the most academically able pupils, but that the system also gives an appropriate and good education to pupils with other abilities. 'Best education' is an issue of how this aim is carried out (in practice, unfairly), but that is a resource failing, not a system one.  Sandpiper
:"The article said that grammar schools give the best education to the best pupils. This is very perjorative, and inaccurately describes the aim of the system". I'm afraid this is the truth though! The Grammar School system worked and Harold Wilson, hypocritically a Grammar School student himself, got shot of them! 193.113.57.161 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Name me a Labour party leader that came from a Comprehensive and I'll back down. The fact is, now that the Grammar-School generation has left the Labour party, they now rely on Public-school students (ie Blair). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2191023.html --Albert 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well I have read some more about the tripartite system since commenting above, so it would appear my own experience was really a bipartite educational system. Anyway, the system seems to have been criticised for teaching students attending grammar schools, chosen for their existing academic ability, to exhibit further good academic ability. To be blunt, stick someone dim in my class at school and he would have been playing up all the time because the education would have been wholly inapporpriate and in no way the best for him. Although I suspect it is correct that grammar schools enjoyed a disproportionate share of the cash, the actual syllabus would not have been well designed for those that 'failed' the entrance exams. So I come back to this issue of criticising grammar schools for providing the 'best' education for those attending, and the meaning of best in context. Sandpiper 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument in support

message: My term report for this article would be, 'tries hard, could do better'. This is a big big subject and I am not convinced the article currently is either as well organised as it could be, nor does the arguments justice. Sandpiper
:It's crap. There is a point by point debate, which seems to have longer points against grammar schools, and then a 'wider implications' section. Which doesn't discuss any wider implications, simply makes some points again, but from a pro-tripartite point of view.
::It is a disgrace to Wikipedia.  It is mass of WP:original research from start to finish. I have tagged the obvious claims but it seems to me that it is inescapabably biased.  Two opposing biases don't make a neutral article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General standard

message: Would anyone object to the deleting the section Wider implications of the debate - its little more than an essay. Francium12 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wider implications of the debate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grammar schools debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110308070545/http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx to http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603120956/http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/nationalchallenge/downloads/DataSheet.pdf to http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/nationalchallenge/downloads/DataSheet.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428022243/http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/33-education-and-training-ukip-policy to http://ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/33-education-and-training-ukip-policy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/mar/23/selective-schools-make-no-difference-to-gcse-results-study-says New research.--ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parking a reference 

message: If we look at how people choose to read works with selective structures built into them, such as encyclopedia articles and especially those on the internet, my assumption (based on education in technical communication and a career in technical writing, editing and training) is that people will skim the beginning before deciding to continue reading or to move on, will skim the table of contents (TOC) before deciding which section to read or to move on, or some combination of the two.
These reading habits are heavily weighted towards reading the article from the top down, no matter what percent of the article is read in the end. In this article, since the its central structure places all the arguments in support before those in opposition, readers are much more likely to have read the purported positive aspects of the subject and more likely not to have read the purported negative ones, and thus more likely to leave the article thinking the subject is absolutely a good idea all around. 
I noticed this issue while reading the article, having skipped the TOC and skimming the more general headers, when I became aware that everything I was reading was pro the subject of the article and did not have a balancing con appearing nearby each pro point. Since I did not expect to spend much time reading this article before returning to learning about Thatcher and milk, I would not have run into any of the con points if my subconscious hadn't wondered why everything was sounding so perfect and then kicked me in the brain-butt.  
Please discuss. 
Okay, you don't need to discuss my brain-butt. Heh. As is usual for me on Talk pages, my real-life limitations forced this data-dump to be how I communicate (though this time is less dumpy than others) and will most likely get in the way of my coming back to this page no matter how much I try to be reliable. So, I thought before writing (gasp!) and tried to set up my introduction of the problem in a way that is fair and hopefully can encourage reasonable debate and an equitable conclusion in my forgetful absence.  
I suggest a restructuring based on a goal or problem to be addressed, one side's action/solution, the other side's action/solution, and then a general wrangling of pros and cons around that central theme. I'm sure some folks out there can do better with more time to think and discuss matters. Enjoy! Thanks! In advance, Geekdiva (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that 25% of kids 'selected' means 75% of kids rejected, it would indeed be more balanced to reverse the order. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate: This article's structure is heavily loaded towards favoring one direction. 

message: It is very dated- statistics are being quoted from 2005. Views reported form defunct political parties- and politicians well past their sell by date. Major ommissions in neglecting to discuss creamed comprehensives. We need to visit the Brampton Manor Academy and possibly Fitzalan High School.ClemRutter (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dated material