I'm a grammar school girl and here's what I think about the Rosie Duffield controversy
1st August 2017
Share This Article:
It has recently emerged that anti-grammar school Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, sent both of her sons to selective schools, sparking debate over her intentions.
Throughout her election campaign newly appointed Labour MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield, maintained an adamantly anti-grammar school stance. Indeed, the MP was recorded as claiming that grammar schools are “not the way forward” and that the 11+, the admissions test for these selective schools, is a “horrible, divisive and stressful thing.”
The MP furthered her criticism of the institutions by noting that the conservative plan to create more grammar schools was simply a “vanity project” which only promised to “waste money”.
However, as it has since emerged that both of Duffield’s sons were sent by the MP to Simon Langton Grammar School in Canterbury, she was clearly happy to put her own children through a “horrible, devise and stressful” experience so long as it had the potential to advance their academic careers.
Indeed, it seems that although Miss Duffield has claimed that creating grammar schools would be of little importance to the education of thousands of other people’s children, the so called “vanity project” was chosen for her own.
Such revelation has created much debate, with some claiming Miss Duffield was simply choosing the best school available within the current system while others have slammed the MP as both hypocritical and self-serving.
Personally, I am entirely in support of grammar schools as, unlike private schools, they provide excellent opportunities to stretch pupils based on talent, as opposed to bank balance. Indeed, I am acutely aware that many of the opportunities afforded to me have been due to my own grammar school education.
I am, of course, aware that grammar schools are, by their very nature, not for everyone. Indeed, even one of Duffield’s own children struggled with their place, having to be moved to another school after finding the institution “too competitive” whilst her elder son thrived.
However, separating or setting children based on academic ability occurs in every secondary school in the country, selective or otherwise, and is widely celebrated as a way of allowing children to work at a pace best suited to them, surrounded by those who think and work in the same way.
Indeed, we would never dream of suggesting that the less academically able students be denied extra help, yet stretching those at the other end of the spectrum through grammar schools is often denounced as elitist by the likes of Duffield.
Of course, it is highly likely that Miss Duffield is acutely aware of the true advantages of grammar schools and that is the reason both of her children found themselves attending, regardless of their suitability. It is this desire to put her own children above the children of those she supposedly represents which not only makes her a hypocrite but also demonstrates the clear value of grammar schools.
Throughout her election campaign newly appointed Labour MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield, maintained an adamantly anti-grammar school stance. Indeed, the MP was recorded as claiming that grammar schools are “not the way forward” and that the 11+, the admissions test for these selective schools, is a “horrible, divisive and stressful thing.”
The MP furthered her criticism of the institutions by noting that the conservative plan to create more grammar schools was simply a “vanity project” which only promised to “waste money”.
However, as it has since emerged that both of Duffield’s sons were sent by the MP to Simon Langton Grammar School in Canterbury, she was clearly happy to put her own children through a “horrible, devise and stressful” experience so long as it had the potential to advance their academic careers.
Indeed, it seems that although Miss Duffield has claimed that creating grammar schools would be of little importance to the education of thousands of other people’s children, the so called “vanity project” was chosen for her own.
Such revelation has created much debate, with some claiming Miss Duffield was simply choosing the best school available within the current system while others have slammed the MP as both hypocritical and self-serving.
- Article continues below...
- More stories you may like...
- Why I have a problem with Chris Lilley's comedy
- With crime-solving at an all time low, who’s to blame?
- The only relationships on Love Island 2019 worth talking about are the girls' friendships
Personally, I am entirely in support of grammar schools as, unlike private schools, they provide excellent opportunities to stretch pupils based on talent, as opposed to bank balance. Indeed, I am acutely aware that many of the opportunities afforded to me have been due to my own grammar school education.
I am, of course, aware that grammar schools are, by their very nature, not for everyone. Indeed, even one of Duffield’s own children struggled with their place, having to be moved to another school after finding the institution “too competitive” whilst her elder son thrived.
However, separating or setting children based on academic ability occurs in every secondary school in the country, selective or otherwise, and is widely celebrated as a way of allowing children to work at a pace best suited to them, surrounded by those who think and work in the same way.
Indeed, we would never dream of suggesting that the less academically able students be denied extra help, yet stretching those at the other end of the spectrum through grammar schools is often denounced as elitist by the likes of Duffield.
Of course, it is highly likely that Miss Duffield is acutely aware of the true advantages of grammar schools and that is the reason both of her children found themselves attending, regardless of their suitability. It is this desire to put her own children above the children of those she supposedly represents which not only makes her a hypocrite but also demonstrates the clear value of grammar schools.
You might also like...
People who read this also read...
TRENDING
TRENDING CHANNELS
CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MONTH