Local parents protest against the unfairness of grammar schools in Berkshire and might force them to become non-selective

Francis Gilbert's picture
Berkshire parents are taking a stand against the chronic unfairness of the grammar school system. Local parents are forcing a ballot in the Reading area of Berkshire -- using legislation set up under the Labour government -- to see whether the local community actually wants grammar schools in their area. Since very few local children go to the schools, it appears that these schools will lose the ballot and be forced to lose their grammar school status. Last night it was confirmed that a group of parents in Berkshire had begun the process of forcing a vote on the future of the Reading School and the town’s other grammar, Kendrick School for girls

Today's Daily Mail presents these parents' arguments in a negative light, but even the Mail's biased reporting can't hide the fact that these parents have a very good point: the two grammar schools in their area, Reading School and Kendrick School, are both highly selective state schools which do not admit many children from the local area. Reading School, a state-boarding school and grammar school, is clearly full of children from more privileged backgrounds, with the latest data on it showing that it admits just 0.5% of pupils on Free School Meals (FSM), compared with the national average of 20% pupils on FSM. Kendrick School admits just 0.4% of pupils on FSM. Have a look at the school's websites and you'll see that they are essentially state-funded "public schools".

One way that the schools could take more control over their destinies would be to become Academies but this could mean that they'll only be able to select 10% of pupils who have a particular aptitude in a subject they specialise in; obviously, not enough selection for these highly selective schools.

Kendrick School clearly have the best "PR", publishing this leaflet urging parents to vote "No" in the vote: it has the highest Google rating on the subject. Meanwhile, the 11+ chatrooms are buzzing with chatter about the subject, which can be found here. I'm finding it difficult to find many details from the protesting parents, but will follow this up in due course.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.


Luke Barratt's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:54

Wow. 'It's been well established'. Everyone in favour of selection, I'm afraid we've been beaten. Francis Gilbert has not only established this, he's established it WELL. Congratulations, Francis, perhaps you could inform us how it has been established. Oh yeah, and my sister failed the 11+. I think it left her with feelings of inadequacy for all of 1 day. My brother failed the Reading School exam. I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less.

Bob Marsh's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 22:16

Where has it been established? By the lies made up by the haters that we are all posh and rich?

And what happened to your good old FSM point? Our school doesnt even get enough funding to be able to afford facilities to provide FSM.

S's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 11:00

Yes because when I did the 11+ test I remember that one paper had questions on my parent's income and my family background.. (note the sarcasm here). Have you done the 11+ test? Have you even seen one with your OWN eyes!?

Warby's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 18:42

Oh, and furthermore, the Reading entrance exam is not the 11+ exam, so can we please stop referring to the two as if they are synonymous.

Charley's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 18:48

If a child feels inadequacy for the rest of their life after failing the 11+, they have problems beyond the selective schools debate. People fail to meet university offers, fail to get jobs, and it's an essential part of life to learn to cope with failure. I failed to meet my expectations and standards in last year's exams, and a result worked to improve.

If a child's background does not encourage the development of basic maths and literacy, as are tested in the 11+, then they will struggle whether they take the exam or not and we have a cultural problem. Neither Comprehensive nor Grammar schools can recitfy this issue, and it will have on effect on later education. Of course, the majority applicants are equipped for the test and do not gain a place and Reading or Kendrick because of the existance of only two selective schools, and this can only be fixed by increasing the number of selective schools. Not testing to identify a problem does not resolve it.

Robert's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 18:50

Reading School, and grammar schools alike, offer a near perfect learning environment for able students. That is their main function to the nation. In order to achieve such a superb atmosphere, all the students must be of high intelligence and the majority of these clever pupils have the desire for success. This separation of the differing abilities of students is a method practised in almost every if not all schools across the country. Pupils are set in different subjects, like maths, english etc, and why? To achieve this better working environment. Grammar schools are simply an replica of this detachment but on a grander scale. Why should intelligent people who want to learn have to integrate with less intelligent people who couldn't care less about their academic studies? I appreciate there are people who don't fit either category of the groups I have suggested but abolishing grammar schools is not beneficial to them in any way. Perhaps there should be more grammar schools to accommodate such individuals.
In response to the argument roughly stating, 'Local schools for local people', well this sounds remarkably like the discriminatory notion of 'British jobs for British people'. Saying that I shouldn't be allowed a place at Reading School just because I live in a different area is similar to the denial of jobs to immigrants. The main focus of your attention should be the catchment areas, better funding to schools so that they may offer more places or the construction of more schools, not the destruction of a well established high performing grammar school.
I am curious as I wonder if you (anyone anti-grammar school) really have weighed out the advantages and disadvantages of the abolishment. If the school becomes non-selective, the standards it achieves will fall dramatically to the average standard of the area. It is only high performing due to the quality of the students. High quality students attract high quality teachers. You remove the better students, the better teachers will follow, think about it in a teachers view. The once grammar school pupils will find themselves dumped in a comprehensive school where they will probably tradgically never reach their full potential. However, the new students of the grammar school won't get any better. It is an example of wasted potential.
I've had enough of typing so I'll conclude that grammar schools are the Ziegler-Natta catalyst for clever people, they will reach stronger intelligence at a faster rate.

Prasad Debates's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 18:52

Dear Sirs/Madams,

I wish to state first and foremost that my intention is not to insult, but to provide an opinion which may be accepted or not accepted, but the fact is we all have the right to make it under Freedom of Speech.

The old ideals of Britain being the leaders of the world, were built on the fact that we were able to take the best people and best ideas and combine them to make something greater. This was developed because developed because we had a goal that we were a meritocracy, those who were the best in one particular field. We are now in a situation that with this petition, we may turn one of our production lines of graduate talent (the entire grammar school system), into a place where mediocrity will inevitably remain.

The ideals of a grammar school are sound. Free selective education is a catalyst for social mobility. It enables the poorest in society who have the intelligence to do something great, achieve just that.

Indeed, the fact that we are having this debate shows the disparity in the standards of primary schools. Comprehensive and Grammar Schools have to pick up the standards of the academically neglected. The fact that comprehensive education is perceived as not equal to Grammar school education is a wrong notion. Let me say, the quality of teaching in these grammar schools can be worse than many comprehensive schools. It is just the unfortunate fact that some people are indeed cleverer than others, and thus A Level and GCSE results can be skewed as such.

Reading School and Kendrick School, both do not receive anywhere near the funding that the other schools nearby do, and yet seem to generate better results. Again, I stress this is not due to the quality of teaching, but the endeavour and mental prowess of those who attend these young men and women. Surely this provides an excellent economic case for Grammar schools

We should be looking to inspire more of our primary school generation to take it upon themselves to aim for the stars, to aim for great things, because with the system in place, though incredibly flawed and imperfect, can help them through, rather than attack institutions with track records of producing people that society needs

What makes these schools different, is selection. However much this enrages our local people, who say the boys and girls have no respect or politeness and bucketfulls of arrogance. Really, they are quite wonderful people, people who have the conscientiousness to fight for their opinions.

Selection through intelligence, provides the environment for those pupils to learn and succeed. It is DEFINITELY better than selection through wealth...

There is no one size fits all approach. Our education system needs to be tailored for every individual, and this system, though flawed, is the best way to provide it, with Grammar and Comprehensive Schools existing in harmony together, for the benefit of the nation

Reppin rs's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 18:52

I wonder were some of these facts are mysteriously coming from.
Firstly i think as a Reading school boy, the selection process is more than fair.
You sit the test and the best are accepted.
Why should reading school be subject to all this neggative attention hyped up by some parents who dont understand the process.
Reading school is not full or 'rich boys', but a diverse range of people from several background.
Also can i ask some parents, why they think once there child goes to a grammer school they will get 11 A*s? If anything we work hard to generate these results and it is the pupils who drive up the results, aswell as the reputation.

RS's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:06

Who agrees with me when I say Fiona Millar is a biased idiot who is using a completely irrational argument to defend her cause?????

Reppin rs's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:08

Stop trying to destroy the reputations of 2 outstanding schools
Your manipulating false facts, spreading them, and gaining support from people whos minds are controlled by what they read, and cant spend the time to actually understand the situation.
Reading school gets so many people to do some top subjects at top unis, this happens because they are some of the highest acheving boys in the country
The fair selective nature of the schools shows when applying to university as the school has no power over who gets in and who does then.

So please be more respectful to Reading school (as well as kendrick)

Hmmmm's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:14

As a student of Kendrick School who currently is typing this from the council flat I live in, I think I'm justified to say that grammar schools don't exclude people from less fortunate social backgrounds!
I think it would be a disaster to let these schools become comprehensives, one thing you all might not understand is that it can be really hard to learn without other students who also want to learn. The reason we get such high results is that being in an environment full of other girls who want exactly the same things as you is more motivation than any teacher could give. And for those who say that the same teaching would continue if Kendrick and Reading School lost their selective status, I highly doubt many of our current teachers would stay to be honest.
The only other way I could get an education like this would be to get a scholarship at a private school, where I would most likely be bullied for my 'common' accent or my lack of designer clothing...

Spoons's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:16

This article is about the 'unfairness' of grammar schools, now I'd be a fool to disagree that not all children in this country have the same level of education available to them, but why on earth is the apparent 'solution' to this to get rid of grammar schools and bring everybody DOWN to the same level?? Should the aim not be to make all schools as good as grammar schools, and bring everybody UP to the same level?? This attack on grammar schools just doesn't make sense to me, if anything it seems extraordinarily counter-productive in the grand scheme of things, which is of course to make education fair for all.

You don't know what you are chatting's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:16

Btw instead of using the FSM as your measure. Use the EMA and you will get truly reflecting figures!!!!!!!

Mr Dance's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:19

These schools are some of the best in the country, surely that is a good thing, if you don't like the schools' ethos, then you can send your children elsewhere surely? Surely every school should be aiming to improve their results to the level achieved at these grammar school, not vice versa, please excuse me if I am being thick but I am right aren't I?

I dont wish to say who I am's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:26

@ Francis Gilbert. Im sorry but almost all your points have to do with the free school meals, and to be honest it doesnt prove anything. How do you not know how many people take packed lunch? I honestly dont see the connection.

Secondly, I went to a primary school and hardly many pupils even tried for reading school or kendrick, maybe 8 or 9. This was because most wanted to go the easy way and get into Maiden Erlegh, which is another school with a good reputation and no selective stream. The only reason firstly, for attacking ONLY the schools in reading is the fact that the catchment has been changed for Maiden Erlegh, and people are trying to get good education by starting a petition. To get into Kendrick and Reading, the people who do generally have practiced for a very long time, and dont give up, even if this means coming to school by train every single day. They want to go to these schools just as much as most of you arguing against the selective stream.

By getting rid of the selective factor, the academic level of the two schools will end up going down, and it will eventually not be the good school you wanted your child to go to for a good education.

Francis Gilbert's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:37

The FSM data is the government's benchmark indicator for poverty; do you want to take your argument up with Michael Gove? The grammar school system is set up to label the vast majority of children as failures at eleven; it's cruel, unfair and been proven to lower standards overall, quite significantly.

Charley's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:51

Oh, that's not quite true. Nobody's said it labels anyone as failures. I make the great leap of presumption to suggest that you have failed something in you life, whether at school, university or career level. This did not label you as a failure and neither does the grammar school system.

And where is the proof?

Jamie's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:59

you continually say that any number of your claims have been "proven" but I have yet to see any reliable proof from you. If a child fails their entrance test then I understand that could be a disappointment to them, but saying that not achieving the entrance grades labels a child as a failure is MOST DEFINITELY cruel and unfair; many of my compatriots were unsuccessful in their first application at 11 years old, but tried again two years later and got in. Some of these people went on to become the top achievers in the year in a wide range of subjects. Also, I would happily argue the point with Michael Gove, David Cameron, or anybody who wishes to dissolve Reading School into a comprehensive.

I dont wish to say who I am's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:17

According to me, the grammar school system does not label the vast majority of children as failures at 11, many children apply, too many, then they take their test to make them eligible for the school. The rest of the people who didnt get in and tried are not failures, they weren’t as good as the others who wrote the test.
That is like arguing with schools in which subject sets, example, Top set, middle set and bottom set, are determined by how well you do in class and your test results.
Many schools filter their students by catchment, where as grammar schools filter them regarding an 11+ test.

yy133's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:22

Funny I thought poverty was decided by IMD... obviously working in this field means nothing as you clearly know what you're talking about Francis. Well done.

Luke Barratt's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:57

Oh my God, there it is again. You just keep pulling out these facts that you've 'proven', Francis. It really is very impressive. Perhaps, though, for us mere mortals, could you explain how it's been proven?

Laura's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 21:33

All my friends other than me at primary school 'failed' the 11+. Do you know what they did? Cried for half an hour, then picked themselves up and carried on with their lives, just like almost all children.

Kushal's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 22:46

yeh, go on then

Neal Skipper's picture
Fri, 27/05/2011 - 12:50

According to the bumpf on their website Reading BC use eligibility for FSM as their "deprivation indicator" for allocating funds to schools. They've also looked at IDACI and IMD. Figures below, presumably in £'s allocated to each school, in order; FSM, IDACI, IMD.

Highdown School 419,485 231,991 223,875
Reading Girls' School 354,176 412,561 403,210
Reading School 7,197 28,700 23,442
Prospect Technology College 540,056 544,102 555,586
Blessed Hugh Faringdon 258,724 349,182 361,014
Kendrick School 16,792 29,896 29,303

Mr Dance's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:27

What would Ian B say about all this??

Donal's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:29

This is one of the most ignorant petitions I have ever seen. I go to Reading School - Its an academy! My parents arent ridiculously rich, Im not posh, I dont scoff about comprehensive schools as I went to a comp primary. The fact that you all believe that they reject people on the fact of "there not posh/rich enough" or "there local so they wont get in" is completely biased. You probably dont understand the simple fact that is.. everyone in this school are more clever than the average boy/girl. The test to get in is hard but those who are able to complete are usually more clever than most. Most of you are probably mad because your child didnt get in or your just generaly ignorant. Please just go complain about something that is broken not something that is a hub of creativity and intelligence. Oh and UMAD BRO!

HurrDurr whyamiarguingwithmorons?'s picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:37

Legally, this school is a special needs school, that helps people that need specialist help. It isn't just a tag for schools for people with learning disabilities, it's for the other end of the spectrum as well. You think it's just for people that can afford private tutoring, and go to private schools? I went to a state school and moved to the area a month before the exams, and knew they existed for a fortnight beforehand. I still got in.

AJ's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:43

I Find This Incredibly Silly. Like Most Of The Comments On Here, I Agree That Grammar Schools Are Purely Based On Ability And Not On How Much Parents Income Is. For The People Who's Sons Or Daughters Didn't Get Into These Schools, You Cannot Blame The Pupils Who Did Get In. It's Very Unfair. I Know Lots Of People That Go To Grammar Schools, And They Have A Lower Income Than My Family Do. My Boyfriend Goes To Reading And I Believe That He Wouldn't Benefit From Going To A "Regular" School. Children Who Are Intelligent Should Be Given The Chance To Show It. And Surely Everyone Being Put Into The Same Types Of Schools Means That There's Going To Be Even More Inequalities, And Things Such As Bullying And What Us Sociologists Call The Anti-School Subculture. Those Who Want To Learn Will Get Picked On And Bullied. This Argument Is Ridiculous And I Don't Think We Should Get Rid Of Grammar Schools. Are You Saying That We Should Get Rid Of Specialist Schools Because They Aren't Fair?

Peter's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 19:46

Just like to say well done to everyone supporting their schools here. There are good reasons for having grammar schools, most of which have been outlined. Cutting off peoples chance of a good education benefits no one. If anything, the answer is to get more grammar schools again.

I dont wish to say who I am's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:00

I do not wish to make a huge deal. I am only expressing my opinion.

According to me, the grammar school system does not label the vast majority of children as failures at 11, many children apply, too many, then they take their test to make them eligible for the school. The rest of the people who didnt get in and tried are not failures, they weren't as good as the others who wrote the test.

That is like arguing with schools in which subject sets, example, Top set, middle set and bottom set, are determined by how well you do in class and your test results.

Many schools filter their students by catchment, where as grammar schools filter them regarding an 11+ test. That is all.

Charley's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:12

I feel like the opportunity should be taken to comment on the fundamentals in place here. Grammar schools select students on terms of relevant aptitude, and this is how higher education and employment work. It is a system endorsed by our culture.

Nobody forces anyone to take the entrance examination, and in removing selective schools those who oppose only seek to harm those who support them or attend them - nothing else would be achieved by this move. The school spaces argument is absolutely farcical as there are undersubscribed comprehensive schools in Reading (Bulmershe and Reading Girls both stand as examples). Personally, I feel justified in defending an establishment in which I can discuss the finer points of Renaissance against the Middle Ages and have my interest reciprocated rather than mocked. Sadly, on the grounds of a mythological equality being sought in academic education, you seek to dissolve, or support the dissolution of such an institution.

Jonothan Pizza's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:08

stop being spiteful! just because your son is really dumb don't be blaming the intelligent ones for why he is failing.

George H's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:12

What a nasty bunch of self satisfied, moral turpitudes here. A real cesspit of people and, sadly, young people, so totally self absorbed, malicious, blinkered and with a degenerate and ridiculous sense of self-aggrandisement.

The repulsive and divisive comments of some of these grammar school educated children shows exactly what happens when governments implement a policy of social and academic division. You encourage children to behave like this. They are no credit to the education system and the grammar schools they are at should rightly be ashamed of them.

An idea's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:19

I can't agree with this statement. Some of the younger years have discovered the site and are a bit "exuberant" in the defence of the school. Furthermore I note you have nothing to say about the disgusting comparisons drawn between our school and "apartheid". The people who made that comparison definitely should know better. And most of the awful comments have come from trolls just here to get reactions off people. If you could take off your rose tinted glasses for a second you will see the pupils are fighting to save a school they are proud of, and want to see future generations benefit from. At least they are defending something they care about and not "hanging out on the streets" which is what young people supposedly spend their evenings doing.

Charley's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:47

Some of these people are behaving disgustingly. But please consider the ones who are able to debate on an adult level with you, and please don't imagine that this is a reflection on a grammar school education rather than schoolboy (I suspect, not girl) immaturity. It's a rose tinted view to think that other schools aren't like this....

Luke Barratt's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 21:03

Oh hurray. It's one of those people who are against selection. You know, those ones who are never rude, abusive or insulting in any way. 'nasty', 'self-satisfied', 'cesspit', 'malicious' the list goes on. Oh, OK then. What's the betting Fiona Millar doesn't care about this particular person's abusive expression of his views? To you, George H, I say this: The 'repulsive and divisive comments' have in fact mostly come from people on your side of the argument. It really is a sad state of affairs when I, a 17-year-old school pupil, have to give you a lesson in politeness, but could you please use less offensive language and try, as I am, to argue a debate in a civilized manner? It really will make your points more respected, if, indeed you have any actual points to make.

H's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 23:57

'What a nasty bunch of self satisfied, moral turpitudes here. A real cesspit of people and, sadly, young people, so totally self absorbed, malicious, blinkered and with a degenerate and ridiculous sense of self-aggrandisement.'

I like the fact that you employed the most verbose prose and syntax structure possible here, whilst deriding other peoples' employment of similar airs.

Jack's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:12

I don't understand it, why would you "proud residents" want to effectively get rid of one of the best things in this town, I mean the queen chose to visit us expressly because of it. Why would you want to turn Reading into a simple little town with nothing interesting to speak of?

Anon's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:12

Pics or it didnt happen

Charlie's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:13

I just thought I'd post my thoughts as an ex-Reading School boy here, by pointing out (as I see them) the three ways this petition could end up:

1) The schools become comprehensive, and remain providing a high standard of education. For a few years, this would arguably be beneficial to local families, but property prices in the area would be likely to rapidly rise, leaving a catchment area that only 'rich' families can afford to live in - basically a hidden form of selection by income of parents.

2) The schools become comprehensive, and the education standards drop as a result. There are now two more comprehensive schools in central Reading, but they are average schools rather than the 'outstanding' schools they are now. It's also worth pointing out here that Reading School, at least, has much worse facilities than any comprehensive school I've seen.

3) The schools remain selective by intelligence, retain their current 'outstanding' status as decided by OFSTED, and allow students from anywhere in or around Reading, from any background, to attempt to gain entry, with places being given strictly to the top 100 scorers in the exams. Sure, it's possible to spend a ton of money on a tutor to try and boost your position, but firstly, I'm not actually aware of anyone in my year who did that and secondly, I'm not entirely sure how much more useful this is to a £10 book of sample papers. It might not be completely fair, but it's certainly better than the other two options.

This doesn't mean that "[Reading School] rejects local residents in favour of pupils from much further away." This means that the distance from the school has no bearing on admission. If candidate A gets 80%, candidate B gets 50% and candidate C gets 70%, A will get a place no matter whether B or C live closer or not. That, as I see it, is fair for a school that says it selects by academic ability. And I don't think getting rejected is some kind of failure that leaves life-long scars. Allow me to use the analogy of my university applications: I was rejected by Cambridge. Do I cry myself to sleep every night about it? No. I was slightly unhappy for a day, then went and had a great year at Birmingham. But by the arguments of the pro-comprehensive people, it is my right to have a place at Cambridge because it was the closest university I applied to.

It's also interesting to note that my mother attended a grammar school that became comprehensive while she was a pupil there. She says the educational standards dropped practically overnight.

A final question to all the critics of grammar schools: If your children had got in, would you still have such a problem with them? Be honest with yourself, and if your answer is yes then I'll respect that, but I'm still totally against the idea.

If I ever have kids, I'd love for them to have an opportunity for the same sort of education that I had, and it's nice to know that they might be able to regardless of my future income - because there are still schools that select based on intelligence rather than whose parents could afford the expensive houses on the next street.

puk wu's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:15

Being more wealthy definitely does not give you a higher chance of getting in. I had no private tutoring to get in to the school, and I didn't need it. this is soooooooooooooo frustrating

Peter's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:22

I had no private tutoring either. Most students are not rich kids hot housed for grammar schools but ordinary children trying to get a good education. The reason grammar schools do perform so much better is because Labour under Tony Blair managed to destroy what was an education system. Now it comes down to who can afford private school, and if not, who can afford the decent catchment areas. The people who actually changed the system are unaffected- I notice Diane Abbott and Tony Blair both sent their children to private schools.

Olussu Muntagi's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:16

it makes me truly sick reading the responses left to my earlier comments. I have been working very hard all day and return to see so many arrogant boys simply dicredit the good point I had made. It is also amusing to see that these same boys have been commenting throughout the day WHEN THEY SHOULD BE AT SCHOOL! They even think they are too good for the school! I say take it away from them and see what they do then! This is a matter for the adults to deal with- not for the boys who obviously have very little experience of admitting children into schools. Both francis, fiona and myself all have knowledge about the education system, and I, in particular know the local area well. We are the ones who are to be making the decisions- the grown ups- thankfully! Unfortunately all these comments have just made the boys look worse in my opinion. I say we take their wealth, we take the school's wealth, we take the meals the wealthy boys are too good for and we take the school! let's get rid of these rodents from our community! I would also like to add my disgust at whoever impersonated my son, and those earlier commentators who believed I was a mr. Muntagi- another sign of ignorance and self obsession!

puk wu's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:28

If you knew the education system so well, you would know that many pupils have exam leave at the moment and left school, um so yeah. You might know the area well but you have no idea what the school itself its like and actually attending it!

KP's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:32

This is petty

You don't know what you are chatting's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 20:34

Again you make stupid points and post disturbingly ignorant posts! Most of us are on study leave and we have time to do this because we have already put the hard revision in to get GOOD marks. That is the reason why we are good; not some stupid and ridiculous private conspiracy you make up. What is your problem, you patronising hypocritical person? And do you even know what self obsession means? cos we are definitely not that. We are definitely part of the most socially aware group of people so don't go lecturing to us that you are adults and we are kids cos actually i watch the news every day and understand the whole system thank you very much. And by the way, the school has no wealth! As I tell you again, the front building is all the school is and i invite you to come over and see that it is in fact worse than the average comprehensive.

Luke Barratt's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 21:10

You're going to 'take our wealth'? Not only would you be breaking the law, but you might be disappointed when you discover that we're not as rich as you thought. For the very last time, NO ONE is at Reading School because they're rich. We are her because we passed an entrance exam. Now unless one of the questions was 'what is your household's weekly income?', I don't think that has anything to do with wealth.

I am sorry about those people who were rude, and impersonated your son, but I think not only is it naive to suppose that the people who go to Reading School are less likely to be rude than people who go to other schools, it is also hypocritical as you seem to think we're better than others - a statement which, morally speaking, would be unreasonable to believe to be true.

Jamie's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 21:25

Please, let's just leave Ms. Muntagi alone, she has nothing to add to the discussion, and neither do any responses to her ranting.

will Martineau's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 22:00

what do you mean we should be at school? If you did know the local community well you'd know we have exams... we don't need to be at school all day. Stop talking crap and stop patronising us.

Kushal's picture
Thu, 26/05/2011 - 22:50



Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.