ChatterBank29 mins ago
Labour And Lib Dems 'would Fight Grammar School Plans'
http://
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
Answers
I definitely agree that grammar schools should be a thing of the past.I passed the 11 plus and went to a grammar school but hated pretty much every minute of it.My son however went to our local comprehensiv
17:26 Tue 09th Aug 2016
I don't think the problem is Grammar schools per se, it's with the perceived notion that if you don't go to one you are considered a failure. Until this country accepts the obvious truth that not everybody is suited to a Grammar school education and needs an alternative form, this snobbery, for that is what it is, will continue to dominate and hold back future generations education.
I have no objections to grammars. I'm sure I'd have done better in a academic atmosphere rather than an uncaring massive morass of pupils simply being churned through the system and no real system for taking an interest in individuals because they are too many and many teachers no longer enthusiastic with the job.
I appreciate that late developers may have issues moving school, but compared to chucking all abilities together and trying to cope, it's the smaller issue. Academic types need academic surroundings. Practical types need practical surroundings. Those with issues need surroundings where those issues can be treated and the best brought out in the individual too.
I appreciate that late developers may have issues moving school, but compared to chucking all abilities together and trying to cope, it's the smaller issue. Academic types need academic surroundings. Practical types need practical surroundings. Those with issues need surroundings where those issues can be treated and the best brought out in the individual too.
I failed the 11+, in common with most kids of my age. I had the good fortune to go to a very good secondary modern school for part of my education, but if you wanted to study languages, for instance, you were put on a bus and sent up to the Grammar School for an hour of so, and that was only if you were in the A stream.
Later on, I went to a good Comprehensive, where all subjects could be taught, just by walking down the corridor, to a new classroom.
For many kids, failing the 11+ was a potential disaster, as it meant you went to an inferior school, and were taught my inferior Teachers.
Even though the Secondary Modern I went to was a good one, it was never expected that any of the kids, including the ones in the A stream, would go onto University.
It was obvious to me, even 50 years ago, which was the fairer system. I am not surprised in any way that Mrs May is prepared to go against accepted Tory Party policy, and introduce these Grammar Schools again.
Later on, I went to a good Comprehensive, where all subjects could be taught, just by walking down the corridor, to a new classroom.
For many kids, failing the 11+ was a potential disaster, as it meant you went to an inferior school, and were taught my inferior Teachers.
Even though the Secondary Modern I went to was a good one, it was never expected that any of the kids, including the ones in the A stream, would go onto University.
It was obvious to me, even 50 years ago, which was the fairer system. I am not surprised in any way that Mrs May is prepared to go against accepted Tory Party policy, and introduce these Grammar Schools again.
Selection in education sings the Tory hymn because they worship the god of 'competition' which they believe works in every walk of life.
Their argument for grammars is that it gives an opportunity for a better education for a 'lower income' child who may not otherwise get it.
My argument is that a proper education is the right of every child, and the government should start spending money in the right areas to remove elitism in education - because every child gets a chance.
Their argument for grammars is that it gives an opportunity for a better education for a 'lower income' child who may not otherwise get it.
My argument is that a proper education is the right of every child, and the government should start spending money in the right areas to remove elitism in education - because every child gets a chance.
Grammar schools lasted longer than the 11+. I do not recall taking an 11+ but I was assigned to the grammar based on my achievements in primary school. I was so relieved to have parted company will all the bullying types I had to avoid in primary school and those who seemed to need ages of explanation, and to be be part of the group who could and wanted to learn.
It lasted a year before the authorities screwed it all up by putting everyone together again in one place. Luckily the more obnoxious pupils seemed no longer to be part of the SM school that joined us. They must have been so bad that they had already been kicked out of the SM.
But it still meant that the standards deteriorated massively after that first year, some teachers clearly couldn't be interested any more. And even those that tried seemed unable to give much in the way of personal attention.
I'm sure the exams I was selected to take is a direct result of that awful decision. It meant things were harder when trying to compensate later. Which in turn affected social life in the teens.
Comprehensive schooling might seem ok on paper but in reality my experience suggests it is an awful system. Overall I think my education as a child could have been vastly better, both at primary and secondary level. I still have deficits in basic things that at my age I can no longer seem to recall instinctively because they should have been part of the foundation information in the brain. But maybe I'm straying off the subject now.
It lasted a year before the authorities screwed it all up by putting everyone together again in one place. Luckily the more obnoxious pupils seemed no longer to be part of the SM school that joined us. They must have been so bad that they had already been kicked out of the SM.
But it still meant that the standards deteriorated massively after that first year, some teachers clearly couldn't be interested any more. And even those that tried seemed unable to give much in the way of personal attention.
I'm sure the exams I was selected to take is a direct result of that awful decision. It meant things were harder when trying to compensate later. Which in turn affected social life in the teens.
Comprehensive schooling might seem ok on paper but in reality my experience suggests it is an awful system. Overall I think my education as a child could have been vastly better, both at primary and secondary level. I still have deficits in basic things that at my age I can no longer seem to recall instinctively because they should have been part of the foundation information in the brain. But maybe I'm straying off the subject now.
"My argument is that a proper education is the right of every child, and the government should start spending money in the right areas to remove elitism in education - because every child gets a chance. " - partially right Andy, so when are they going to weed out the disruptive scum and start giving those that want to learn a chance?
I think Vulcan has it.
Not only is their the perceived snobbery of attending a grammar school there is also the reverse snobbery of thinking everyone who went to one is somehow not the same as you. (If that makes sence? By the way it does in my head lol)
If state comprehensive was the best we could offer then we are on a hiding to nothing but second rate world contributions. Because as any fool and their politics knows not everyone is the same. Not everyone can be a computer genius, not everyone can be a captain of industry, not everyone can be a company director. Some of us mediocre people have to be factory workers, dinner ladies and the shop workers.
What we have to do is appreciate everyone's skills and differences. The company director can't get paid without the shop floor workers and the shop floor workers can't get paid if there is no one pushing the business forward.
I failed the 11+ (only just though
Not only is their the perceived snobbery of attending a grammar school there is also the reverse snobbery of thinking everyone who went to one is somehow not the same as you. (If that makes sence? By the way it does in my head lol)
If state comprehensive was the best we could offer then we are on a hiding to nothing but second rate world contributions. Because as any fool and their politics knows not everyone is the same. Not everyone can be a computer genius, not everyone can be a captain of industry, not everyone can be a company director. Some of us mediocre people have to be factory workers, dinner ladies and the shop workers.
What we have to do is appreciate everyone's skills and differences. The company director can't get paid without the shop floor workers and the shop floor workers can't get paid if there is no one pushing the business forward.
I failed the 11+ (only just though
TTT even the disruptive scum have a right to an education. Just the sort that is tailored to them. Oh no TTT, that is elitists.
There is no getting away from the fact that some people flourish more in a different educational environment than others.
If you want to cater to everyone and get the best from them then tailoring is the only way to do it.
You just have to get rid of the dogmatic view that it is elitist drivel.
There is no getting away from the fact that some people flourish more in a different educational environment than others.
If you want to cater to everyone and get the best from them then tailoring is the only way to do it.
You just have to get rid of the dogmatic view that it is elitist drivel.
TTT - //so when are they going to weed out the disruptive scum and start giving those that want to learn a chance? //
'Disruptive scum' as you so politely put it, are often children from disadvantaged background who have been failed by education from nursery onwards.
As I have banged on ad infinitum, if any government put sufficient resources into nursery education, we could start mending society from that end, rather than damage limitation when it's too late.
But as I have also pointed out, every time I voice that argument - short-termism means that no government will do it, nursery education is not sexy, and infants don't vote!
'Disruptive scum' as you so politely put it, are often children from disadvantaged background who have been failed by education from nursery onwards.
As I have banged on ad infinitum, if any government put sufficient resources into nursery education, we could start mending society from that end, rather than damage limitation when it's too late.
But as I have also pointed out, every time I voice that argument - short-termism means that no government will do it, nursery education is not sexy, and infants don't vote!
School children don't vote either.
But the feeling is going to be that nursery is child minding that parents ought to pay for if they want to get away from their kids for a while and perhaps earn money and meet people: not expect the rest of us to pay for their desire. It's not education in the same way established schooling is and which society as a whole feels worthwhile paying for from the public kitty.
Anyway what is going to be changed that, time back in the family doesn't reduce to achieve net effect ?
But the feeling is going to be that nursery is child minding that parents ought to pay for if they want to get away from their kids for a while and perhaps earn money and meet people: not expect the rest of us to pay for their desire. It's not education in the same way established schooling is and which society as a whole feels worthwhile paying for from the public kitty.
Anyway what is going to be changed that, time back in the family doesn't reduce to achieve net effect ?
I would have more sympathy for Grammar Schools, if Secondary Moderns Schools had been better. But that was rarely the case.
I was lucky in that the SM that attended from 1964 onwards was as good as the Teachers could have made it. They were generally committed and talented Teachers. But it was the expectations of us that attended these schools that was the problem.
We need plumbers, chippies, sparks, etc, etc....of course we do. But we also need good Teachers, Technicians, etc, and broadly speaking they did not come from a SM, as there was no expectation that we were going to go onto University. Within the Comp. there was that expectation, or at least the chance of it, and the education that were given reflected that. Its difficult to expect a child to end up as a Chemist or a Doctor, if they don't have the opportunity to study Chemistry or Biology at a an earlier age.
I was lucky in that the SM that attended from 1964 onwards was as good as the Teachers could have made it. They were generally committed and talented Teachers. But it was the expectations of us that attended these schools that was the problem.
We need plumbers, chippies, sparks, etc, etc....of course we do. But we also need good Teachers, Technicians, etc, and broadly speaking they did not come from a SM, as there was no expectation that we were going to go onto University. Within the Comp. there was that expectation, or at least the chance of it, and the education that were given reflected that. Its difficult to expect a child to end up as a Chemist or a Doctor, if they don't have the opportunity to study Chemistry or Biology at a an earlier age.
Old_Geezer - //But the feeling is going to be that nursery is child minding that parents ought to pay for if they want to get away from their kids for a while and perhaps earn money and meet people: not expect the rest of us to pay for their desire. //
Your inference appears to be that children are an indulgence, and people that indulge should pay for the privilege, and not expect childless individuals to pay as well for something which they do not benefit from.
I would argue that everyone benefits from proper nursery education - because that is what will build a compassionate and caring class of adults moving forward, and that is to the benefit of society as a whole, which includes childless people.
To continue the logic of your argument, would you wish to be denied the services of a doctor because when that doctor was a child, you opted out of paying a contribution towards his or her nursery care which enabled his or her parents to work and put the doctor through university to be educated enough to treat you now?
//It's not education in the same way established schooling is and which society as a whole feels worthwhile paying for from the public kitty.//
It absolutely is - and it is that mind set which sees nursery education catastrophically underfunded, and sees children receive poor value at a formative stage of their lives, which affects society as a whole as they grow into adults - which is the society of the future.
Your inference appears to be that children are an indulgence, and people that indulge should pay for the privilege, and not expect childless individuals to pay as well for something which they do not benefit from.
I would argue that everyone benefits from proper nursery education - because that is what will build a compassionate and caring class of adults moving forward, and that is to the benefit of society as a whole, which includes childless people.
To continue the logic of your argument, would you wish to be denied the services of a doctor because when that doctor was a child, you opted out of paying a contribution towards his or her nursery care which enabled his or her parents to work and put the doctor through university to be educated enough to treat you now?
//It's not education in the same way established schooling is and which society as a whole feels worthwhile paying for from the public kitty.//
It absolutely is - and it is that mind set which sees nursery education catastrophically underfunded, and sees children receive poor value at a formative stage of their lives, which affects society as a whole as they grow into adults - which is the society of the future.
You ask, TTT, "When are they going to weed out the disruptive scum and start giving those that want to learn a chance?"
To whom does the word, 'they' refer in that sentence of yours?
Tories have, in effect, been in power for over six years and surely only the government has the power to do what you suggest needs to be done. So, why haven't they?
To whom does the word, 'they' refer in that sentence of yours?
Tories have, in effect, been in power for over six years and surely only the government has the power to do what you suggest needs to be done. So, why haven't they?
QM...up until a few days ago, it was Tory Party policy to back Comps and not to bring back Grammars !
Its seems that more has changed recently, other than having our second woman PM.
TTT .....your remarks about "scum" are amazing ! As most kids in England and Wales attend Comps, then are you saying that they are scum ?
Its seems that more has changed recently, other than having our second woman PM.
TTT .....your remarks about "scum" are amazing ! As most kids in England and Wales attend Comps, then are you saying that they are scum ?
Andy-hughes, pre-school education is pretty good. This from the government website. //All 3 to 4-year-olds in England can get 570 hours of free early education or childcare per year. It’s usually taken as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. Some 2-year-olds are also eligible.//
As is evidenced by some of these posts there’s a lot of inverse snobbery attached to the notion of Grammar schools. I doubt very much that any of the critics here would reject an opportunity for their own children to go to Grammar school. That would, at the very least, amount to a dereliction of duty. Of course all children deserve the best, but the fact that Comprehensive schools do not offer the best for all shouldn’t preclude the brightest from receiving a high quality education. Personally, I think Comprehensives, on the whole, fail everyone except those in the middle. They don’t cater efficiently for the less able and they certainly don’t cater efficiently for the more able. As an ‘East End’ kid, the product of poor but caring parents, I thank my Grammar school daily for my education and for the subsequent opportunities that education offered me.
As is evidenced by some of these posts there’s a lot of inverse snobbery attached to the notion of Grammar schools. I doubt very much that any of the critics here would reject an opportunity for their own children to go to Grammar school. That would, at the very least, amount to a dereliction of duty. Of course all children deserve the best, but the fact that Comprehensive schools do not offer the best for all shouldn’t preclude the brightest from receiving a high quality education. Personally, I think Comprehensives, on the whole, fail everyone except those in the middle. They don’t cater efficiently for the less able and they certainly don’t cater efficiently for the more able. As an ‘East End’ kid, the product of poor but caring parents, I thank my Grammar school daily for my education and for the subsequent opportunities that education offered me.
Naomi - //Andy-hughes, pre-school education is pretty good. This from the government website. //All 3 to 4-year-olds in England can get 570 hours of free early education or childcare per year. It’s usually taken as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. Some 2-year-olds are also eligible.//
I would not dispute the availability of pre-school education, but I would seriously dispute the quality of the education that is offered.
The respect with which successive governments regard pre-school education is amply demonstrated in the fact that staff are paid at the minimum wage level.
Because the job is poorly paid, and the perception is that it is largely a baby-sitting service, the calibre of staff attracted is woefully inadequate, comprising in the main of young ladies who leave school with no particular idea of a career, but a vague notion that they like children.
There is no incentive to build a worthwhile career - the system is criminally under-resourced in all areas, and the majority of the education budget goes to higher education, because governments think that university is sexy, and is funded lavishly as a result.
The simple fact is - university education, while valuable, is not a pre-requisite for a decent grounding in living in a civilised society - and one third of students drop out in the first term because it is not the right choice for them.
Pre-school education is far more valuable, being an absolute pre-requisite for a decent grounding in living in a civilised society - and no-one drops out.
The target for spending is obvious, but as I advised, nursery education is not sexy, and infants don't vote.
I would not dispute the availability of pre-school education, but I would seriously dispute the quality of the education that is offered.
The respect with which successive governments regard pre-school education is amply demonstrated in the fact that staff are paid at the minimum wage level.
Because the job is poorly paid, and the perception is that it is largely a baby-sitting service, the calibre of staff attracted is woefully inadequate, comprising in the main of young ladies who leave school with no particular idea of a career, but a vague notion that they like children.
There is no incentive to build a worthwhile career - the system is criminally under-resourced in all areas, and the majority of the education budget goes to higher education, because governments think that university is sexy, and is funded lavishly as a result.
The simple fact is - university education, while valuable, is not a pre-requisite for a decent grounding in living in a civilised society - and one third of students drop out in the first term because it is not the right choice for them.
Pre-school education is far more valuable, being an absolute pre-requisite for a decent grounding in living in a civilised society - and no-one drops out.
The target for spending is obvious, but as I advised, nursery education is not sexy, and infants don't vote.
Regardless the benefits or otherwise of nursery attendance it doesn't constitute academic education and so has no effect on legitimacy on using the services of a doctor. A doctor who, in any case, is simply plying their trade, so again has no connection with who should be allowed to employ their services.
Yes children are a life choice of the parents and not automatically funded by others. Where the case for social help can be made, such as schooling, then funding may be appropriate. But generally a child is the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of the parents: and public funding shouldn't be given for any wish, but a good case for it must be made.
Yes children are a life choice of the parents and not automatically funded by others. Where the case for social help can be made, such as schooling, then funding may be appropriate. But generally a child is the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of the parents: and public funding shouldn't be given for any wish, but a good case for it must be made.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.