Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
Champagne Socialisnm Is Alive And Well !
107 Answers
http://
not that you need me to point it out !
and the little boy is going for a "safe" seat, ahhh bless ....well what did you expect him to do !?
not that you need me to point it out !
and the little boy is going for a "safe" seat, ahhh bless ....well what did you expect him to do !?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro...what on earth has the dictatorship in Roumania got to do with British Comps ?
None of you have answered Freds question about scientists, etc. If the introduction of Comps was such a horrid, lefty idea, where have all our professionals come from in the last 40 years...from the 164 Grammar school that were left behind ?
Comps gave millions of kids chances that they would never had had, if they had been left to rot in Secondary Moderns. As I have posted, the Tories have had ample time and opportunity to bring them back, and haven't seen the need.
None of you have answered Freds question about scientists, etc. If the introduction of Comps was such a horrid, lefty idea, where have all our professionals come from in the last 40 years...from the 164 Grammar school that were left behind ?
Comps gave millions of kids chances that they would never had had, if they had been left to rot in Secondary Moderns. As I have posted, the Tories have had ample time and opportunity to bring them back, and haven't seen the need.
emmie...might I remind you that we don't live in a totalitarian state. Blair was a freely elected MP, who led the Labour Party to three consecutive election wins.
So if Blair was so horrid, why was he so successful ? It couldn't have been anything to do with the fact that the Tories, were in complete disarray could it ?
And it was only when they appointed Dave, that they finally made a come back ?
So if Blair was so horrid, why was he so successful ? It couldn't have been anything to do with the fact that the Tories, were in complete disarray could it ?
And it was only when they appointed Dave, that they finally made a come back ?
mikey....I can quite appreciate your defense (if indeed they need defending ) of the Comprehensive system of education.
There were excellent Comprehensive Schools, acceptable standard in Comprehensive schools and there were poor Comprehensive schools.
The same can be said of Grammar Schools.
I do not want to labour the point, but :
Pre-comprehensive education a pupil, from a poor family had the opportunity, if taken to go from a local primary school, via the 11+ to a grammar school and then to University and a top London Teaching hospital and become a Consultant in the NHS.
So, like you and Comprehensive education, i will always find it difficult ( and i agree that 11+ had it's problems) to understand how the Comprehensive schools offered a better alternative........
There were excellent Comprehensive Schools, acceptable standard in Comprehensive schools and there were poor Comprehensive schools.
The same can be said of Grammar Schools.
I do not want to labour the point, but :
Pre-comprehensive education a pupil, from a poor family had the opportunity, if taken to go from a local primary school, via the 11+ to a grammar school and then to University and a top London Teaching hospital and become a Consultant in the NHS.
So, like you and Comprehensive education, i will always find it difficult ( and i agree that 11+ had it's problems) to understand how the Comprehensive schools offered a better alternative........
The International Education league tables; http://
don't leave much room for complacency.
As I said to Fred above, you must ask them, some may have began education at comprehensives, others at private schools and many from abroad.
Re. "the Tories have had ample time and opportunity to bring them back", How on earth can anyone replace the ethos and sense of history embedded in some of those splendid institutions, once it has been destroyed?
"Ceausescu" was a light-hearted jab at our own iconoclasts in the likes of Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle et al.
don't leave much room for complacency.
As I said to Fred above, you must ask them, some may have began education at comprehensives, others at private schools and many from abroad.
Re. "the Tories have had ample time and opportunity to bring them back", How on earth can anyone replace the ethos and sense of history embedded in some of those splendid institutions, once it has been destroyed?
"Ceausescu" was a light-hearted jab at our own iconoclasts in the likes of Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle et al.
Sqad...I can only speak from my personal experiences...see my post of 23:16 last night.
We just didn't have the best Teachers, the equipment and the facilities in my Secondary Modern. Some subjects just weren't taught. We didn't even do A levels, thus the paucity of Secondary School kids at University. We were divided, unequally, at age 10-11, and that was that. We became the carpenters, plumbers, etc, and the kids that went to Grammar School all went on to Uni and got the top jobs.
Of course, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being a tradesman ....when you come back from holiday and find water cascading down the walls from your attic, a plumber is more use to you than say, a surgeon might be ( ! )
My point is that we didn't get a choice. Bright kids at the Secondary Moderns were effectively ignored. Some managed to come through but most never achieved their full potential in life.
There are some people in Britain that say that Comps destroyed British secondary education. This is rot. All the schools in my home town here in South Wales converted into Comps, Grammars included and the bright kids continued to thrive.
If you entered a Comp at age 11, and you were bright, you could have ended up in the top class and stream by the time you were 16...there was no barriers to progression. You just moved down the corridor a few feet.
Comps have been the biggest single reason that a larger proportion of kids went to Colleges and Universities. Oxford and Cambridge have been criticised in the past, on many occasions, for not taking in more people from humble backgrounds. But before the advent of Comps, there were no working class kids punting down the Cam, or leaving their bikes outside venerable Oxford colleges. ( with then exception perhaps of Ruskin College).
I would guess that you went to a Grammar Sqad...would you have gone on to be a Doctor, if you had attended a Secondary Modern ?
( I would be delighted, of course, if you were to tell me that you graduated from the Bash Street School ! )
We just didn't have the best Teachers, the equipment and the facilities in my Secondary Modern. Some subjects just weren't taught. We didn't even do A levels, thus the paucity of Secondary School kids at University. We were divided, unequally, at age 10-11, and that was that. We became the carpenters, plumbers, etc, and the kids that went to Grammar School all went on to Uni and got the top jobs.
Of course, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with being a tradesman ....when you come back from holiday and find water cascading down the walls from your attic, a plumber is more use to you than say, a surgeon might be ( ! )
My point is that we didn't get a choice. Bright kids at the Secondary Moderns were effectively ignored. Some managed to come through but most never achieved their full potential in life.
There are some people in Britain that say that Comps destroyed British secondary education. This is rot. All the schools in my home town here in South Wales converted into Comps, Grammars included and the bright kids continued to thrive.
If you entered a Comp at age 11, and you were bright, you could have ended up in the top class and stream by the time you were 16...there was no barriers to progression. You just moved down the corridor a few feet.
Comps have been the biggest single reason that a larger proportion of kids went to Colleges and Universities. Oxford and Cambridge have been criticised in the past, on many occasions, for not taking in more people from humble backgrounds. But before the advent of Comps, there were no working class kids punting down the Cam, or leaving their bikes outside venerable Oxford colleges. ( with then exception perhaps of Ruskin College).
I would guess that you went to a Grammar Sqad...would you have gone on to be a Doctor, if you had attended a Secondary Modern ?
( I would be delighted, of course, if you were to tell me that you graduated from the Bash Street School ! )
The problem with comprehensive schools is that they are geared to the centre stream. They fail the most able, and they fail the least able. A secondary modern school didn’t do that. There is nothing wrong in guiding people towards apprenticeships in plumbing, building, hairdressing etc., if that’s what they are suited to. However, there’s a great deal wrong in pushing people who do not have the academic ability towards achieving worthless degrees at university. My relation was one such person. After a comprehensive school education and much private tuition, she gained a place at a fairly reputable university, only to drop out after a year because she, and I quote, ‘didn’t know what they were talking about’. Conversely a friend of mine failed the 11 plus and went to a secondary modern. Her general academic ability is mediocre, so she would have struggled miserably at a grammar school – in fact she wouldn’t have lasted there – but at the secondary modern her aptitude for maths was recognised and encouraged, she got a place at teacher training college, and is now a maths teacher. One size does not fit all.
Sqad...just read your post again, and think that you have answered my last question. But there are only a few Grammar's left in Britain. Did all of the Doctors that have qualified in the last 40 years only come from expensive private schools, or what is left of the Grammars ? Have none of them been taught at Comps ? And how many kids that were taught at Secondary Moderns in the 40's, 50's and early 60's went on to be Doctors ?
This is Freds point that nobody has yet responded to.
This is Freds point that nobody has yet responded to.
Mikey, hang on a minute. First I'm condescending, now I'm sanctimonious - and I can see neither in what I've written. No, they are not all bad, but I seriously think that generally, they do fail the most able. I am on the side of the working class child, and I think, that in the main, a lot of real talent is being wasted.
Tell me, if you had the opportunity to give your children (and I know you don't have any) the best education possible, would you - or would you plump for the local comprehensive regardless of what else was available simply because it's a Labour initiative?
Tell me, if you had the opportunity to give your children (and I know you don't have any) the best education possible, would you - or would you plump for the local comprehensive regardless of what else was available simply because it's a Labour initiative?
mikey......I did indeed read your post of last night which prompted me to respond.
In answer to your question one had almost NO CHANCE of getting to University if on failed the 11+ and went to a Secondary school, i say no chance, but there were rare exceptions. One could enroll into polytechnic (now called Universities??) and perhaps get to a Teachers Training college or indeed University....
The big successes of the "failed 11*" were in the private sector where entrepreneurs were not a rarity, particularly in businesses.
So even before comprehensives..." where there is a will there is a way"......poor or rich, academic or not.
Then came the Comps and I c an see that the Politicians have poured more resources into the system, but i cannot convince myself of a great improvement.
What was the question that Fred has asked and hasn't been answered?
In answer to your question one had almost NO CHANCE of getting to University if on failed the 11+ and went to a Secondary school, i say no chance, but there were rare exceptions. One could enroll into polytechnic (now called Universities??) and perhaps get to a Teachers Training college or indeed University....
The big successes of the "failed 11*" were in the private sector where entrepreneurs were not a rarity, particularly in businesses.
So even before comprehensives..." where there is a will there is a way"......poor or rich, academic or not.
Then came the Comps and I c an see that the Politicians have poured more resources into the system, but i cannot convince myself of a great improvement.
What was the question that Fred has asked and hasn't been answered?
I would unhesitantly send my kids to the local Comp. My old one has changed into a Welsh-medium school, so I'm not sure I would recommend that. As you say, I have no kids of my own, although a bachelor can never be entirely sure on that account. However, I have plenty of nephews and nieces, all of whom went to Comps, and all of them have done very well. Most children in Britain go to Comps these days and have done for years. As I have said, no serious moves have taken place to go back to the old Grammar and Secondary Modern schools, despite Maggie and MMMMMajor having plenty of time to do so. The argument for the return to Grammars now appears to have been lost. Perhaps Dave will try again, if he wins the 2015 election, although he seems to have his hands full with the debacle over his "Free" schools.
I would urge you to read my posts on this subject and then you will realise why my experience has led me to back Comps 100%.
By the way, I may have been somewhat harsh in calling you condescending and sanctimonious. Perhaps I had misinterpreted your posts. If that is so, than I quite willing to apologise. I get very passionate about schooling in Britain and sometimes I get overheated ! Your posts on AB are always readable, and unlike some others, you don't just use this forum to make incoherent rants.
I would urge you to read my posts on this subject and then you will realise why my experience has led me to back Comps 100%.
By the way, I may have been somewhat harsh in calling you condescending and sanctimonious. Perhaps I had misinterpreted your posts. If that is so, than I quite willing to apologise. I get very passionate about schooling in Britain and sometimes I get overheated ! Your posts on AB are always readable, and unlike some others, you don't just use this forum to make incoherent rants.
Did they swap one evil for another? The problem with the 11+ was that a child could fail it by a small margin at 11 and have effectively no chance of getting a degree. A friend did fail, was sent to secondary modern, was in a school that did do A levels, was picked out as better academically, put into a group which was a tiny percentage of the school, was thus in A level classes of 4, got her A levels and got a law degree at a polytechnic. She became a policewoman.
So some did get higher education. Had it been a comp that would have happened anyway; she would have been streamed early on, at 11 plus, one might say. And she would have access to the same type of teachers as in a grammar school, throughout. But the 11+ presented a cut-off point at really pretty young and could be seen as terminal.
That's one evil.
What are the evils of comprehensives? That they are structured for mediocrity (Naomi's point)? What were secondary modern schools structured for? That they still turn out the professionals, the scientists etc who are no less able than those of the pre-comp generations suggests that is not entirely true, not true at all in fact. That they produce pupils with low or disappointing standards and expectations? Well, what did secondary moderns do? But they don't instil feelings of inferiority or superiority, which is surely a hazard of the old system; nobody should feel different or condemned as failures, academically or otherwise
So some did get higher education. Had it been a comp that would have happened anyway; she would have been streamed early on, at 11 plus, one might say. And she would have access to the same type of teachers as in a grammar school, throughout. But the 11+ presented a cut-off point at really pretty young and could be seen as terminal.
That's one evil.
What are the evils of comprehensives? That they are structured for mediocrity (Naomi's point)? What were secondary modern schools structured for? That they still turn out the professionals, the scientists etc who are no less able than those of the pre-comp generations suggests that is not entirely true, not true at all in fact. That they produce pupils with low or disappointing standards and expectations? Well, what did secondary moderns do? But they don't instil feelings of inferiority or superiority, which is surely a hazard of the old system; nobody should feel different or condemned as failures, academically or otherwise
Latest Posts
ChatterBank99 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles100 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News175 mins ago
Film, Media & TV188 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles231 mins ago
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.