Did Labour Pull Up The Ladder On The Poor When They.....

[ToraToraTora]

abolished grammar schools? I thought NF made very valid point last night when he discribed how Labour took away the chances for poor kids out of some silly idiology.

[DaisyNonna]

What exactly is meant by Comprehensive Education?
All pupils whatever their ability given access to all subjects and examinations?
All pupils taught a curriculum especially designed for them individually?

[Gromit]

There are still 164 state grammar schools in the UK. They, like Comprehensive schools have to adhere to the national curiculum, so the education should be basically the same for everyone.

Prior to 1976 we had a two tier education system based on an exam for 11 year olds. If you passed, you could hope to have the better teachers and more resources spent on you. If you failed, you could expect to be written off.

[DaisyNonna]

What makes you think that the better teachers taught the most intelligent children?
Teaching the less able required extra qualifications

[Svejk]

Yes, I remember 13/14 yr olds joining my grammar school from local secondary schools, too. So this notion of children being written off at 11 is like so much else spouted by champagne socialists, utter botox.

[Old_Geezer]

The old system didn't have massive impersonal comprehensives. That was the new system.

If by apprenticeship age one hasn't shown promise then society has to make decisions at some point.

Denying the 'written off' aspect of kids in the old system doesn't make it not so.

[naomi24]

In areas where grammar schools still exist the 11 plus remains the deciding factor – and children from secondary moderns weren’t written off in the past. I know several people who’ve done very well in their chosen careers - one now teaching maths in a comprehensive school – so for those who displayed potential in a particular area, the opportunities were there. Unfortunately, with Ed’s new scheme for those who ‘get the grades’ the academically challenged, who may well have superb skills in other areas, really will be written off. No apprenticeships for them. Given the opportunity, Labour is about to dump them on the pile marked ‘failure’. This continuing belief in the fallacy that Labour works for the working man never ceases to amaze me.

[New Judge]

Quite so.

The notion that children were “written off” if they failed the eleven plus is utter nonsense. As I said in my earlier post, about two-thirds of my primary school friends did not go to a grammar school. Instead they went to schools where the curriculum was less academically challenging (they did not study subjects like Latin as I did and their study of other subjects such as maths, history and geography was not so deep as ours was). Instead they concentrated on technical subjects such as metalwork (which I never did), technical drawing (which I could not cope with) and commerce. This enabled them to take up perfectly good jobs. Some of them set up their own businesses and one of them built up (and subsequently sold for a fortune) a very large transport business. He did not pass his eleven-plus but nobody called him a failure.

It is quite true that a few children of my age struggled with secondary education. This would have been the case wherever they were taught because, just as some children cannot run fast, some cannot learn very well. What went wrong was that, although he (almost) fulfilled his promise to “…destroy every *** grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland", Anthony Crosland (having endured a very agreeable privately funded education at Highgate Boys’ School, natch) did not properly consider what would be done to accommodate these differences. The result was that, using my earlier analogy, the rich (i.e. academically competent) children did indeed get poorer whilst the poor (those not so competent) remained where they were.

Comprehensive education is an ideological concept bandied about by those whose dogma prevents them accepting reality. All that has happened as a result of its imposition is that those parents with money (and a few without who make huge sacrifices) pay for the education that should be their children’s right. And we’re all the poorer for it.

[mushroom25]

Ed's apprenticeship scheme promises 80,000 "new" places; however 33,000 of those are tied to HS2 - a scheme that won't be happening at any time during the lifetime of anyone who's alive now.

[Peter Pedant]

//The notion that children were “written off” if they failed the eleven plus is utter nonsense. //

blimey I remember the idea that failing the 11+
meant you were put on the educational rubbish dump

It is OK if you were in the grammar school but bad news elsewhere

[New Judge]

Sorry Peter but that's not so.

As I explained, two thirds of my primary school classmates (20 or so) did not go to grammar school. I kept in touch with many of them (and are still in contact with a couple of them even now). Most of them made their way very successfully in life, did not feel they were consigned to the scrapheap, and a number of them did better (at least if measured in financial terms) than some of us who went to grammar schools.

[tonyav]

Would someone define ''Scapheap' please.

[Svejk]

I think they're talking about people like us, tony. Manual (eugh) workers.

[tonyav]

Thats what I thought, svejk. If your not a pen pusher your on the scrapheap.

[Svejk]

hee hee, it's nice here, innit.

[tonyav]

Lovely ;-)

[naomi24]

Tony/svejk, You have the wrong end of the stick. Far from condemning manual workers, the ‘grammar school kids’ here are championing a system that provides a standard of education appropriate to the abilities of each individual. ‘The scrap heap’ referred to relates to Labour’s assumption that anyone who fails to meet its academic criteria isn’t worthy of an apprenticeship. We aren’t confining anyone to the scrap heap – the Labour party is doing that. We know that a lot of potential is going unrecognised, and hence wasted. As for your reference to ‘pen pushers’, that’s nothing more than inverted snobbery. Furthermore, never automatically assume that a manual worker works harder than what you call a pen pusher because in very many instances you would be utterly wrong. Back to schools. I know people who left secondary school with no qualifications whatsoever, and yet have built hugely successful businesses in building, transport, retail, and in other areas. The intricacies of the plays of Shakespeare may elude them, but they do possess much needed practical and organisational skills - and they can count money. The Labour party fails to recognise that, educationally, one size does not fit all and that academic qualifications don’t necessarily equate to success. In its abject ignorance it is failing the very people it claims, quite disingenuously in my opinion, to represent.

[Svejk]

Au contraire, Naomi, you would appear to be the one holding the wrong end of the stick. Tony and I were poking fun at the 'anti-grammar school' brigade. They , after all, would be the one's who generally use condescending terms like 'scrap-heaps' when referring to people.
Furthermore, I like to think that I have practical skills AND, somewhat unbelievably, 'get' Shakespeare.
And finally, if you were a man I'd take you to work for 10 minutes and disabuse you of the notion that 'pen-pushing' can be as hard as, say, concrete shovelling.

[tonyav]

Svejk, I'd prefer 8 hours of pen pushing as opposed to 8 hours of shovelling concrete.

[naomi24]

svejk. for once your humour escaped me – and see below.

Tony, try a daily 3 or 4 hour commute, a frequent 18 hours in the office requiring nights away from home, extra at weekends, time only to take one week’s holiday in a year, no overtime payments – and no option. Strangely enough for those who spend 8 hours a day shovelling cement my heart doesn’t bleed.

[tonyav]

Alright alright, I get your point, naomi.