Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

ankev1 · May 2007

No harm done. It's not as if you've got to have an open, objective, analytical mind to work for the Guardian.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ankev1

No harm done. It's not as if you've got to have an open, objective, analytical mind to work for the Guardian.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or a grammar school education. According to Private Eye, the top ten people at the Guardian all went to private school.

redcogs · May 2007

Private Eye Patrick! that scurrilous purveyor of falsehoods and satire.. Since when did the real wing (property) of the legal establishment take any notice of the liberal intelligentsia 's Pravda substitute?

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

redcogs

Which newspaper do you approve of?

redcogs · May 2007

Thats an easy one spire - the Beano.

In reality, i find all the news i need from this hallowed cyberworld, along with Paxo on the telly, Radio 4s (thats the BBC) morning news hour or two, and an occasional 'Sunday Hobscura'

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Private Eye Patrick! that scurrilous purveyor of falsehoods and satire.. Since when did the real wing (property) of the legal establishment take any notice of the liberal intelligentsia 's Pravda substitute?

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can assure you that I read Private Eye more avidly than the Law Society Gazette.[:I]

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Thats an easy one spire - the Beano.

In reality, i find all the news i need from this hallowed cyberworld, along with Paxo on the telly, Radio 4s (thats the BBC) morning news hour or two, and an occasional 'Sunday Hobscura'

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've thought for some time that you should read The Spectator. It's full of everything which will make your blood boil but the articles tend to be very well written and are on a high enough level to be entertaining even if you would like to strangle the columnists (as I occasionally feel like doing).

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Thats an easy one spire - the Beano.

In reality, i find all the news i need from this hallowed cyberworld, along with Paxo on the telly, Radio 4s (thats the BBC) morning news hour or two, and an occasional 'Sunday Hobscura'

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, I switched to the Beano as well after Asian Babes went downhill.

Your admiration for Paxo is interesting - he's a real right-winger. Not that that stops him hitting the right as hard as he hits the left though. I agree, he's a top man.

redcogs · May 2007

Its a money thing really ankev. i could easily find myself spending many hundreds of pounds on periodicals and newspapers, and when i worked properly for a living, i certainly did so. Thats the value of the net though isn't it - once you have your broadband up and running, there is a real wealth of material freely available 'out there' - not to mention the undoubted wisdom from the forum wags!

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

The Law Society's Gazette does have one feature that everyone turns to first - the strikings off! Each week a hundred thousand solicitors have a quick look in the hope that someone they really hate has been struck off in humiliating circumstances.

redcogs · May 2007

Michael Mansfield and Imran Khan will never be there Patrick ;-)

please look up to the stars.. ***

Gary Askwith · May 2007

Yeah but arn't these mags all empheral journalistic drivel entrenched in the no-mans land of superficial edifice built on teetering rickety scaffolding?
'Loaded' for the polito-bourgouise generation....?[:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Yeah but arn't these mags all empheral journalistic drivel entrenched in the no-mans land of superficial edifice built on teetering rickety scaffolding?
'Loaded' for the polito-bourgouise generation....?[:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

????????????

Are the pubs open already?

Unkraut · May 2007

No, Gary is just illustrating the benefits of a grammar school education. (Well someone has got to point the thread back in the right direction ...)

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Michael Mansfield and Imran Khan will never be there Patrick ;-)

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not least because Michael Mansfield is a barrister, so he can't get struck off as a solicitor. [;)]

spire · May 2007

Well, at last there's one of the Tory front bench prepared to stick up for the working class:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6701877.stm

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

I see this thread hasn't got anywhere, unsurprisingly... because no-one is prepared to acknowledge that their original position has any flaws at all.

We've got a situation where we know that there are a variety of abilities and forms of intelligence. However not all of these are valued, or valued in any way on an equal basis and certainly not catered for in schools as they exist now.

Some of you want some particular forms of intelligence to be given special status and children to be selected solely on that basis for a priviliged form of education, at a particular arbitrary point in their lives.

Some of you seem to want no attention to paid to differential forms of intelligence at all.

Some of you don't really want 'schools'...

Its just a thought, but why not create a system that allows people to chose how their children are educated subject to some basic requirements (e.g.: very broad curricula guidance; building and grounds standards; minimum staff:pupil ratios). Give all parents the same basic financial educational resources (whatever the average spend per pupil is now across the sector, for example) to spend and allow multiple small schools to be set up that represent a whole range of different philosophies of education, with the state providing at least one 'neutral' option for all areas. Encourage this diversity by setting a maximum size on schools, and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now, but a multitude of ways of using the resources parents are given).

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Its just a thought, but why not create a system that allows people to chose how their children are educated subject to some basic requirements (e.g.: very broad curricula guidance; building and grounds standards; minimum staff:pupil ratios). Give all parents the same basic financial educational resources (whatever the average spend per pupil is now across the sector, for example) to spend and allow multiple small schools to be set up that represent a whole range of different philosophies of education, with the state providing at least one 'neutral' option for all areas. Encourage this diversity by setting a maximum size on schools, and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now, but a multitude of ways of using the resources parents are given).

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It wouldn't work because it is always cheaper to educate in large units.

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Its just a thought, but why not create a system that allows people to chose how their children are educated subject to some basic requirements (e.g.: very broad curricula guidance; building and grounds standards; minimum staff:pupil ratios). Give all parents the same basic financial educational resources (whatever the average spend per pupil is now across the sector, for example) to spend and allow multiple small schools to be set up that represent a whole range of different philosophies of education, with the state providing at least one 'neutral' option for all areas. Encourage this diversity by setting a maximum size on schools, and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now, but a multitude of ways of using the resources parents are given).

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, I think this idea has a lot of merit in it.

Anything that takes politics out of education and gives power to parents has a lot going for it.

I wouldn't place a restriction on the size of schools though.

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey
...

Its just a thought, but why not create a system that allows people to chose how their children are educated subject to some basic requirements (e.g.: very broad curricula guidance; building and grounds standards; minimum staff:pupil ratios). Give all parents the same basic financial educational resources (whatever the average spend per pupil is now across the sector, for example) to spend and allow multiple small schools to be set up that represent a whole range of different philosophies of education, with the state providing at least one 'neutral' option for all areas. Encourage this diversity by setting a maximum size on schools, and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now, but a multitude of ways of using the resources parents are given).

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'd largely agree with the above, which is basically the 'education voucher' concept discussed in the private schools topic. However, I'd disagree strongly with your proposed budget ceiling. Why put an upper limit to the standard of education available? What is the justification for constraining an individual's freedom to chose how to spend their own money?

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
...
I wouldn't place a restriction on the size of schools though.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think there is a case for limiting the size of schools. When there are over a thousand pupils in the school discipline inevitably becomes harder to enforce. Individuals are more anonymous, teachers will be less likely to recognise pupils causing trouble etc etc. There has been a tendancy for local eduaction authorities to consolidate schools onto a single mega-comprehensive. This may save some money, and provide greater status for those in charge, but doesn't do the educational environment much good.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
...
I wouldn't place a restriction on the size of schools though.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think there is a case for limiting the size of schools. When there are over a thousand pupils in the school discipline inevitably becomes harder to enforce. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It must be terrible at Eton then - there are about 1,200, and they're all males between 13 and 18. [:0]

mjones · May 2007

I'm sure it is terrible at Eton! Especially in the showers after rugger or lacrosse! [;)][:0]

Obviously size alone isn't a determinant of discipline, but it must make a difference. Yes Eton is large, but a school where the parents pay more than the average salary for their children to attend ought to have a rather easier time managing discipline than a similar size inner city school where the teachers have to spend more time on crowd control than on teaching.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
What is the justification for constraining an individual's freedom to chose how to spend their own money?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because the social consequences are more important... that's always the reason for any law that constrains absolute rights in any area. This is about providing equity in basic education.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · May 2007

I know that, despite many wise and intelligent postings, you're partial to the odd slice of barm cake, FM, but a government edict "You as a parent are not allowed to spend money over and above this level of state funding on endeavouring to improve your child's knowledge and moral/intellectual education, and we shall legislate to prevent you doing so" (the reality of your proposed system) has got to be your best yet. Just think - an undergound of the monied all secretly educating their children via the black market, and all the associated waste of time and money policing it.

Try again! [;)]

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
What is the justification for constraining an individual's freedom to chose how to spend their own money?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because the social consequences are more important... that's always the reason for any law that constrains absolute rights in any area. This is about providing equity in basic education.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Bit in bold- indeed, that is exactly the point. So what exactly are the social benefits that justify this constraint on individual rights? 'equity' by itself is not, not unless you can show that it is a necessary and sufficient condition for raising the educational standards of the least well off. And, as per many previous debates on this matter, I remain to be persuaded that the best way to give a poor person a good education is to prevent a rich person from getting a better one.

Foghat has identified some of the practical difficulties!

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
What is the justification for constraining an individual's freedom to chose how to spend their own money?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because the social consequences are more important... that's always the reason for any law that constrains absolute rights in any area. This is about providing equity in basic education.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hmm.......so parents don't have the right to educate their children as they see fit and are able to do so. Somewhat sweeping and I suspect a characteristic of the more totalitarian regimes.

Jon G · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Hmm.......so parents don't have the right to educate their children as they see fit and are able to do so. Somewhat sweeping and I suspect a characteristic of the more totalitarian regimes. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not totally, certainly, partly to encourage social cohesion and partly because children have rights of their own, including, I'd suggest, a right to be a member of their society and culture even if their parents think otherwise. E.g. I don't think a parent who happens to be a political or religious extremist has the right to isolate their child from the society around them in pursuit of their beliefs. Similarly a child should not be deprived of education because their parents saw fit to keep them away from school or other education altogether.

Jon

ankev1 · May 2007

Two things:

Firstly we probably need private schools as they are a thorn in the side of the establishment in that they show what can be achieved if you take education seriously. The only way the government could morally get rid of them is by raising its own game to the point where demand for the private schools dried up.

Secondly, I think the FM's ideas at the top of the page are fine. Although many of us would like to see grammar schools reintroduced that is mainly because we would like at least something that is known to function to be in the state education system and that of which we have experience is grammar schools. It doesn't have to be grammar schools although their equivalent would probably need to be available for more academically inclined kids. Maybe in the first year of secondary education parents should have the right to put kids in any level of school they want to see if the kids are up to it and after having had a year to look at them the teachers could then decide what level of education they should receive. This would knock on the head the perceived unfair advantage of kids who have had private lessons.

Gary Askwith · May 2007

[8D]

[url][/url]http://static.flickr.com/9/75653471_c0421dd3c6_m.jpg[url][/url]

[2.3] Harm in the School System
by Shaun Kerry, M.D. (a social psychiatrist)

As a social psychiatrist, I examine society much like a doctor
examines a patient. One of the most troubling ailments that I
encounter is our school system, which - without ever realizing it -
harms the majority of our students.

It is my belief that our school system is the most fundamental cause
of the social problems that our society faces today. Far from being
expensive, the solution to this problem would cost no money.

Speaking from a psychiatric perspective, our most critical mental
attributes involve emotions, judgment, a sense of priority, empathy,
conscience, interpersonal relations, self-esteem, identity,
independence, the ability to concentrate, and a number of other whole-
brain functions that defy description. I will lump all of these
attributes under the term 'mindfulness'. Reading comprehension level,
mathematical ability, and standardized test scores are much further
down the priority list.

There is a sharp jump in the incidence of mental illness immediately
after children begin school. This would suggest that something about
our school system is in direct conflict with the human psyche. The
academy-award-winning film American Beauty captures the essence of
social dysfunction in today's world, and has the power to portray
many things that cannot equally be expressed through the written
word. I would urge you to see this film. Note how most of the
characters in this film suffer from a major personality disorder. By
restructuring our schools, many such disorders could be prevented. I
will show you how.

First, we must conquer our obsession with attempting to align
academic achievement with a time-table. Everyone has a very unique
personality, and therefore, learns at a different pace. Some people
are ready to learn how to read at age 3, while others may be better
to suited to learning how at age 10. In schools, we force subject
matter down the throats of the students. We neglect to realize,
however, that children learn much more quickly and effectively if
they are receptive and eager to learn the subject matter. Children
could master the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic far more
quickly, if they were allowed to learn what they wanted to learn when
they wanted to learn it.

Prior to about 1850, schooling as we presently understand the term -
wasn't considered critical to the development of young minds.
Granted, some children did attend schools, but only as often as they
wanted to.

Classroom education was far from mandatory, yet children still
learned to read, write, and perform arithmetic. In fact, Senator
Kennedy's office once released a paper stating that prior to the
implementation of compulsory education, the literacy rate was 98%.
Afterwards, the figure never exceeded 91%.

Forcing people to learn has no value, and is extremely harmful.
Tests, grades, busywork, and competition are at the core of the
problems that plague our schools. The motivation to learn must come
from within the student. Often, we become so concerned with
fulfilling the demands of other people, that we lose track of what we
feel and who we are. I have met or worked with countless individuals
who are intellectually well developed, but who have lost touch with
their inner-self.

As a child, everyone is curious and eager to learn. Before attending
school and being subjected to this process of coercion, children
manage to learn a complex language (in bilingual families, two
languages) and a copious amount of things about their environment.
There is no reason why such learning could not continue without the
negative effects of rigid institutionalization and standardized test
scores, which seem to form the basis of modern-day education. Rather
than hindering the growth of our children, we must provide an
environment that will nourish them, and facilitate continuous
learning.

Shaun Kerry, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
http://www.school-reform.net/

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories