Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

spire · May 2007

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

Society as a whole is now paying the price for the failure of nerve.

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

Yes, the failure the accept that there are those who are academically able and those who are not, resulting in a muddled sea of mediocrity.

spire · May 2007

gillian

Cr@p state schools are going to get even worse and private schools are going to push their fees even higher in a buoyant market.

Thick poor and thick rich will benefit most.

Intelligent poor will suffer and intelligent rich will do even better than they do now.

gillan1969 · May 2007

nay spire the intelligent poor will rise up and take what is rightfully theirs[:)][:)][:)]

come the revolution!!!!

www.squadraporcini.com

peterbr · May 2007

So Gillian, the fact people without financial resources now have exactly the same crap schools but with "comprehensive" instead of "secondary modern" on the sign outside and parents and pupils now have NO HOPE WHATSOEVER of escape, where previously an examination that was truly class, faith, income and race neutral could help your kid is defined progress on your home world?

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

ransos · May 2007

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

So Gillian, the fact people without financial resources now have exactly the same crap schools but with "comprehensive" instead of "secondary modern" on the sign outside and parents and pupils now have NO HOPE WHATSOEVER of escape, where previously an examination that was truly class, faith, income and race neutral could help your kid is defined progress on your home world?

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That would assume that all comps are crap and that kids would want to escape. I was happy with the education I received at my comp. Those of us who were above average were placed in the top sets, and went on to do well at A level and get good degrees at good universities. Of course the situation would have been rather different for my school if the top 25% had been creamed off at age 11 to go to a grammar.

redcogs · May 2007

Why don't all you rightwing shytes accept that you are having your legs gleefully p1ssed on by the aristo 'one nationers' and find a new home to cuddle up in?

Brown's Party looks good from your perspective, those of you with a more fundamentalist approach could go the whole hog and get goosestepping with Griffin..

Your future looks bleak whatever happens, all those taxes you are going to have to stump up subsidising the underpriviliged illiterate scroungers off the council estates.

Its good to gloat[:p][:p][:D]

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

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

all those taxes you are going to have to stump up subsidising the underpriviliged illiterate scroungers off the council estates.

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

I dunno, we're well used to it by now. [;)]

BigWomble · May 2007

I went to a grammar school. There is a big problem with grammar schools. The 11+ test skims off the students who are the most intelligent, whereas a well-rounded school education teaches academic and vocational courses. I was always rubbish (either bottom of class or 1 up from it) in art, in the workshop, and in sports. There was no effort made to stream anyone in these subjects, because the streaming had already been done (alledgedly).

The only subject on which we were streamed was maths, in the 4th and 5th years. In my 4th year of 5 (in the top set for maths) I seem to remember that I scored about 20% on the end-of-year test. As Spock would put it, "I detect puzzlement". They put me in the middle set for the 5th year (before O-levels). I got an 'A' at O-level, an 'A' at O/A-level, an 'A' at A-level [:)] and then 'B's for pure and applied maths (I took the hint).

I kinda wonder what would have been the result of scoring 20% in the 11+.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

ankev1 · May 2007

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

"For those who love the comps, i say keep them! So long you let us have grammar schools as well!"

The ENTIRE point of comprehensives was that they were to be the SOLE school. Once the politicoes bottled closure of all other schools, comps were of course doomed to (hoped for and planned) failure. Comps were intended to end the social and economic divisions inherent in a 2 tier (the tripartite including Tech Schools never actually happened in most places) system. Society as a whole is now paying the price for the failure of nerve.

d.j.
"Like a true nature's child,
We were born,
Born to drink mild"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Which reinforces the fact that they were simply a piece of social engineering and also an act of democratic denial as there was an inherent refusal to recognise that parents want what they think is best for their kids and not what some failed left wing soliologist geek in government wants. My background is totally working class and I certainly wouldn't want any kids of mine in a comp full of sink estate no hopers. It's not the kids' fault if they're no hopers, their parents need to get their act together and the state should not bring down education simply to accommodate them.

ransos · May 2007

No doubt 75% of parents would not want their kids to go to a secondary modern, but that is what happened under 11+.

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My background is totally working class and I certainly wouldn't want any kids of mine in a comp full of sink estate no hopers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You've learned your neo-liberal lessons well: I ME MY MINE, and sod the rest!

Your response to davej's point is confirmation of his statement, since it appears you think that if all schools were closed and replaced with comps, the brightest students would somehow magically vanish, leaving only your 'sink estate no hopers'.

(To say nothing of the begged question of what makes any given parent the best judge of a system of education)

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

spire · May 2007

Some working-class folk seem to consider working-class sportsman as heroes, but regard working-class people who succeed academically are as traitors to be dragged down.

The working-class is its own worst enemy, apart from trendy middle-class, lefty intellectuals of course. The upper class is totally indifferent.

gillan1969 · May 2007

peterb

an exam at 11 is not neutral in any way...indeed no exam is neutral in any objctive way. T

any half respecting scientists asked to compare relative intelligent levels from two 11 year olds without seriously caveating the results with parental wealth, background, living conditions, parents drinking, their peer group, their siblings, their hormones, are they being bullied, are they a bully, does the texcher like them, do they not, are their parents dovorcing or are they not, are they being beaten up at home etc etc etc etc etc etc

there's just a few variable to throw in the pot

an education system that places the philosophy of education over exam results will be to everyones benefit rather than those coached to pass exams be they 11, 16, 17 or 18

www.squadraporcini.com

Trembler49 · May 2007

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

Why don't all you rightwing shytes accept that you are having your legs gleefully p1ssed on by the aristo 'one nationers' and find a new home to cuddle up in?

Brown's Party looks good from your perspective, those of you with a more fundamentalist approach could go the whole hog and get goosestepping with Griffin..

Your future looks bleak whatever happens, all those taxes you are going to have to stump up subsidising the underpriviliged illiterate scroungers off the council estates.

Its good to gloat[:p][:p][:D]

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

Redcogs, I thought you were dead!! I so missed the unmitigated dross you spout. It heartens me that that it is views such as yours that keep the proles in their place by being so unacceptable to the majority of the population.

Keep up the good work!

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gillan1969

does the texcher like them, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or teaching them to spell. [;)]

gillan1969 · May 2007

you've obviously never heard of texchers Patrick???

these are like teachers but teach or should that be 'texch' using text language

off curse anyy speling mistaks usng txt langage is activly encouraghed

[:)][:)]

www.squadraporcini.com

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gillan1969

peterb

an exam at 11 is not neutral in any way...indeed no exam is neutral in any objctive way. T

any half respecting scientists asked to compare relative intelligent levels from two 11 year olds without seriously caveating the results with parental wealth, background, living conditions, parents drinking, their peer group, their siblings, their hormones, are they being bullied, are they a bully, does the texcher like them, do they not, are their parents dovorcing or are they not, are they being beaten up at home etc etc etc etc etc etc

there's just a few variable to throw in the pot

an education system that places the philosophy of education over exam results will be to everyones benefit rather than those coached to pass exams be they 11, 16, 17 or 18

www.squadraporcini.com
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All you need to do is ask the kids.

In the same way kids ruthlessly identify the best players when picking up sides for a sports team they could do exactly the same for the 11+.

And you know, they'd be 99% correct.

peterbr · May 2007

Really Gillian? You keep avoiding answering my basic questions. Stop looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. Your argument of "well this seems fair" isn't sound reasoning if the outcome is not any good, or demonstrable considerably worse than what you had before. "will be to everyones benefit" is exactly the point, it has failed up until now at which point "will" it be of benfit?

So why do we have record levels of illiteracy? Why are people ignorant of their literature and history. Why can't kids multiply or divide in their heads? I remember a graduate engineer of my acquaintance reaching for a calculator to divide our hotel fees by 5! Why do employers tell the government that they have great trouble finding young people literate, numerate or disciplined enough to risk employing as representatives of a business in front of the general public? Why do universities set their own entrance exams because they've lost faith in the official state exam system perhaps?

And as for your reasoning, I did make it perfectly clear that middle-class kids have advantages - but that isn't an inherent fault of the 11+ itself. On your stupidly wide basis every decision made anywhere is discriminatory and biased. Perhaps the equal opportunities commission will write my prosective employer a note saying I have a bit of a dicky tummy the morning I'm interviewed?

The answer to this point is to improve the opportunities for such families. As ever the governments "solution" is to either lower standards (the GCSE and A level system) or remove it altogether (11+). Wey-hey! Everyone's a winner - they came joint last. This is a recipe for nothing but continuing failure. The answer is to raise the bottom, not lower the top. To effectively punish people for being "too good" is idiotic in the extreme.

The fact is, the grammar school system, the traditional gold standard O and A levels worked. The problem is they effectively had their feet kicked away from under them due to the end of proper apprenticeships and the changing British job market. The current system is no answer - effectively trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Education can achieve much in an individual life, however it cannot be baselined on poor
parenting and it cannot compensate entirely for the fact the only work available at the end is at a desk in some capacity and you no longer have the option of bashing ships together. These are horribly complex issues that well intentioned social engineering have no hope of addressing - education in itself is too narrow for this and you have to ask if it's actually its purpose in the first place.

Finally educational philosophies are like the tide, they come and go which is why my cousin after being taught phonetic spelling in the early 1970s has a reading ability of an 11 year old and cannot spell to save her life.

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

ankev1 · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My background is totally working class and I certainly wouldn't want any kids of mine in a comp full of sink estate no hopers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You've learned your neo-liberal lessons well: I ME MY MINE, and sod the rest!

Your response to davej's point is confirmation of his statement, since it appears you think that if all schools were closed and replaced with comps, the brightest students would somehow magically vanish, leaving only your 'sink estate no hopers'.

(To say nothing of the begged question of what makes any given parent the best judge of a system of education)

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're ascribing views to me which I simply do not hold. I am eternally grateful that I went to school at a time when society didn't say "sod the rest". I am glad that as part of "the rest" the system provided those of us with the ability to get an education which was on a par with anything the public schools could offer. All that most people would ask for is fairness and equality of opportunity and that has been taken away.

I probably share much of your idealism and motivation but am dead against your ideology as it has failed and flies in the face of all the evidence. Social mobility and all measures of attainment have gone down since the education system was trashed. And who suffers the most? Bright working class kids because bright middle class kids have parents who have the wherewithall to send their kids to fee paying schools. No grammar schools = no high quality opportunity for working class kids.

Gillan pointed out in his post that there are a host of factors which effect a kid's performance. Unfortunately for many, the nature of their family is a chief factor. I knew kids from my area who seemed pretty bright (to me at least) but their parents never had a book in the house and didn't seem to take to much interest in their kids educations. You can't legislate for that and removing the opportunity from kids of parents who do care does not help those who are doomed by their parents to achieve little. The comprehensive system merely spreads the doom around a little. All the abandoning of grammar schools does is remove opportunity for those who are capable of taking it and perhaps more importantly from the politicians' point of view, removes some excellence which shows up the failure levels in other secondary schools.

We need to push grammar schools and get failed, spiteful left wing ideology out of education - it only damages the working classes.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

Someone condemned comprehensives as "a piece of social engineering" - but this is really a meaningless criticism, in the sense that there is no one 'natural' way to organise education (or indeed anything in society), and any system tries to 'engineer' a certain result - i.e.: to produce a certain kind of social outcome. Thee question is whether you think the outcome is one you want, and whether it can be succesful.

Oh, and doesn't anyone else find it amusing that people can be surprised at being 'let down' by the Conservatives (or indeed any other opportunist political party)...

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

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why are people ignorant of their literature and history.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Interestingly, this formed part of an accusation leveled at the 11+, namely that middle-class students were much more likely to be familiar with (for example) classical music than their working class counterparts, resulting in them getting disproportionately higher results on questions referencing these concepts. This is a common problem for any kind of standardised testing--cultural background has a significant influence.

As to the rest of your rant, I don't recall gillan ever advocating lowering standards as any kind of solution..

Where you say 'grammar schools worked', I would say 'grammar schools worked in the context of 1944 UK society and job markets'. The full-on Tripartite system never actually got off the ground, so it's a bit of a stretch to say 'grammar schools worked' when the overall system they were intended to operate in never fully existed.
In fact, you hit the nail on the head when you say that they failed due to changes in the job market/apprenticeships, but you don't seem to see that that statement itself condemns the grammar school system for not adapting (along with secondary moderns, etc) to those changes. Then, as davej has noted, the government of the day was too afraid to go the whole distance and replace all schools with comprehensives, and so we have today's dog's breakfast of not-quite interlocking systems.

Personally (and this is a result of my own educational background), I wouldn't dream of trying to dictate a student's life at the age of 11. I could see some streaming being introduced at around the KS3 level, but again wouldn't tie it to any kind of standardised test score, but rather an understanding, in which the student participates, of what they want to achieve.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

Pringlecp · May 2007

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

On average I bet those receiving free school dinners are of lower intelligence anyway.

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

Bollocks

Another year older, another Budweiser

Spawn of Cabbie · May 2007

I left my grammar school in 1997 and I would guess that a good 60-70% (myself included) would have gone to a fee paying school if the free option wasn't available.

peterbr · May 2007

Whatever your views, it's certainly depressing that there is now one more area of "less choice" for people.

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

Someone condemned comprehensives as "a piece of social engineering" - but this is really a meaningless criticism, in the sense that there is no one 'natural' way to organise education (or indeed anything in society), and any system tries to 'engineer' a certain result - i.e.: to produce a certain kind of social outcome. Thee question is whether you think the outcome is one you want, and whether it can be succesful.

Oh, and doesn't anyone else find it amusing that people can be surprised at being 'let down' by the Conservatives (or indeed any other opportunist political party)...

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

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

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

Canrider · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And who suffers the most? Bright working class kids because bright middle class kids have parents who have the wherewithall to send their kids to fee paying schools. No grammar schools = no high quality opportunity for working class kids.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Actually, almost since the beginnings of the grammar schools, middle-class children tended to get into grammar schools in disproportionate numbers, due to their parents using their resources to give them an advantage. Things like hiring private tutors, etc.

Then add on top of that differences in provision of grammars across the UK (40% of students in the southwest, 10% in the northwest, for example), the previously mentioned class differences in access (due to critical thinking questions being based, for example, on the roles of domestic servants), and you have a mess on your hands.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

ankev1 · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And who suffers the most? Bright working class kids because bright middle class kids have parents who have the wherewithall to send their kids to fee paying schools. No grammar schools = no high quality opportunity for working class kids.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Actually, almost since the beginnings of the grammar schools, middle-class children tended to get into grammar schools in disproportionate numbers, due to their parents using their resources to give them an advantage. Things like hiring private tutors, etc.

Then add on top of that differences in provision of grammars across the UK (40% of students in the southwest, 10% in the northwest, for example), the previously mentioned class differences in access (due to critical thinking questions being based, for example, on the roles of domestic servants), and you have a mess on your hands.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Canrider,

I'm as working class as they come, something which I don't think is a matter of pride or shame, just a matter of fact. That said, I suppose nowadays I'd be classified as lower middle class on a material basis, which also is a matter of fact. That change is due to the educational opportunities to which I had access. The kids where I come from are now denied that opportunity.

I also do not hold the least grudge against middle class parents making things easier for their kids, in fact I applaud it. Money isn't the main thing, it's showing an interest in one's childrens education and encouraging the kid's interest. Such tactics work just as well for working class kids and parents.

If the grammar school system was geographically skewed (i.e. disproportionate to distribution of population) that is something which could easily fixed and I don't give a toss if servants were a factor as it certainly wouldn't be the case these days. The unavoidable, undeniable bottom line is that we had a system which worked and anybody who is working class and benefitted from it (which includes at least half of the kids who went to my grammar school) thinks it is a crime that it has been done away with. The only people who seem to be happy with it are breast beating middle class lefties and a few fools who cling to a deranged socialist vision which has been shown to have failed as we are now suffering the consequences.

As I said before, there is no room for ideology in education, we should only be concerned with that which works. Grammar schools worked (unless everbody who went to one is lying).

peterbr · May 2007

Canrider. Did you ever sit an 11+ or even see a paper? Believe me, there was no reference to classical music otherwise my musical knowledge that extended about as far as Adam and the Ants in those days would have ensured total failure.

All I remember was basic reasoning questions, some problems along the line of "johnny can dig 1 trench in 2 days...". I definitely remember the names of big cats being mixed up and you had to find the right ones. I remember to this day not getting the last one which I was told was "leopard". Basically, it was pure literacy and numeracy, no knowledge or cultural bias in it assuming you can talk and write properly ('init) and can add up. If you can't that's hardly the fault of an exam set in English, in an English school.

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

mr_hippo · May 2007

There are genii, there are numpties and there are the in-betweens ranging from just below genius level to just above numpty. There are brilliant people who cannot knock a nail in and there are great practical people who cannot tell an ampersand from an ar$ehole. Educationists are putting the raw material into the great comprehensive sausage machine and are expecting to get out of the other end Cumberland, pork, beef and chipolatas but what is coming out is mass produced, budget, nondescript supermarket sausage.
Did the old grammar school/secondary modern system work? Like all systems, it had its flaws. Late bloomers were catered for, you could get transferred from a secondary modern to a grammar school and vice versa (if your performance dropped dramatically).
Why the government of the day saw fit to change the acceptable GCE/CSE exams to the 'one size fits all' GCSE is beyond me. Students are individuals and as we cannot have a system of one on one personal tuition, we can do the next best thing of grouping students of similar abilities together. By teaching the academics and the practicals together, we get into a lose-lose situation. The academics want to move forward in academic studies but are being held back by the 'slowness' of the practicals, the same will happen in practical studies but this time it is the practicals who are waiting for the academics to catch up. I am not suggesting that one group is better than the other.
Scrap the 'one size fits all' philosophy and get back to the grammar/secondary model.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May

peterbr · May 2007

"Actually, almost since the beginnings of the grammar schools, middle-class children tended to get into grammar schools in disproportionate numbers, due to their parents using their resources to give them an advantage. Things like hiring private tutors, etc."

Figures to back this up? You can choose any criteria you like. I never had a tutor, neither did anyone else I knew. I once read a report that the biggest factor governing the success at any stage of education was simply whether your parents read to you as a pre-school child.

What you are afraid to say really is not that middle class parents have advantages due to money - the 11+ is open to all (reading is free and most parents at my school were not rich, including mine in those days).

It is simply that some parents aren't very attentive towards their kids and simply aren't very good at parenting - and that could happen at any income level (the Tim "nice but dims" of the world). However, it more convenient to rabble-rouse the class warriors this way. It makes far more sense to target parenting than to try and correct this after the event at school. But telling people not to use the TV as a babysitter and talk to their kids isn't easy is it? Far easier to excuse failure on the grounds of some kind of disadvantage than something that could have been dealt with or done better with a bit more effort (that in a nutshell is the key to this country's failure - it's always someone else's fault or "society is to blame").

Now this may well not be the fault of the disadvantaged kid, but it sure as hell isn't the fault of the smart kid either, is it? That's why this blatant piece of social engineering is so spiteful and is failing miserably and will continue to do so. The same silly argument would surely mean withdrawing help from children with "special needs" too if we want to be really fascist about comprehensive education.

<hr noshade size="1">
Guaranteed elephant free since 1971.

Trembler49 · May 2007

Ankev, I think you are half right.

Grammar schools worked for the majority of people who got to attend them.

The problem was with the secondary modern schools which the "failures" were condemned to attend. This created an artificial two tier society from which, if you were in the bottom tier, it was very difficult to break out of.

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories