Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

ankev1 · May 2007

Trembler,

Patrick Stevens made a very similar point about sec mods. I don't think you'll find anybody who would disagree with that view. Chopping grammar schools was not however the answer to the problems of sec mods. What was needed was a serious attempt to sort them out but it was easier for the politicians to get rid of the good stuff and to drag everybody's education down to the same standard as opposed to raising the game of the sec mods.

And a point for those who are pro-comprehensive. The argument that because the whole comprehensive vision wasn't implemented being the reason for the failure of the comps won't do. If that system was any good it would have produced brilliant results by now. The evidence shows it hasn't. If the comp idea was any good it could not possibly have depended on the abolition of the grammar schools. It's a bit like when you point out what life was like in the eastern bloc to lefties, they always say that socialism has never been tried properly and so been given a proper chance. How much failure do you need to see that your ideas are wrong?

spire · May 2007

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

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

Q.E.D.

Asterixcp · May 2007

Nevertheless, I would like to know why spire should assert that those 'receiving free school dinners are of lower intelligence'?

It's a strange assumption to my mind - have I missed something - is it the food that does it?

spire · May 2007

ON AVERAGE persons of high intelligence will be inventive enough to produce sufficient income to sustain their families.

There will, of course, be exceptions due to disability/death of partner etc.

Gary Askwith · May 2007

I had free school dinners...something to do with my parents divorce at age 10 and the fact that they were 5 of us kids
Maybe my parents were not intelligent enough....maybe the trauma of the divorce had something to do with me failing my 11+...which I sat at age 10

See how Dumb your sweeping generalisations can be Spire [:(!][?]

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

spire · May 2007

Gaz

How many times do I have to say ON AVERAGE?

Generally speaking, intelligent people will be successful and therefore less likely to be poor. Pretty obvious, I would have thought.

redcogs · May 2007

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

Generally speaking, intelligent people will be successful and therefore less likely to be poor. Pretty obvious, I would have thought.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The most important factor in educational achievement within capitalism is NOT intellect, it is social class. The child of a rich family does not compete on equal terms with the child from an impoverished background.

The rich kids get opportunities that are simply denied to their poor counterparts, so they end up with higher qualifications and the best jobs, REGARDLESS of their abilities.

The entire focus of the rightist perspective on education, amply illustrated above, is completely dishonest.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ransos · May 2007

I was discussing this issue with my other half last night, who despite having been horrendously disadvantaged by going to a comp, somehow managed to get into Oxford. Apparantly students who went to a comprehensive are significantly more likely to get a first class degree than those who went to grammar or public schools. The feeling among the tutors there was that this is because coaching is used more by more affluent parents, and will get you into a posh school, through your A levels and into oxbridge, but that's where it stops. Then it comes down to intelligence.

spire · May 2007

redcogs

You are taking my point out of context.

Of course I agree money has a bearing on educational achievement - hence my passionate support for grammar schools as the escape route for the aspirant working class.

The quote you have taken refers to basic living. An intelligent person denied a top class education is likely ON AVERAGE to be able to earn enough so that his/her family doesn't need free school meals.

redcogs · May 2007

spire - if you were truly concerned about the plight of the under-achieving "aspirant working class" you would be compelled to oppose capitalism and its inevitable divisions into classes.

Capitalism is NOT meritocratic and never can be - it 'rewards' those who already have most, at the expense of those who have least, regardless of intellect.

The right wing are so profoundly dishonest.

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

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

1. Capitalism is NOT meritocratic and never can be - it 'rewards' those who already have most, at the expense of those who have least, regardless of intellect.

2. The right wing are so profoundly dishonest.

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

1. So how come my parents started with nothing and I have quite a lot?

2. And I'm accused of sweeping generalisations!

redcogs · May 2007

Of course individuals exist that have escaped from the general systemic rule spire, but they are hardly the issue.

Your man Willetts is the one currently (and rightly) complaining about the lack of social mobility in contemporary society. He points to the actual educational situation in the UK and indicates: "We have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that... academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."

Face up to the reality spire, then there could be a meaningful discussion about the prospects for a way out of the gross educational inequality that pervades capitalism.

please look up to the stars.. ***

tstegers · May 2007

By education most are misled but they believe because they are so bred. The priest continues what the nurse began and so the child imposes upon the man.

John Dryden

Not much has changed in 500 years.

Observing my four children grow up showed me that kids learn as much from each other as they do from their teachers. Best then, in my view, to have them "comprehensively" educated. The change of policy by the Tories strikes me as sound.

I believe New Labour's educational policies, especially higher education policies, were shaped by Neil Kinnock's exposure to Milton Friedman when he was Shadow Secretary of State for Education in the 70's. Friedman demonstrated how higher education, funded as it was, and to a large extent probably still is, was extraordinarily iniquitous. As Friedman demonstrated 5% of the population, the sons and daughters of higher rate tax payers, went to universities that were 90% funded by basic rate taxpayers who derived little direct benefit. Meanwhile these same sons and daughters could, by dint of their parent's relative wealth, afford to pay for their university education.

Theo Stegers

Gary Askwith · May 2007

The correlation of the graph of Intelligence verses wealth at higher levels of wealth would be interesting.....I'd bet beyond a certain threshold it would show a sharp descent...not including the royal spongers which goes without saying

Anyway 'intelligence'(how is it defined precisly?) is a vaugue indicator of worth or competence...i know many highly intelligent people (Uni[xx(]) who have little common sense or self awareness and are, as a consequence, absolutely useless

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

Asterixcp · May 2007

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

ON AVERAGE persons of high intelligence will be inventive enough to produce sufficient income to sustain their families.

There will, of course, be exceptions due to disability/death of partner etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but you are nevertheless inferring and making the link, that those who receive free meals are less intelligent because of their parentage. And yet you say that your parents 'started with nothing' whereas you are materially successful, so I don't see the point of your original comment unless for example you happened to win a lottery.

Please consider that in certain parts of the country opportunities may disappear making it impossible for parents to acquire the sort of income that is commonplace in places like Reading.

Of course there is the option of uprooting but where jobs are plentiful, housing and other necessities are likely to be expensive.

spire · May 2007

Gaz

There was an interesting study done some years back in the States (I'll try and find the reference if I've got time) that showed that most highly successful businessmen were QUITE, not VERY, intelligent.

Generally mega-brains tended to be backroom boys or risk averse.

spire · May 2007

Asterix

I'm simply saying that if you're pretty intelligent, one way or another, ON AVERAGE, you will find a way of having a living above poverty (free meal) level.

No, I don't do the lottery!

tstegers · May 2007

Gary, not conclusive I know but in calendar 93-94 Goldman Sachs, then a partnership, made about $2.375 billion post tax. In 94-95 they just about made $300 million. They dropped $2 billion or thereabouts. (To put this in perspective it takes 32 years to count to a billion. Bankers are among the worst people at guessing this btw.) This change of fortunes caused a great deal of soul searching at GS. One of the things they found was that at an individual level there was a negative correlation between academic credentials and profitability. The cleverer you were the less profitable you were.

Theo Stegers

ransos · May 2007

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

Asterix

I'm simply saying that if you're pretty intelligent, one way or another, ON AVERAGE, you will find a way of having a living above poverty (free meal) level.

No, I don't do the lottery!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Doesn't this assume that the child is of a similar intelligence to his parents?

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

And also that we have clear and accurate ways of defining and measuring intelligence too - and that is not at all apparent. It is a hugely controversial area.

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

redcogs · May 2007

Yeah. Its well known that the 'educational psychologists' of yore used completely bogus (ie made up) 'evidence' to show that intelligence was largely inherited.

Just like the right wing shysters who come here to bleat about paying too much tax just to subsidise the feckless, individuals like the over influential Cyril Burt ignored the scientific evidence when it didn't suit their argument, and fabricated to make the case for introducing the 11+ in order to keep the poor from having proper access to a decent education.

Dishonest is the diplomatic way of saying it how it is. F ucking liars is more direct.

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

So we inherit genes for most things from our parents, but not the ones relating to intelligence? Come off it!

And are you saying the 'free school meal' theory is a rigorous scientific approach?

ransos · May 2007

Spire you seem to be relying on averages to prove your point, but isn't that exactly why you are arguing against comps - that you believe they only suit joe average?

BTW - a chap on free meals at my school went to Cambridge.

Trembler49 · May 2007

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

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

1. Capitalism is NOT meritocratic and never can be - it 'rewards' those who already have most, at the expense of those who have least, regardless of intellect.

2. The right wing are so profoundly dishonest.

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

1. So how come my parents started with nothing and I have quite a lot?

2. And I'm accused of sweeping generalisations!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well said!!

redcogs · May 2007

You still ere?

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

ransos

I think the 'free school meal' theory is rubbish and my related comment about intelligence was somewhat tongue in cheek.

As I've stated ad nauseum, I believe grammar schools are the best way (not a perfect way) to boost social mobility and this latest theory is the most ridiculous reason yet for not supporting them.

david2 · May 2007

About time they got rid of grammar schools. Still got them in Gloucester. Means we have a couple of schools that feature regularly in the top ten in the country while all the rest languish close to the level where they need to call the school refomrmers in.

Should get rid of private (or public if you like) schools as well.

Oh but when you look at the small print the conservatives aren't considering scrapping grammar schools at all (surprise surprise). Just encouraging any new ones to be slipped in by the latest name that Tony Blair wants to have used for them.

Its total bollocks to suggest grammar schools to boost social mobility, they simply provide safe havens for the kids of rich parents who don't want to pay school fees and ensure that social mobility ends at the time you are sent to your secondary modern.

Jon G · May 2007

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

Can we get away from this myth that the tripartite system was dropped due to the influence of left-wing ideogogues or "trendy" theorists? It was dropped by LEAs of every political colour (mainly Conservative ones, as most LEAs were Conservative controlled at the time) NOT for any political or educational reason but because it was very unpopular with a huge number of ordinary parents.

Saying "grammar schools worked" misses the point. They were only a small part of the tripartite system. The system as a whole was judged to be a failure by those parents mentioned above.

Jon

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2

About time they got rid of grammar schools. Still got them in Gloucester. Means we have a couple of schools that feature regularly in the top ten in the country while all the rest languish close to the level where they need to call the school refomrmers in.

Should get rid of private (or public if you like) schools as well.

Oh but when you look at the small print the conservatives aren't considering scrapping grammar schools at all (surprise surprise). Just encouraging any new ones to be slipped in by the latest name that Tony Blair wants to have used for them.

Its total bollocks to suggest grammar schools to boost social mobility, they simply provide safe havens for the kids of rich parents who don't want to pay school fees and ensure that social mobility ends at the time you are sent to your secondary modern.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Scrap your best schools and retain the worst?

It's warped thinking like this that's dragging standards down and down.

And the grammar school i went to was packed with WORKING CLASS kids.

david2 · May 2007

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

Scrap your best schools and retain the worst?

It's warped thinking like this that's dragging standards down and down.

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

Yes that would be a stupid suggestion wouldn't it.

How about putting the same effort into all the schools so that they are all of an equal (high) standard.

I'm sure if the parents of the kids at the grammar school had to send their kids to the other schools they would pay more attention to making sure the other schools were better.

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories