Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

gordycp · May 2007

Has anyone mentioned the boy/girl thing yet?

If you want equal numbers of boys and girls in your grammar school then the 11+ pass mark for girls must be considerably higher than the pass mark for boys. (Like in Kent.)

If you insist on equal pass marks, the school then becomes two-thirds full of girls. Like in NI.

Fabulous, eh?

Unknown · May 2007

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

Has anyone mentioned the boy/girl thing yet?

If you want equal numbers of boys and girls in your grammar school then the 11+ pass mark for girls must be considerably higher than the pass mark for boys. (Like in Kent.)

If you insist on equal pass marks, the school then becomes two-thirds full of girls. Like in NI.

Fabulous, eh?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When I went to school, this was dealt with by having 60 grammar school places a year for boys and 90 for girls.

NervexProf · May 2007

Boys, girls, grammar schools, or none is not the issue.

The issue is 'selective education' based on ability, nothing less.

http://tinyurl.com/3be3bz

What's wrong with that?

Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom

Jon G · May 2007

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

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

If you want equal numbers of boys and girls in your grammar school then the 11+ pass mark for girls must be considerably higher than the pass mark for boys. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When I went to school, this was dealt with by having 60 grammar school places a year for boys and 90 for girls.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Both practices are almost certainly illegal now. If any state-funded schools are still doing anything like this, I'd think it is a discrimination case waiting to happen.

Jon

Jon G · May 2007

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

redcogs,

Thanks to people like you we are now going backwards with the likes of Blair and Cameron - are you really too blind to see this??

people who think like you shrank the system to such a point it takes this amount of effort to get into one. You created the elitism with your dogma, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As I have posted before, the tripartite system was not dropped due to the efforts of any left-wing activists - they tried to get it dropped but did not have the influence. It was dropped in response to dissatisfied parents many of whom probably knew or cared very little about any socialist dogmas or educational theories. They were angry because they believed their childen were getting put in third-rate schools.

Jon

david2 · May 2007

The grammar school at the end of my road has 100% girls.

spire · May 2007

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

A quick OT suplimentary question around your disdain for the middle classes

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Witless" (your words) Willski

Again, you are not paying attention.

Disdain? My roots are working class, but I have benefitted from social mobility and am pleased to consider myself very middle class.

BTW "suplimentary"? Obviously they didn't get too bogged down with English at your comp.

spire · May 2007

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

spire is suggesting that there be more grammar schools and that these be in places where there are none at present. It is perfectly possible to not drop entry standards in this situation. There would be more schools but more children taking the 11+.

If the Tories were clever (which they're not because they didn't go to grammar schools) they'd offer every child guaranteed place at grammar school. It's just that some of the grammar schools would be better than others.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Excellent points, Patrick.

jedster · May 2007

I'm in at least two minds on this subject:

1. I went to two comprehensives (moved with my Dad's job). Both had significant proportions of middle class kids, both used setting aggressively. E.g., in the main school there were 200 kids per year and 10 sets for maths, english, perhaps 5 for history, geography, physics. This meant that if you were in the top sets you were in quite a competitive academic environment. Aspirations were quite high - 4 of the kids in my year are now doctors, generally 1 or 2 went to Oxford or Cambridge, etc. I'd have though these schools delivered decent mobility.

2. On the other hand I ended up working for two companies in which my peer group was recruited almost exclusively from Oxford and Cambridge. In one of these, of 300 professional staff, I could only find 3 of us who had been to comprehensives. A substantial majority would have been privately educated but a large section went to state Grammars. The organisation is unashamedly elitist and prides itself on being a meritocracy! So why this disparity? I think that even in good comprehensives, the expectations placed on children are not high enough. They don't encourage kids to raise their sights. I think it is different at the good state Grammars who are more able to point to the achievements of their alumni. The people I worked with had always assumed that their talent would take them into elite institutions. You don't have that persepctive in a comp.

I'm lucky in that we have enough money to choose the options for our kids. For them, if they have the talent, I would prefer a state grammar education. It gives the prospect of excellence without deserting the state sector. To be honest, although I have an philosophical preference for state education, I would probably spend to go private rather than send my kids to, even a perfectly decent, comprehensive.

I really worry about the inner city comprehensives - now that the middle-classes have abandoned them, I wonder if it is possible to create an academic critical mass around talented kids. I suspect it is really hard and that those children face tremendous peer pressure to under-achieve. Given that we live in a free society and are not going to compel middle class parents to a) move their families to inner city areas and b) send the kids to the local school, I think it is very difficult to see how to help those children without segregation by selection.

J

Unkraut · May 2007

Whilst I agree with spire on the social mobility front re grammar schools, I think the post WW2 system was allowing the 'disadvantaged poor' crumbs from the rich man's table. Grammars also involved middle-class ghettoes and snobbery. This latter aspect is surely part of the reason for the hostility towards them that led to the introduction of the comprehensive system, coupled with the secondary modern fiasco. This also accounts for the idea that the left were anti-grammar school, as it largely preserved high quality education for the rich.
Ideally, a return to the academic excellence of grammars without the snobbery and elitism would be desirable, perhaps with a range of other more vocational schools for the less academic. Any attempt at re-introducing secondary moderns would be doomed to failure, as you would never get anybody to teach in them.
Above all, getting the politicians' hands off education so that it might cease to be the political football it has been might benefit everybody. Politicians have been interfering in the German tripartite system recently, and have made a complete shambles of the system. Some German parents are even sending their children to England for a private education as it is considered superior!!

Edited to get rid of the embarrassing adacemic excellence

willski · 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 willski

A quick OT suplimentary question around your disdain for the middle classes

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Witless" (your words) Willski

Again, you are not paying attention.

Disdain? My roots are working class, but I have benefitted from social mobility and am pleased to consider myself very middle class.

BTW "suplimentary"? Obviously they didn't get too bogged down with English at your comp.

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

Tut, tut, spire. Don't you remember that you should always read the whole question before answering?

Here is your re-sit (sans offensive typo);

A quick OT supplementary question around your disdain for the middle classes. Given your education and relative wealth, if you have (or were to have) children, what class would they be?

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.

spire · May 2007

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

Tut, tut, spire. Don't you remember that you should always read the whole question before answering?

Here is your re-sit (sans offensive typo);

A quick OT supplementary question around your disdain for the middle classes. Given your education and relative wealth, if you have (or were to have) children, what class would they be?

If I had a baby elephant, I'd write a witty sig line about it - if I had any wit.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Witless

I would have thought it was fairly clear that I had read the whole question...and declined to answer it in full.

babyjebus · May 2007

Obviously they would be classless, as Spire so obviously lacks class. Why ask?

simoncp · May 2007

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

Above all, getting the politicians' hands off education so that it might cease to be the political football it has been might benefit everybody.

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

Anything else you think that politicians should leave alone? The economy, health, crime and punishment, housing policy, defence? The electorate, as the employer of state education staff, expects its elected representatives to consult waged education industry experts on policy matters, not to hand over control of policy to them. Public employees are there to carry out the will of the people, not to decide what the people should want and need.

We still have grammar schools in my part of Manchester. I'm sure many state paid educational experts would want to close them, but the local electorate returns politicians who promise not to abolish them, so they don't get abolished. That's how it should be.

mr_hippo · May 2007

I am not familiar with crammers in the UK but we have something similar in Thailand, they perform the following functions:-
1) Increase the parent's 'bragging rights'.
2) Provide a baby sitting service when Mum & Dad go shopping.
3) Gives Western teachers an additional source of income.
They serve little or no educational value to the students. Yes, the students do get a nice fancy certificate and their parents get a nice sales pitch on how their offspring would benefit if they signed on for the next level.
Cast your minds back to the time when you were at school, if your parents said that you were to attend a Saturday morning session, you would possibly think that it was some form of detention/punishment, you would not go willingly and therefore would not be inclined to do any work.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

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

Unkraut · May 2007

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

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

Above all, getting the politicians' hands off education so that it might cease to be the political football it has been might benefit everybody.

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

Anything else you think that politicians should leave alone?

We still have grammar schools in my part of Manchester. I'm sure many state paid educational experts would want to close them, but the local electorate returns politicians who promise not to abolish them, so they don't get abolished. That's how it should be.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Re: your first point, I wish politicians would stop interfering in education in order to pursue an agenda not directly related to education itself. I am sure that part of the reason for introducing comps was the politics of envy - if it isn't possible for everyone to have access to a grammar school, then no-one should. But that is nothing to do with education, rather social engineering. I also have in mind the current shambles over here in the grammar school system where they have knocked a year off the time to get the Abitur (A levels) without taking into account the pressure this is putting on the system, both teachers and pupils. The hidden agenda is I think to bring in whole-day schooling rather than mornings only, but this is actually unpopular, so they are doing it by the back door.

As to your second point, I agree. There should be democratic accountability. I remember the days when you were only allowed to go to the nearest school, there was no choice allowed at all under Old Labour of the 1970's. The only way to change school was to move. That system was bound to produce naff schools, as there was no pressure to do well, you had a guaranteed intake. At least that has now been changed. Like you, I don't have much time for the state employed educational experts either. Sinecures really.
... In fact, perhaps the BBC could do a Panorama special on these 'experts', get one of their reporters to investigate and question them, and when they start on about how they know best and the State should dictate education policy ("Comprehensives only, no examinations") he could shout at them .... [:D]

Jon G · May 2007

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

I remember the days when you were only allowed to go to the nearest school, there was no choice allowed at all under Old Labour of the 1970's.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That was an 'Old' Liberal idea from the 1870's, carried on by all three 'Old' parties for over a century while each was in power.

Jon

Unkraut · May 2007

Well, I spanned the end of the tripartite system in our area, and on starting secondary level there were several schools that you could choose from, but once the giant local comp was in place moving was the only answer if you wanted to avoid it, seeing as it was such a disaster. It is obvious that you need catchment areas, but at least now you can exert some pressure on poorly performing schools.

Rigid catchment areas are a hallmark of the German system at lower levels, but you get more choice once you get to secondary level, but of course the tripartite system is generally still in place here, with both its advantages and disadvantages.

redcogs · May 2007

i listened with glee to Cameron being gently grilled about education by Humphries this morning. What is clear is that the Conservative New Guard are not interested in formulating any proper policy which challenges the status quo. Any commitment to Grammar Schools which the Party 'traditionalists' hold on to is well gone as far as Two Brains Willetts and Cameron are concerned.

The only issue at stake is how quickly and totally the Tory 'left' can out-maneuver the grasping Thatcherite rump who still retain so much influence in the Nasty Party. Those who talk of a 'Clause 4 moment' have it - Cameron's strategy has one aim - office at any cost - to succeed it is essential for him to publicly humiliate his internal opposition to illustrate that he is his own man and worthy of title..

All you blimps who still dream of empire, trade union subjugation, women in the kitchen, and darkies knowing their place, get out your parachutes and prepare for being dumped.

The little twists and turns of political life can be so satisfying.

[:)][^][^]

please look up to the stars.. ***

gillan1969 · May 2007

spire a blimb???????[:)][:)][:)][:)]

www.squadraporcini.com

redcogs · May 2007

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are its a ?

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

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

All you blimps who still dream of empire, trade union subjugation, women in the kitchen, and darkies knowing their place, get out your parachutes and prepare for being dumped.

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

What on earth has any of this to do with grammar schools?

Personally,

I don't want an empire (even Scotland [:D] )

I support moderate Trade Unionism

I prefer women in the bedroom (kitchen table OK though [;)][;)] )

'Darkies' as you call them deserve the same treatment as 'whiteys'

And I voted for Cameron.

Asterixcp · May 2007

This topic has been going on for a long time! Have we reached a conclusion yet? Other than the fact that spire remains nursing a sense of betrayal.

ankev1 · May 2007

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

i listened with glee to Cameron being gently grilled about education by Humphries this morning. What is clear is that the Conservative New Guard are not interested in formulating any proper policy which challenges the status quo. Any commitment to Grammar Schools which the Party 'traditionalists' hold on to is well gone as far as Two Brains Willetts and Cameron are concerned.

The only issue at stake is how quickly and totally the Tory 'left' can out-maneuver the grasping Thatcherite rump who still retain so much influence in the Nasty Party. Those who talk of a 'Clause 4 moment' have it - Cameron's strategy has one aim - office at any cost - to succeed it is essential for him to publicly humiliate his internal opposition to illustrate that he is his own man and worthy of title..

All you blimps who still dream of empire, trade union subjugation, women in the kitchen, and darkies knowing their place, get out your parachutes and prepare for being dumped.

The little twists and turns of political life can be so satisfying.

[:)][^][^]

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

Ah, the delicious subtleties of left wing wit, Redders. Nice to see you still manage to keep on form what with you having become part of the landed gentry and all.

An observation which has much to do with political tactics and none with polical conviction (there not being much of it about these days). The Labour Party abandoned its soul when it abandoned Clause 4. It would have been more honest to form a new party but tactically it would have been silly to do away with a "brand" which was guaranteed to attract a few traditional voters, while modifying it enough to attract new ones. And thus the road to office was open (because the public never appeared to want socialism anyway).

The Tories appear to have learned from this example but they're showing just how out of touch politicians are because they abandon those bits of Toryism (like grammar schools, capital punishment etc) which would guarantee them loads of votes including many from the working class.

Why do politicians behave in such a tactically silly way? Because they don't seek to represent the wishes of the elecotorate, preferring instead to do whatever they think it takes to get elected and as Labour was successful with empty spin, so the Tories emulate them.

What's wrong with having an Empire anyway? Just imagine being in the Army and looking at the posting plot, wondering whether to plump for Ceylon or Singapore. No sense of romantic adventure, some people.

redcogs · May 2007

Wake up to the facts spire. Your leader is stating that those of your ilk who support grammar schools (Ankev', Patrick, Mr Hippo) are "delusional".

Can't argue with that, though he's probably too kind to say what he really thinks [:D][:D][;)]

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

redcogs

If you had your way, you would bury the working class in the mire of your ideology, while the 'haves' continue to prosper.

(The middle/upper class will do whatever it takes to educate their children. Without grammar schools the trend of declining social mobility will continue - aided by the likes of you.[:(!])

Unknown · May 2007

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

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

And where have I said that I support grammar schools.

Unkraut · May 2007

Interesting how this keeps being brought back to the notion of 'class' (sorry about the pun) rather than just education. Surely this whole working class/middle class/aristocracy division is now largely outdated. I appreciate there are divisions, but they are different now, and the haves/havenots distinction is too simple. So it ought to be possible to bring back some form of more academic education for those best suited to it without re-creating the 'middle class' ghettoes as used to be the case.

I would be more prepared to listen to what the left have to say on this if they put their own children through the State system because they really believe in it. I believe Tory John Macgregor was the only Education Secretary ever to have put his own children through the State system, which speaks volumes.

spire · May 2007

And I'll wager most of the Tory front bench will educate their children privately ("a personal matter", of course.)

redcogs · May 2007

OK Patrick, nowhere do your specifically state your support of grammar schools, so the jury is out. However, your affection, whether it be nostalgic, rather like my own for the mining/steel/shipbuilding communities - seems clear enough.

Perhaps you're 'pragmatic' on this, care to clarify?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories