Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

mr_hippo · May 2007

redcogs, we can have social equality without one thing but without this one thing, we cannot have it - that one thing is human nature. Why doesn't the Blair family live in a three bedroom flat in Peckham? Why doesn't John Prescott drive a 20 year old Mini?
Let's build this ideal world of yours, should we? All families will have a three bedroom rented flat, total income per family will be œ200 per week (if husband & wife are both working - it is still œ200/week) Planet X carbon bikes? Forget about them, all you can have is a Halfrauds 'sit up and beg'. All schoolchildren are educated in comprehensive schools by œ200/week teachers. You, redcogs, are now Minister of Education with œ200/week, three bed flat and a 'sit up and beg' but you still have all the responsibilities and duties of the Minister whereas I am a janitor at the local comp with œ200/week, three bed flat and a 'sit up and beg'; where is your incentive to give 100% to the job when you could have mine for the same perks? What incentive apart from œ200/week, three bed flat and a 'sit up and beg' can I give Patrick to leave North Wales and accept the post of Solicitor-General? I can't and no, Patrick, I cannot move the hills in North Wales and that lovely smell of wild garlic to Bow for you!
We all want to do better than our parents and we want our children to do better than us/

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

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

simoncp · May 2007

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

What happens if the national govt in Westminster is elected with a mandate to abolish grammar schools? Should that override the local authority, or not? You couldn't say such an action was undemocratic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very true. Hasn't happened though, has it? And it won't happen.

Unkraut · May 2007

It happened in the 60's when Labour set about introducing comprehensive schools instead of the old system. Some LA's such as Kent managed to hang on, but most succumbed to the pressure from Whitehall.

redcogs · May 2007

The 'human nature' argument is crap mr hippo. It was once widely held to be human nature for slavery to prevail, that the nature of the black person somehow suited them to slavery. Where now slavery?

Most humans are not naturally greedy, as numerous human acts involving self sacrifice and kindness testify.

The real question is, how do we develop a society which is built on a co-operation that encourages that side of human psychology rather than the self acquisitive darker motivations.

please look up to the stars.. ***

simoncp · May 2007

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

It happened in the 60's when Labour set about introducing comprehensive schools instead of the old system. Some LA's such as Kent managed to hang on, but most succumbed to the pressure from Whitehall.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, but Labour was a very different beast in the 60's and any grammar schools that weathered the educational lunacy of that decade are not too worried now.

simoncp · May 2007

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

The real question is, how do we develop a society which is built on a co-operation that encourages that side of human psychology rather than the self acquisitive darker motivations.

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

Lead by example. I expect you won't. Most socialist idealists operate on a do as I say not as I do basis, which is why many of us find them hard to take seriously.

Unknown · May 2007

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

What incentive apart from œ200/week, three bed flat and a 'sit up and beg' can I give Patrick to leave North Wales and accept the post of Solicitor-General? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's quite enough incentive. I'm starting to hitch to London now.

mr_hippo · May 2007

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

The 'human nature' argument is crap mr hippo. It was once widely held to be human nature for slavery to prevail, that the nature of the black person somehow suited them to slavery. Where now slavery?

Slavery is alive and well in many countries of the world though not as overt as in days of yore but still alive and thriving!

Most humans are not naturally greedy, as numerous human acts involving self sacrifice and kindness testify.

So I take it that you do not want a better house, bank balance, bike and all ambitions that you had for you and yours have been fulfilled? 

The real question is, how do we develop a society which is built on a co-operation that encourages that side of human psychology rather than the self acquisitive darker motivations.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

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

Unknown · May 2007

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

Most humans are not naturally greedy, as numerous human acts involving self sacrifice and kindness testify.

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

There's a difference between greed and a desire to improve living standards for yourself and your family. Your would not be living in a house if your forebears hadn't decided that their hut could be improved upon.

(I do of course realise that this argument falls down if you are living in a Scottish hut and maintaining a lifestyle little changed from that of the Beaker People.[;)])

redcogs · May 2007

Perhaps then someone ought to define exactly what they mean by human nature? In the context of this discussion i took it to mean that greed and acquisitive selfishness stood in the way of establishing a world based on co-operation and human solidarity - was i wrong?

Everyone wants a world order in which there is improvement for our future generations (ie improving on the hut Patrick), its a perfectly justifiable (and indeed socialist) objective. The argument is about how best humans can organise such a state of affairs. Democratically and socially, together, is my answer. Otherwise what is the point of life exactly, to compete with my neighbour for every scrap of food and comfort?

mr hippo, your remarks on slavery are silly.. do you seriously mean that slavery exists in the world because people are in some way hardwired into such a state? How do you explain the many slave revolts, starting with Spartacus? If it was 'human nature' for people to be slaves, then we would all be slaves wouldn't we? i havn't noticed any manacles on the ankles recently. Slave society gave way to feudal society eventually - did 'human nature' change to enable that shift - of course not - human beings simply began organising things differently for reasons wrapped up with economics and power structures.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Jon G · May 2007

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

It happened in the 60's when Labour set about introducing comprehensive schools instead of the old system. Some LA's such as Kent managed to hang on, but most succumbed to the pressure from Whitehall.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They succumbed to pressure from parents. And the Education Secretary who approved the highest number of LEA tripartite to comprehensive conversions was Margaret Thatcher. As I've posted about 3 times before, can we please drop this time-wasting myth that the left did away with the tripartite system? They certainly wanted to, but did not succeed. It was the dissatisfaction of parents of Seconday Modern pupils which brought about the widespread dropping of the tripartite system by LEA's of every political colour.

Jon

redcogs · May 2007

Jon, you have explained loud and clear, but they dont listen.

This particular (admittedly slightly left of centre) contributer had been for years seeking to tear down the 11 plus tripartite barriers that were set up to label and fail working class people in order to ensure their continuing impovershment - but i singularly failed..

Other forces did the job.

But now - what bliss - even Cameron Willetts have subscribed to a path of rationality.

please look up to the stars.. ***

redrobbo · May 2007

Why can't people just send their brats to the nearest public school?

What is it with grammar schools?

I may look like an idiot but I prefer to think it goes deeper than that..

ankev1 · May 2007

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

You are better (though flawed) at history than politics ankev'.

We need parasitic elites like we need cancer. Think of all the talented humans being absolutely wasted and undiscovered by the discriminatory education practices being utilised by capitalism - their abilities could be helping us all towards a bright future.

The left right street warring in Germany before 1933 was due entirely to the economic meltdown of capitalsm. Blaming the left for the demise of the left is simply victim blaming, and doesn't reflect reality.

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

I wasn't blaming the pre-war German left for getting itself done in under the Nazis, what I was saying was that its pre-war violent revolutionary activity and readiness to adopt violence made them unacceptable to a post war German electorate which had had enough of all kinds of extremism.

As for elites, I'm not applauding exclusive cliques who want power or influence and won't let anybody else get a look in. What I am suggesting is that you need to identify and encourage the best to produce what they can as this benefits everybody. Most people don't have a problem with recognising the talented and they don't begrudge them being paid well for their work. (That said I feel a degree of disgust at the City of London bonuses which get paid out, that level of greed is IMO unacceptable.)

It's the sports team principle. Everybody can understand that if you field a team you want the best. If that wasn't the case all the people contributing to this thread could find themselves being picked for rugby world cup sides and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

spire · May 2007

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

This particular (admittedly slightly left of centre) contributer had been for years seeking to tear down the 11 plus tripartite barriers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thereby keeping the working class under the boot of the affluent who will educate their children privately.

Unknown · May 2007

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

Jon, you have explained loud and clear, but they dont listen.

This particular (admittedly slightly left of centre) contributer had been for years seeking to tear down the 11 plus tripartite barriers that were set up to label and fail working class people in order to ensure their continuing impovershment - but i singularly failed..

Other forces did the job.

But now - what bliss - even Cameron Willetts have subscribed to a path of rationality.

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

The 11+ worked in terms of working class advancement when it was something that everyone had an equal chance at (this probably lasted about a month) but once the middle classes worked out that it was something that could be prepared for, then their children had an inbuilt advantage.

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.. ***

mr_hippo · May 2007

redcogs, slavery in the modern world still exists - even in the UK. What would you call illegal migrant workers who have paid œX thousand to be smuggled into the UK, passports confiscated, having to pay back transportation costs at never ending exorbitant rates and paid a pittance? What do you call children who are sold to pay off a parent's debt? You say "i havn't [sic] noticed any manacles on the ankles recently." so if you have not seen it, then it doesn't exist.

Over 5000 years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land."
Harold Wilson said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel: this is the Promised Land."
Now Tony Blair has stole your shovels, kicked your asses, raised the taxes on Camels, and mortgaged the Promised Land. Now if you want to change society, stub out your Camel, get off your ass and do something.

Please, redcogs, wake up from this dream world of yours - it will never happen.

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 Jon G

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

It happened in the 60's when Labour set about introducing comprehensive schools instead of the old system. Some LA's such as Kent managed to hang on, but most succumbed to the pressure from Whitehall.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They succumbed to pressure from parents. And the Education Secretary who approved the highest number of LEA tripartite to comprehensive conversions was Margaret Thatcher. As I've posted about 3 times before, can we please drop this time-wasting myth that the left did away with the tripartite system? They certainly wanted to, but did not succeed. It was the dissatisfaction of parents of Seconday Modern pupils which brought about the widespread dropping of the tripartite system by LEA's of every political colour.

Jon
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well it was under Labour that compulsory conversion was enacted, and under the Tories that compulsion was removed, hence it was the left that largely brought about the end of the tripartite system. You are right though that it is wrong to assume that everyone right of centre was unconditionally committed to grammar schools. I also think that the secondary moderns were really the problem rather than grammar schools.
Wasn't it really a bipartite system? The old technical high schools (I went to one before all schools in the area were closed and a giant comprehensive built) were few and far between. Had there been more of these, there would have been a middle ground for those who could achieve more than a secondary modern could give them, and maybe this would have reduced the opposition to grammars as there would have been more opportunities for non-grammar pupils.
I attended a technical, comprehensive and grammar school, and was lucky to be able to escape the comp. This was the first in Kent, supposedly a showcase, but was such a disaster that it was part of the reason the county tried to keep grammars. The reason it was a disaster was it embraced about every trendy teaching method going.

redrobbo - when it is your own brats that have to go to the nearest school, it suddenly matters very much if that school is an undisciplined mess, with teachers living in a fantasy world where it it more important to make pupils feel good about themselves than prepare them for the harsh realities of life. If you are only allowed to send them locally, then you have no way of exerting pressure to change this state of affairs.

ankev1 · May 2007

I think that the left opposition to grammar schools is based on an unwillingness to accept a couple of basic facts and on picking the wrong target for their ideology.

First obvious fact: There is a range of ability in academic intelligence just as much as there is a range of height amongst people. Does anybody deny that?

Second obvious fact: Parents want their children to do well in life and as academic success is a key to this they will do what they can to help them achieve it.

The wrong target they are trying to hit is the idea of an elite. To cream off the academically brightest and then educate them accordingly selects a true elite but it does not create some sort of selfish clique whose purpose is to keep the workers down. The one objection which might hold water is that parents who can afford it may give their children extra tuition to enable them to get through the 11+. There is an element of unfairness there but all those parents are doing is what everybody says is good, which is to get the best out of their kids' potential i.e. their taxes buy them what the state is prepared to provide and out of their own pockets they top this up. It's not really a drama provided that bright kids of any class whose parents don't provide cramming, get a shot at the 11+. Bright kids never had any problem passing it, they certainly didn't at my primary school. So the worst that can happen is that a few thick rich kids might get to grammar school. That's hardly a reason to scrap an education system. If anything should be targetted it is cramming, if we can get that bothered about parents behaving in a natural way.

The real question is what do you do with the thick kids and those who are the victims of parents who would rather spend their time down the pub than taking an interest in their childrens' education? This is where the state has to get its act together in terms of providing the best possible education for these kids. And the state seems to have consistently failed at this. The only logical answer is to address that failure while keeping that part which worked. I'd love to here one logical argument as to why that should not be the case.

Unkraut · May 2007

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

The real question is what do you do with the thick kids and those who are the victims of parents who would rather spend their time down the pub than taking an interest in their childrens' education? This is where the state has to get its act together in terms of providing the best possible education for these kids. And the state seems to have consistently failed at this.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I am not sure that the State can do much about this. It cannot userp the parenting role, and I am afraid the sins of the fathers have a habit of being visited on the children. It could try to make it harder for fathers to evade their responsibilities, i.e. strengthen the family, but not do much more than that. It could perhaps make parents buy some of the school equipment needed, which would ensure it is better looked after (no guessing where that idea comes from!).

Once the State has provided the best educational opportunity it can, it is down to the individual pupils to make the best of it.

redcogs · May 2007

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

redcogs, slavery in the modern world still exists - even in the UK. What would you call illegal migrant workers who have paid œX thousand to be smuggled into the UK, passports confiscated, having to pay back transportation costs at never ending exorbitant rates and paid a pittance? What do you call children who are sold to pay off a parent's debt? You say "i havn't [sic] noticed any manacles on the ankles recently." so if you have not seen it, then it doesn't exist.

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 26/27 May: Update published: Monday 28 May
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mr hippo. You do not defend your argument, rather you change the ground thereby weakening an already feeble position. You began this segment of the debate by insisting that 'human nature' stood in the way of progress towards a more rational co-operative future.. But if there was a fixed and rigidly cynical 'human nature' in the way that you imply, then of course i would have no alternative but to concede. The truth however is somewhat different.

Ant colonies, along with myriads of other examples drawn from the natural world, have fixed patterns of behaviour from which they cannot escape. 'Ant Nature' determines how they organise their circumstances, and they have been doing what ants do best, in precisely the same way for eons.

Humans however, because we have consciousness along with the ability to change our ways of doing things, have organised our societies in a variety of very different ways all across history - hunter gatherers, slave society, feudalistic etc, even today there are peoples (so called 'primitives') whose socioeconomic lives are structured very differently to those of us who exist under the yoke of capitalist individualism.

To state that there are slaves in the world today (an undeniable and appalling fact), in the hope of proving your original point, will not do. Please describe precisely what you mean by 'human nature'.

3/10.. SEE ME.

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · May 2007

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

I think that the left opposition to grammar schools is based on an unwillingness to accept a couple of basic facts and on picking the wrong target for their ideology.

First obvious fact: There is a range of ability in academic intelligence just as much as there is a range of height amongst people. Does anybody deny that?

Second obvious fact: Parents want their children to do well in life and as academic success is a key to this they will do what they can to help them achieve it.

The wrong target they are trying to hit is the idea of an elite. To cream off the academically brightest and then educate them accordingly selects a true elite but it does not create some sort of selfish clique whose purpose is to keep the workers down. The one objection which might hold water is that parents who can afford it may give their children extra tuition to enable them to get through the 11+. There is an element of unfairness there but all those parents are doing is what everybody says is good, which is to get the best out of their kids' potential i.e. their taxes buy them what the state is prepared to provide and out of their own pockets they top this up. It's not really a drama provided that bright kids of any class whose parents don't provide cramming, get a shot at the 11+. Bright kids never had any problem passing it, they certainly didn't at my primary school. So the worst that can happen is that a few thick rich kids might get to grammar school. That's hardly a reason to scrap an education system. If anything should be targetted it is cramming, if we can get that bothered about parents behaving in a natural way.

The real question is what do you do with the thick kids and those who are the victims of parents who would rather spend their time down the pub than taking an interest in their childrens' education? This is where the state has to get its act together in terms of providing the best possible education for these kids. And the state seems to have consistently failed at this. The only logical answer is to address that failure while keeping that part which worked. I'd love to here one logical argument as to why that should not be the case.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

ankev' me ol cock.. this type of thinking is, according to 'two brains' and Cameron, "delusional", and will not find any political resonance anywhere at any stage..

Defeat is hard to take (believe me, i know), but there simply is 'no alternative', you have to move on.[:D][:D]

please look up to the stars.. ***

spire · May 2007

A strange compact between Communist redcogs and toff Cameron to keep the working class in their place...

Gary Askwith · May 2007

16 pages on education reduced to the yah-boo status of question time...folks, as the second most vital agent of socialization after the family could it not be argued that our precious education system ( grammer or not)...and the people that we trust to run it, are far more interested in propagating people to serve a (failed) mass consumerist economy than actually teaching people about life and the best way to live-in-the-world..i.e.passing on accumulated wisdom?

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

redcogs · May 2007

Wisdom indeed Gaz..

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · May 2007

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

16 pages on education reduced to the yah-boo status of question time...folks, as the second most vital agent of socialization after the family could it not be argued that our precious education system ( grammer or not)...and the people that we trust to run it, are far more interested in propagating people to serve a (failed) mass consumerist economy than actually teaching people about life and the best way to live-in-the-world..i.e.passing on accumulated wisdom?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's a bit of a general statement about ideals- but what specifically should schools be teaching that is different from what they are teaching now?

redcogs · May 2007

They could start with introducing chess onto the national curriculum

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · May 2007

moving rapidly on to the value of co-operation and the poverty of narrow individualism, a sort of compare and contrast exercise..

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · May 2007

How about encouraging youngsters to value the collective financing of our health service as opposed to its criminal creeping privatisation.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories