Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

redcogs · May 2007

A course on the history of working class struggle against capitalist exploitation might help break the dominance of history being taught as a narrative of kings queens and so called 'great people'.

There appears to be plenty of scope for a revised understanding as far as i can tell..

please look up to the stars.. ***

Gary Askwith · May 2007

A few basic universal questions of the developing inquiring childs mind:

Where do we come from?
Why are we here?
Why am I living now and not 100 or 1000 years ago?
Why are these people different to me?
Why do we do things this way and not some other way?
What happens we you die?
Why am I sometimes happy and other times sad?
Why does music make me feel so happy or so sad?
Why are some people nasty and evil?
Why do I have to sit here and do this when I'm much happier playing outside?
Why are they better than me but I'm better than them?
Will I be rewarded for being good?
Why have they got more than me?

Now ordinarily most these basic questions are answered with reference to religious-framed answers, (or brushed aside or ignored) but are usually highly unsatisfactory to the intelligent child.kids are more perceptive than we give them credit for.now from their point of view maybe we can sense their lack of faith.if these high-and-mighty teachers and educators can't answer basic vitally important questions like these than maybe all this other stuff they keep ramming down our throats is more to do with keeping us quiet and preparing us to be like them, so we don't question-or forget about- these much-more-important things?

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

Unkraut · May 2007

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

A course on the history of working class struggle against capitalist exploitation might help break the dominance of history being taught as a narrative of kings queens and so called 'great people'.

There appears to be plenty of scope for a revised understanding as far as i can tell..

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
For A level history done at a grammar school, I remember doing a far amount on British social conditions in the Victorian era, so I am not convinced you are right to think history is dominated by kings and queens.

The greatest value of any education is that it teaches you to think, and not just accept the status quo or mindlessly accept what you have been brought up with.

ankev1 · May 2007

I'm sure Gary's list would not meet with much resistance from people who wished to encourage healthy development of enquiring minds. They're also the sort of questions to which you go on seeking answers for the rest of your life. Most of them could be dealt with as part of the "soft" humanities. The only point I would make is that while they are central questions and I agree that they should be adressed at school, I'm not sure that they need to be the be all and end all of a curriculum i.e. it shouldn't take too much time and effort to discuss this sort of thing. The other thing is that the teachers would have to have it rammed into them that they would have to approach the subject with as much objectivity as possible as these sort of things are the natural stamping ground of the educational failures of the left (the sort of people who think sociolog is not a waste of time). I seem to remember that we more or less covered all that stuff in discussion groups with invited speakers in the sixth form.

ankev1 · May 2007

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

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

Good job I'm not of the party then.

Do you think I should offer my services as absolute dictator of the British Education system for a few years (I'd only want about 50k a year for it)?

redcogs · May 2007

Not sure that dictators normally "offer", don't they usually impose?

Can't see you doing that - even in your worse moments (you've had one or two!).

please look up to the stars.. ***

Jon G · May 2007

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

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

I doubt it, but simply accepting that variations in ability exist by age 11 is a long way from being able to clearly define, measure or predict the development of those abilities, as would be needed for really effective selection. E.g. psychologists are deeply divided on the definition of 'intelligence', which makes measuring it problematic. My own favourite definition is Piaget's - that intelligence is the ability to adapt effectively to any given environment by developing appropriate cognitive structures. However defining intelligence in those terms would imply that to test it we must test the person's success at functioning in their normal environment.

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

Usually true, although some parents are not very effective at putting that aim into operation (e.g. those who try to encourage their children to read in ways which end up having the opposite effect).

Jon

Gary Askwith · May 2007

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

I'm sure Gary's list would not meet with much resistance from people who wished to encourage healthy development of enquiring minds. They're also the sort of questions to which you go on seeking answers for the rest of your life. Most of them could be dealt with as part of the "soft" humanities. The only point I would make is that while they are central questions and I agree that they should be adressed at school, I'm not sure that they need to be the be all and end all of a curriculum i.e. it shouldn't take too much time and effort to discuss this sort of thing. The other thing is that the teachers would have to have it rammed into them that they would have to approach the subject with as much objectivity as possible as these sort of things are the natural stamping ground of the educational failures of the left (the sort of people who think sociolog is not a waste of time). I seem to remember that we more or less covered all that stuff in discussion groups with invited speakers in the sixth form.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I see these questions as the base of the pyramid... once kids can be given a understandable rational (not necesarily the whole picture) of Why this-is-the-way-we-believe-things-are then the rest of teaching becomes easier
For example if there was a compulsory course on, lets call it, 'The social pact' whereby kids were shown and tought everything they get from the society around them...and what the individual would be without these structures (doing paints more acutely than preaching so lets use practical elements- mild depravation in the field)
Once they see why social behaviour needs their positive input (for everyones benefit) we might get on the road to better socialization
I agree in an ideal world this should be done by the parents, at home.... it is after all common sense but i find it amazing just how many parents and teachers are ignorant and apathetic about the basic facts of social life

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

ankev1 · May 2007

Can't see anything objectionable in any of that. Heightened social awareness can only be of benefit all round and, if achieved, would probably contribute to a reduction in extreme attitudes on both left and right. Also, by having such an agenda in education you'd probably sort out the problem of ignorant, apathetic teachers and parents in a couple of decades.

ankev1 · May 2007

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

[
I doubt it, but simply accepting that variations in ability exist by age 11 is a long way from being able to clearly define, measure or predict the development of those abilities, as would be needed for really effective selection. E.g. psychologists are deeply divided on the definition of 'intelligence', which makes measuring it problematic. My own favourite definition is Piaget's - that intelligence is the ability to adapt effectively to any given environment by developing appropriate cognitive structures. However defining intelligence in those terms would imply that to test it we must test the person's success at functioning in their normal environment.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In terms of grammar school selection, I think the kind of intelligence we're talking about could perhaps be described something along the lines of: "an aptitude for thinking in an abstract academic fashion". To foster that kind of thinking with a view to getting it applied at at least undergraduate level was always the aim of grammar schools.

Other kinds of intelligence, such as the ability to employ learned knowledge skills to practical effect (e.g. carpentry) could perhaps be the prime preserve of other schools although there is obviously a need to avoid a very narrow kind of education in any one type of school.

Canrider · May 2007

Which raises an interesting point: selection for that limited skill set (abstract academic thinking) is increasingly less relevant in today's world even in academia. I'm not even referring to the ubiquitous jokes about meejer studdies, but basic things like an MBA, any kind of professional degree (eg engineering, comp sci, medicine, agronomy), any kind of postgraduate qualification, even a load of sciences (geology, geography, even physics) require a skill set waaay broader than anything you could pick up being given a highly-academic secondary education.

As for the whole 'need to create an elite', I don't see grammar schools creating much of one in today's world anyways, if it's selecting people purely for academic ability. I mean, if I'm part of this academically-inclined elite, I'm sure not getting paid very much.. [:)]

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

Gary Askwith · May 2007

Lecturers would not be part of any 'elite' I would trust.......[xx(][;)]

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

Canrider · May 2007

To see my previous comment.. [:D]

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

Gary Askwith · May 2007

Perceptive question by Derrick Jensen (Environment-anarcho-primitivist writer):

"As is true for most people I know, I've always loved learning. As is also true for most people I know, I always hated school. Why is that?"

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

Unknown · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
For A level history done at a grammar school, I remember doing a far amount on British social conditions in the Victorian era, so I am not convinced you are right to think history is dominated by kings and queens.

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

At my grammar school Social and Economic history was the 'O' Level that the B set took, while the A set did Political History. There was very little social history in the 'A' level course which was much concerned with the finer points of 19th century European political history. The 'S' paper had 50 questions, but I can't remember what they were about. [:I]

Gary Askwith · May 2007

From the book 'Walking on water' - a critique of education system;

Remember the days of longing for the hands on the classroom clock to move faster? Most of us would say we love to learn, but we hated school. Why is that? What happens to creativity and individuality as we pass through the educational system?

Walking on Water is a startling and provocative look at teaching, writing, creativity, and life by a writer increasingly recognized for his passionate and articulate critique of modern civilization. This time Derrick Jensen brings us into his classroom -- whether University or maximum security prison -- where he teaches writing. He reveals how schools are central to perpetuating the great illusion of our culture, that happiness lies outside of ourselves and that learning to please and submit to those in power makes us all into life-long clock-watchers. As a writing teacher Jensen guides his students out of the confines of traditional education to find their own voices, freedom, and creativity.

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

Unkraut · May 2007

'As a writing teacher Jensen guides his students out of the confines of traditional education to find their own voices, freedom, and creativity.'

That is fine as far as it goes, but it is no good if schools do not impart enough information to cope with a job in the modern world. That, I think, was the failure of the comprehensive system as I experienced it. You have to keep some balance between being heavenly minded and earthly useful!

ankev1 · May 2007

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

Which raises an interesting point: selection for that limited skill set (abstract academic thinking) is increasingly less relevant in today's world even in academia. I'm not even referring to the ubiquitous jokes about meejer studdies, but basic things like an MBA, any kind of professional degree (eg engineering, comp sci, medicine, agronomy), any kind of postgraduate qualification, even a load of sciences (geology, geography, even physics) require a skill set waaay broader than anything you could pick up being given a highly-academic secondary education.

As for the whole 'need to create an elite', I don't see grammar schools creating much of one in today's world anyways, if it's selecting people purely for academic ability. I mean, if I'm part of this academically-inclined elite, I'm sure not getting paid very much.. [:)]

"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">

I'm currently doing a part time MA which is essentially about linguistics and believe me the old academic ability is essential. The sciences always required a wider skill set than just the ability to think analytically: it's no use knowing all about gel chromatography if you can't set one of the damn things up. The point is that those skills are merely tools with which you can establish the practical frame to test your academic hypotheses, so I simply don't see how you can justify your claim, unless the Blairite dumbing down of tertiary education has proceeded at a much faster pace than is generally thought (presumably to cope with the lack of grammar school educations amongst undergraduates).

Canrider · May 2007

Had to get that last pathetic little dig in, didn't you?

Go to your University's Graduate Training Unit (or equivalent). That's the people who do transferable skills training in your institution. Look at the courses they offer. These are the skills and abilities that academic study (at the university level) is not providing tertiary students.

These skills are not exclusive to people wanting to work outside of academia, either. The vast majority of new lecturers at HE institutions complete some kind of certificate of practice course in their first few years. We no longer think that just holding a PhD qualifies you to teach effectively. The same is true for any number of other apparently academic pursuits: it's no longer sufficient to have a particular degree to get the job, you have to demonstrate that you've picked up skills surrounding that degree, skills that frequently have little or nothing to do with the process of academic research, but have everything to do with your ability to be an effective team member, including a slew of personal, vocational and technical abilities outwith academic research skills.

For reference, here's the University of York link page.

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

Unknown · May 2007

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

including a slew of personal, vocational and technical abilities outwith academic research skills.

For reference, here's the University of York link page.

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

Phew, I think I'd struggle with your "experiential learning" course.[:I] I suspect I'd be OK with the "Assertiveness" course though. [;)]

ankev1 · May 2007

But Canrider, you've neither added anything new nor have you contradicted what I posted: extra skills merely are part of the tool kit of the academic, they are not central to what he does. For years it was a scandal that many university lecturers were clueless at teaching what they knew. Good idea then that now they have to learn how to teach.

And you think that last remark was a pathetic dig? (I prefer to think of it as a piece of finely tuned barbed wit BTW.) A dig for sure, pathetic not, as any university lecturer will tell you because nowadays they are having to do remedial teaching to get new undergrads to the stage where they can attempt the course. This is something which was never required in the grammar school days.

We're still at the point where the good old left wing take on this issue continues to be in blissful and willful denial of the evidence because they cannot make the moral distinction between a perfectly sensible academic divide and the old class divides. And to think that people who "thought" like that actually made it into government at one time and the country has been living with the damage caused ever since.

Unknown · May 2007

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

But Canrider, you've neither added anything new nor have you contradicted what I posted: extra skills merely are part of the tool kit of the academic, they are not central to what he does. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Now, now, ankev, we mustn't mock York University and its attempts to teach "Being a team player" to the skill kit of the lecturers. Being able to organise a team huddle and team hug is essential for giving the team buzz. That BBC Whistleblower program said that it gave supermarket staff the motivation to alter the sellby dates on food. It's not for the likes of us to criticise modern management techniques. [;)]

ankev1 · May 2007

Patrick,

By Jove, you may have a point! Just think: a couple of hugs and Einstein would have been able to sort out all the missing matter in the universe as well as that relativity stuff.

Unknown · May 2007

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

Patrick,

By Jove, you may have a point! Just think: a couple of hugs and Einstein would have been able to sort out all the missing matter in the universe as well as that relativity stuff.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But he'd have to have "a slew of personal, vocational and technical abilities outwith academic research skills."

If only he'd had the brains to get to York, the unified field theory would have been cracked during a team hug - then he'd be able to nip off and alter the sell by dates. Oh, how I regret all thse esoteric skills passing me by.[;)]

Unkraut · May 2007

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

We're still at the point where the good old left wing take on this issue continues to be in blissful and willful denial of the evidence because they cannot make the moral distinction between a perfectly sensible academic divide and the old class divides. And to think that people who "thought" like that actually made it into government at one time and the country has been living with the damage caused ever since.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I heard a sermon once (!) on the subject of education, and part of it was a critique of secular thinking (or to be more precise, absence of thinking) on modern education. He quoted a section of the Warnock report on education written in the early 70's, and although I cannot remember the details, I have rarely heard such out of touch drivel. I cannot imagine what planet the author must have been living on, but I am sure that this attitude played a major part in the downfall of the comprehensive idea.
The fundamental flaw was its attitude towards human nature, with the assumption that if you only give the right opportunities to everyone, get rid of all those nasty class divisions, they will all work hard and make the most of them. The reality of course is that if you don't make pupils work, in general they won't bother, and will enjoy being lazy or making things out or empty Kellogg's packets and old bog rolls, anything in fact that avoids work and having to think.
The price of this is the skills shortage in the modern economy, real skills and not the pseudo-skills awarded on a feel good basis.

jpembrokecp · May 2007

A religious sermon against modern education? No! You don't say. Yes, the touble with education is that it opens people's eyes, makes them ask questions, possibly makes them realise that they been duped for the last couple of thousand years. We can't have that. You want to know about 'out of touch drivel' and 'absence of thinking'? How about the much peddled concept that there is a supernatural bearded bloke who lives in the sky, who conjures universes with sparks from his fingers, makes people out of clay and breathes life in to them. The principles of the enlightenment are dying before our very eyes. Whilst I am not at all keen on the state-funded psuedo-private schools better known as grammar schools, the church-sponsored academies that are replacing them worry me far more.

Meanwhile I note that another two university physics departments have recently closed. Grrrrr.

well, yes and no......but mainly no.

redcogs · May 2007

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

Patrick,

By Jove, you may have a point! Just think: a couple of hugs and Einstein would have been able to sort out all the missing matter in the universe as well as that relativity stuff.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Einstein was a well known late developer who might well have failed the 11plus wasn't he?

Sheep or goat?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unkraut · May 2007

'A religious sermon against modern education' ...

No, the absolute opposite, it was a critique of unthinking secular education, and the myth that we can solve all our modern problems with more education. That is still being tauted today.
It is simply a matter of fact that whatever its faults, wherever the Christian church has gone it as taken education with it.

jpembrokecp · May 2007

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

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

Patrick,

By Jove, you may have a point! Just think: a couple of hugs and Einstein would have been able to sort out all the missing matter in the universe as well as that relativity stuff.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Einstein was a well known late developer who might well have failed the 11plus wasn't he?

Sheep or goat?

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

Unfortunately that's a myth. He did very well at school and was 3 years ahead of his classmates at maths.

well, yes and no......but mainly no.

simoncp · May 2007

Polly Toynbee failed the eleven plus after being at a private school. It took the posh peoples comprehensive, Holland Park, to turn her into what she is today.

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories