This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News1 min ago
Labour And Lib Dems 'would Fight Grammar School Plans'
http://
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
I'm surprised that these new plans by Mrs May hasn't been mentioned on AB before. For me, I think Grammar Schools should remain in the 1960's.
Answers
I definitely agree that grammar schools should be a thing of the past.I passed the 11 plus and went to a grammar school but hated pretty much every minute of it.My son however went to our local comprehensiv
17:26 Tue 09th Aug 2016
YMB - //that a high level of education should be available to everyone //
Wrong. Not everyone is suited to it.
Select the best and brightest and train them up to make this country great. Then give the rest an education that best suits them. If that is an accountant, fine, if it is a plumber fine but dont try to make all equal. //
Please allow me to expand my point.
When I say a high level of education should be available for everyone, that does not mean a high level of academic education, I did not make myself clear.
Education should be available for everyone, suitable for the level they are able to attain, in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path. That would remove the need for an elitist system which is what is created if you insist on spending money only in some areas, and not in all.
Wrong. Not everyone is suited to it.
Select the best and brightest and train them up to make this country great. Then give the rest an education that best suits them. If that is an accountant, fine, if it is a plumber fine but dont try to make all equal. //
Please allow me to expand my point.
When I say a high level of education should be available for everyone, that does not mean a high level of academic education, I did not make myself clear.
Education should be available for everyone, suitable for the level they are able to attain, in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path. That would remove the need for an elitist system which is what is created if you insist on spending money only in some areas, and not in all.
TTT //well a myriad of questions about my "disruptive scum" comments. No not all non grammar school children are such but a minority of them disrupt education for the masses. It is them that should be removed and put in an establishment for for disruptive scum. Clear? //
What about the 'disruptive scum' that carry on being disruptive as adults - where would you segregate them?
What about the 'disruptive scum' that carry on being disruptive as adults - where would you segregate them?
We seem to be labouring under a misapprehension here. There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of achievement. When grammar schools were plentiful everybody had the opportunity to go to one. But they had to meet minimum requirements to be accepted. Similarly anybody can apply to take part in the Olympic Games. But again they have to meet minimum requirements to be selected. Neither is “elitist”. Both require minimum standards to be achieved for very good reasons.
Grammar schools were abolished (or at least became very restricted) because of ideological dogma. Because not everybody could have it, nobody can. So we have a situation now where State education is letting down vast numbers of pupils (and their parents) because the “sheep dip” approach has to be adopted. You might as well say that the Russell Group of Universities should be abolished because their selection criteria means not everybody can go to them (though everybody has the opportunity to try). Instead everybody goes to the University of North East Brent (formerly Neasden Polytechnic) or the equivalent.
OK, I’m guilty. I attended a (very good, if not excellent direct-grant grammar school. DG grammars were probably the finest model of state-funded education ever devised. The reason I got there was, first and foremost, that I was encouraged by my parents to concentrate on my primary education. They assisted me, supported me and helped me master the basics that primary education provides. Without that support I would not have succeeded. My father (a painter and decorator) and my mother (a wages clerk) wanted a better education for me than they had received, their own childhoods and education having been somewhat interrupted by WW2.
A number of my friends also received similar support. Some made it to grammar school, some did not. But they too received an excellent education in what I think were called “secondary modern” schools. They studied a different syllabus to me. No Latin, Greek or Economics for them. Instead they did metalwork, technical drawing and the like. None of my friends considered themselves “failures”. It was accepted that children needed different education models to suit their abilities. Most of them went on to successful careers. One big difference between then and today is that all of us were encouraged to learn by our parents. They did not see education as a necessary evil to be endured and ended as soon as possible; they did not side with us when we had been punished for misbehaviour (the very opposite in fact and we did not normally tell our parents of our misdemeanours for fear of further reprisals). So we hear of this:
Few children today are “disadvantaged” in the way that schoolchildren were when I was at school. Their disadvantage is that they have parents who very often are singularly unable to look after themselves, let alone their children. It is not the State’s job to nurture children from the cradle. I began school when I was five (and I was the youngest in my class – many of my classmates were almost a year older). My “formative years” had been dealt with by my parents and grandparents, not the State. The State cannot model children in their early years and if they are not supported they will suffer. But that’s the fault of parents. I accept that some schools fail their pupils more than others; but in the main grammar schools did not. The unintended consequence of this ridiculous dogma is that parents who can will buy their children a superior education – the exact opposite of what State education is trying to reduce.
Grammar schools were abolished (or at least became very restricted) because of ideological dogma. Because not everybody could have it, nobody can. So we have a situation now where State education is letting down vast numbers of pupils (and their parents) because the “sheep dip” approach has to be adopted. You might as well say that the Russell Group of Universities should be abolished because their selection criteria means not everybody can go to them (though everybody has the opportunity to try). Instead everybody goes to the University of North East Brent (formerly Neasden Polytechnic) or the equivalent.
OK, I’m guilty. I attended a (very good, if not excellent direct-grant grammar school. DG grammars were probably the finest model of state-funded education ever devised. The reason I got there was, first and foremost, that I was encouraged by my parents to concentrate on my primary education. They assisted me, supported me and helped me master the basics that primary education provides. Without that support I would not have succeeded. My father (a painter and decorator) and my mother (a wages clerk) wanted a better education for me than they had received, their own childhoods and education having been somewhat interrupted by WW2.
A number of my friends also received similar support. Some made it to grammar school, some did not. But they too received an excellent education in what I think were called “secondary modern” schools. They studied a different syllabus to me. No Latin, Greek or Economics for them. Instead they did metalwork, technical drawing and the like. None of my friends considered themselves “failures”. It was accepted that children needed different education models to suit their abilities. Most of them went on to successful careers. One big difference between then and today is that all of us were encouraged to learn by our parents. They did not see education as a necessary evil to be endured and ended as soon as possible; they did not side with us when we had been punished for misbehaviour (the very opposite in fact and we did not normally tell our parents of our misdemeanours for fear of further reprisals). So we hear of this:
Few children today are “disadvantaged” in the way that schoolchildren were when I was at school. Their disadvantage is that they have parents who very often are singularly unable to look after themselves, let alone their children. It is not the State’s job to nurture children from the cradle. I began school when I was five (and I was the youngest in my class – many of my classmates were almost a year older). My “formative years” had been dealt with by my parents and grandparents, not the State. The State cannot model children in their early years and if they are not supported they will suffer. But that’s the fault of parents. I accept that some schools fail their pupils more than others; but in the main grammar schools did not. The unintended consequence of this ridiculous dogma is that parents who can will buy their children a superior education – the exact opposite of what State education is trying to reduce.
TTT - //Can you perhaps supply some examples of what you are talking about. //
This is your point about 'disruption', and I am pointing out that your solution is over-simplistic, so it is for you to find examples to back up this view, rather than for me, when I think your premise is flawed.
//Are you saying that all children must suffer for a few scum that grow up and annoy people? //
No I am not saying that - which is why I have not said that.
///I have no clue what you are on about Andy. The world is full of disruptive eejits because of policies like you expound on here. //
My policy is that everyone should have an appropriate education. If you believe that leads to 'disruptive eejits' as you so delicately put it, then I am intrigued to know how and why - ?
This is your point about 'disruption', and I am pointing out that your solution is over-simplistic, so it is for you to find examples to back up this view, rather than for me, when I think your premise is flawed.
//Are you saying that all children must suffer for a few scum that grow up and annoy people? //
No I am not saying that - which is why I have not said that.
///I have no clue what you are on about Andy. The world is full of disruptive eejits because of policies like you expound on here. //
My policy is that everyone should have an appropriate education. If you believe that leads to 'disruptive eejits' as you so delicately put it, then I am intrigued to know how and why - ?
And to follow on from the last few posts, there is actually a need for three streams of education: “Grammar” (or call it what you like, for the most academically gifted); “Secondary Modern” (again, call it what you like, for those less so) and “Containment” – reserved for children who have demonstrated their complete unwillingness to learn or to behave. Establishments dealing with these pupils would cease to make any pretence of education, but simply confine the children for the school day, separating them from those willing to learn.
It is not appropriate to ask what is done with adults of similar disposition. We’re talking about education here and disruptive pupils influence, out of all proportion to their numbers, the education of others. Disruptive adults are dealt with differently because the problem is different, the effects they have on others are different so the remedies are different.
It is not appropriate to ask what is done with adults of similar disposition. We’re talking about education here and disruptive pupils influence, out of all proportion to their numbers, the education of others. Disruptive adults are dealt with differently because the problem is different, the effects they have on others are different so the remedies are different.
well it does, andy that's a fact, in state schools the education of the masses is disrupted by a few low life scum that need to be removed. Education is offered by the state, if some don't want it fine, do not disrupt those that do. You and your kind have systematically turned our schools into places where education is almost impossible. The Teachers that run them have to put up with unruly little sh1tbags that "know their rights" - most of the kids are not these but they are the ones that suffer because of the right on lefty thinking of the liberal idiots from the planet zog.
NJ - you, like me, are part of an education system that no longer exists - and that is a good thing in my view.
You were seriously fortunate that your parents valued your education, and you had a decent start in terms of values learned at home.
Sadly, a couple of generations has seen that attitude all be eradicated, and that is not helped by government approaches to education.
Simply put - education is a political hot potato because every voter has an opinion about it, because every voter has been to school, and therefore thinks they know something about it.
Governments respond by vote-catching, punting concepts like 'parent power/' and similar guff, and appealing to the voters they think they can catch by telling them what they want to hear.
This goes hand in hand with an utter inability to leave any education policy alone long enough to bed in, before being changed and switched around, hence the terminal morale of teachers.
The Conservatives preach grammar shcoools, not because they are effective, or suitable for a modern society, but because Tory voters can wax noastalgic about good it was in 'their day', and fondly imagine that this will bring back those days in which you grew up.
Those days are gone, because that society is gone, and it's not coming back.
You might as well wax lyrical about the England football team in 1966 - it's not like that anymore, but pretending we can bring those days back keeps fans watching.
Pretending grammar schools are a good thing will keep Tories voting, and let's not pretend that this is what the debate is about at the end of the day. To pretend anything else is to ignore the obvious.
You were seriously fortunate that your parents valued your education, and you had a decent start in terms of values learned at home.
Sadly, a couple of generations has seen that attitude all be eradicated, and that is not helped by government approaches to education.
Simply put - education is a political hot potato because every voter has an opinion about it, because every voter has been to school, and therefore thinks they know something about it.
Governments respond by vote-catching, punting concepts like 'parent power/' and similar guff, and appealing to the voters they think they can catch by telling them what they want to hear.
This goes hand in hand with an utter inability to leave any education policy alone long enough to bed in, before being changed and switched around, hence the terminal morale of teachers.
The Conservatives preach grammar shcoools, not because they are effective, or suitable for a modern society, but because Tory voters can wax noastalgic about good it was in 'their day', and fondly imagine that this will bring back those days in which you grew up.
Those days are gone, because that society is gone, and it's not coming back.
You might as well wax lyrical about the England football team in 1966 - it's not like that anymore, but pretending we can bring those days back keeps fans watching.
Pretending grammar schools are a good thing will keep Tories voting, and let's not pretend that this is what the debate is about at the end of the day. To pretend anything else is to ignore the obvious.
TTT - //You and your kind have systematically turned our schools into places where education is almost impossible. //
Please do not be so offensive as to refer to 'me and my kind', or so presumptuous as to refer to 'our schools'. I pay income tax as well, conceivably more than you so they are 'my' schools as much as 'yours'
//The Teachers that run them have to put up with unruly little sh1tbags that "know their rights" - most of the kids are not these but they are the ones that suffer because of the right on lefty thinking of the liberal idiots from the planet zog. //
I am probably more aware of what teachers put up with as well - I am married to an ex teacher and Head, who is a schools inspector, and I have three children who work in primary education.
So don't patronise me with your nasty invective - I am expressing a view, not looking for a fight.,
Please do not be so offensive as to refer to 'me and my kind', or so presumptuous as to refer to 'our schools'. I pay income tax as well, conceivably more than you so they are 'my' schools as much as 'yours'
//The Teachers that run them have to put up with unruly little sh1tbags that "know their rights" - most of the kids are not these but they are the ones that suffer because of the right on lefty thinking of the liberal idiots from the planet zog. //
I am probably more aware of what teachers put up with as well - I am married to an ex teacher and Head, who is a schools inspector, and I have three children who work in primary education.
So don't patronise me with your nasty invective - I am expressing a view, not looking for a fight.,
you want to put all the children who cannot afford a public/private school into a pit of mediocrity regardless of their abilities. Shame you cannot see what is plain to most. The rich can educate their kids as best they can afford would you deny poorer children a better education because of some bigoted ideological drivel? Yes you would.
// Many grammar school pupils (myself included) left at 14 years old to go to work because our parents needed the extra income.//
I was at a town comprehensive 1964 when John X was leapfrogged a year up for math lessons ( coz he was so bright,see) - mainly third form but fourth form for math....
and then a year or so later I saw him in labourers overalls leaving a shop ( carrying the small enamel churns they used to then) at 5pm
and realised ( I was 14 ) he had been made to leave school at 14 and get a job .....
it was a life-time shock for me ....
I was at a town comprehensive 1964 when John X was leapfrogged a year up for math lessons ( coz he was so bright,see) - mainly third form but fourth form for math....
and then a year or so later I saw him in labourers overalls leaving a shop ( carrying the small enamel churns they used to then) at 5pm
and realised ( I was 14 ) he had been made to leave school at 14 and get a job .....
it was a life-time shock for me ....
TTT - //you want to put all the children who cannot afford a public/private school into a pit of mediocrity regardless of their abilities. Shame you cannot see what is plain to most. The rich can educate their kids as best they can afford would you deny poorer children a better education because of some bigoted ideological drivel? Yes you would. //
In your haste to be nasty to me, you are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them.
Please see this, from 14:08 today.
//Education should be available for everyone, suitable for the level they are able to attain, in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path. That would remove the need for an elitist system which is what is created if you insist on spending money only in some areas, and not in all.//
If you want to argue with me, feel free, but argument does not consist of attributing to me a view that I do not hold, and then attacking me for it.
In your haste to be nasty to me, you are either not reading my posts, or not understanding them.
Please see this, from 14:08 today.
//Education should be available for everyone, suitable for the level they are able to attain, in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path. That would remove the need for an elitist system which is what is created if you insist on spending money only in some areas, and not in all.//
If you want to argue with me, feel free, but argument does not consist of attributing to me a view that I do not hold, and then attacking me for it.
"//Education should be available for everyone, suitable for the level they are able to attain, - so you agree with grammar schools then?
in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path. What about those who have no chosen path other than to destroy the education of othere?
That would remove the need for an elitist system - what is this elitist system you refer to? oh you mean the realisation that some kids are smarter than others? how is that elitist?
which is what is created if you insist on spending money only in some areas, and not in all.// "
in areas which are appropriate for their chosen career path. What about those who have no chosen path other than to destroy the education of othere?
That would remove the need for an elitist system - what is this elitist system you refer to? oh you mean the realisation that some kids are smarter than others? how is that elitist?
which is what is created if you insist on spending money only in some areas, and not in all.// "
TTT - // what is this elitist system you refer to? oh you mean the realisation that some kids are smarter than others? how is that elitist? //
The elitism does not lie in the educational ability of the children, it lies in the way you fund that schools that educate them.
If you create a system where you fund some schools with more money to allow them to cream off the most able pupils, and then as a consequence, you provide lower funding to schools that educate the less academic children, then that is an elitist system.
The point I am making is that a proper education should be available to everyone, and not simply provided for the more able at the expense of the less.
That is what elitism in education means.
The elitism does not lie in the educational ability of the children, it lies in the way you fund that schools that educate them.
If you create a system where you fund some schools with more money to allow them to cream off the most able pupils, and then as a consequence, you provide lower funding to schools that educate the less academic children, then that is an elitist system.
The point I am making is that a proper education should be available to everyone, and not simply provided for the more able at the expense of the less.
That is what elitism in education means.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
News16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.