Cameron to Open thousands of Comprehensives

#1
From the Telegraph

In a fundamental shift away from old-school Tory elitism, he said thousands of secondary schools would be opened with a focus on the most deprived pupils. . . . . . .

. . . . . . Education - and particularly the Conservative policy towards grammar schools - has already threatened to unsettle Mr Cameron's leadership. A row over his decision to drop support for selective schools led to a damaging backbench rebellion two years ago.

In his latest interview, Mr Cameron again refused to back the introduction of more grammar schools, although he insisted the 164 already open would be allowed to continue.
 
#4
Perhaps someone could explain something to a septic observer. I don't live there but I follow the news and from what I have read the Grammar Schools in general do far better that the Comprehensives on the "League Tables" of student scores and do better than Comprehensives on admissions to the most selective universities. My understanding is that Grammar Schools, like Comprehensives, are government funded schools and open to all, the primary difference is that one must meet admission standards.

If Grammar schools are doing a better job of educating kids why is the government trying to abolish the schools that perform well. It does not make a lot of sense looking at this from a distance but perhaps someone closer to the situation could explain it to me.

Thanks.
 
B

BambiBasher

Guest
#5
DavidBOC said:
If Grammar schools are doing a better job of educating kids why is the government trying to abolish the schools that perform well. It does not make a lot of sense looking at this from a distance but perhaps someone closer to the situation could explain it to me.

Thanks.
Naturally, because Grammar school pupils do better, it's unfair to the children who lack the advantages of a Grammar school education. They could either bring the comprehensives up to the level of the Grammars, or they could destroy the Grammars and level down, and say it's because of fairness. Now, see if you can guess whoch option they prefer.
 
#6
To put it simplistically (there are many sub arguements that will come out as the thread progresses).

The reason that grammar schools do better than their surrounding schools is due to selection. The brightest pupils are cherry picked and therefore the schools get better exam results. Because of these better results parents aspire to send their children to the grammar school, the better teachers want to work at the supposedly better schools and so the grammar schools win both ways.

Meanwhile the surrounding comprehensives do not have the choices of their grammar school neighbours.
 
B

BambiBasher

Guest
#8
Sven said:
To put it simplistically (there are many sub arguements that will come out as the thread progresses).

The reason that grammar schools do better than their surrounding schools is due to selection. The brightest pupils are cherry picked and therefore the schools get better exam results. Because of these better results parents aspire to send their children to the grammar school, the better teachers want to work at the supposedly better schools and so the grammar schools win both ways.

Meanwhile the surrounding comprehensives do not have the choices of their grammar school neighbours.
Which diesn't fit the socialist-paradise idea of 'equality of outcome', but is quite good at producing tens of thousands of well-educated people of the sort every country needs if it is to be successful. On the other hand, level down to the comprehensive standard and you get a nation of illiterate middle-managers at best, but it is supposedly fairer.

Quite how fair it is to the brightest pupils, who get put into poor schools, is another matter, but as they're bright they must be an elite so it doesn't matter about their rights. To the Great British Leftie, 'elite' means not 'the best' but 'unfalr.'
 
#9
wet_blobby said:
Bring back the 11+, pass it and you can go to a grammer school. level playing field for everyone, what's the drama?
Not a level playing field, Blobby. Whilst some can pay to coach their children then children from poor backgrounds will not be able to compete.
 
#10
Sven said:
To put it simplistically (there are many sub arguements that will come out as the thread progresses).

The reason that grammar schools do better than their surrounding schools is due to selection. The brightest pupils are cherry picked and therefore the schools get better exam results. Because of these better results parents aspire to send their children to the grammar school, the better teachers want to work at the supposedly better schools and so the grammar schools win both ways.

Meanwhile the surrounding comprehensives do not have the choices of their grammar school neighbours.
And that's exactly how it should be. The brightest children should be taught at a higher level than the average student. There's nothing worse than a class being taught to the lowest common denominator as so often happens.
 
B

BambiBasher

Guest
#11
Sven said:
wet_blobby said:
Bring back the 11+, pass it and you can go to a grammer school. level playing field for everyone, what's the drama?
Not a level playing field, Blobby. Whilst some can pay to coach their children then children from poor backgrounds will not be able to compete.
Why do lefties always equate 'poor' with 'thick' and 'idle'? What a revoltingly superior attitude. Just because people are poor it doesn't make them have less intelligent children. But take away the chance of bright children to a decent education, and however intelligent they are, they'll still be at the bottom of the heap.

But then, the left don't want the poor to succeed, they want to look after the poor, boss them around, devise schemes for them, write reports about them, make speeches about their plight, generally strip them of dignity and treat them like children. And then write more reports about 'lack of self-esteem' among the poor.
 
#12
BambiBasher said:
Sven said:
To put it simplistically (there are many sub arguements that will come out as the thread progresses).

The reason that grammar schools do better than their surrounding schools is due to selection. The brightest pupils are cherry picked and therefore the schools get better exam results. Because of these better results parents aspire to send their children to the grammar school, the better teachers want to work at the supposedly better schools and so the grammar schools win both ways.

Meanwhile the surrounding comprehensives do not have the choices of their grammar school neighbours.
Which diesn't fit the socialist-paradise idea of 'equality of outcome', but is quite good at producing tens of thousands of well-educated people of the sort every country needs if it is to be successful. On the other hand, level down to the comprehensive standard and you get a nation of illiterate middle-managers at best, but it is supposedly fairer.

Quite how fair it is to the brightest pupils, who get put into poor schools, is another matter, but as they're bright they must be an elite so it doesn't matter about their rights. To the Great British Leftie, 'elite' means not 'the best' but 'unfalr.'
Funny that.

First. We have a pair of grammar schools in Skipton which only takes 25% of children from the catchment area. Do all those failed children go to another grammar school to try and get in there. Nope, they try and get into a comprehensive just down the road.

Second. Comprehensives do not automatically mean poorer. There are only 164 grammar schools in the UK, how many comrehensives?

Third. Margaret Thatcher turned more grammar schools into comprehensives than any other Education Secretary - bloody lefty.
 
#13
Sven said:
wet_blobby said:
Bring back the 11+, pass it and you can go to a grammer school. level playing field for everyone, what's the drama?
Not a level playing field, Blobby. Whilst some can pay to coach their children then children from poor backgrounds will not be able to compete.
I'd suggest that most people who can pay to coach their children probably have the means to send them to private schools in the first place. Unless of course it doesn't reflect well on them, as in politicians of all parties sending their kids to grammer school because it "looks better" to the electorate than sending them to a private school.
 
#14
wet_blobby said:
Sven said:
wet_blobby said:
Bring back the 11+, pass it and you can go to a grammer school. level playing field for everyone, what's the drama?
Not a level playing field, Blobby. Whilst some can pay to coach their children then children from poor backgrounds will not be able to compete.
I'd suggest that most people who can pay to coach their children probably have the means to send them to private schools in the first place. Unless of course it doesn't reflect well on them, as in politicians of all parties sending their kids to grammer school because it "looks better" to the electorate than sending them to a private school.
You are joking, Blobby.

A friend of mine has a business coaching children through SATs, the grammar school test and GCSEs/AS/A levels. She and the teachers she employs are run off their feet.
 
#15
I suppose I'm looking back to when I went through school, where coaching your children to pass exams was a luxury only affordable by a few. Not a necessity needed by the many.
 
#17
Bring back the 11+ and bring back streaming and houses.

Once the kids are in a class with their intellectual peers you will find they progress better... as they are not being left behind nor moving to slow. If a teacher spots a child who might be better in the thicker or smarter class the child can be moved up or down.

It isn't neccesary to have seperate schools, this streaming could occur within the same building... ergo, the better teachers wont run off but will be employed in the same schools as the others.

Now bring in a robust system of suspensions and expulsion, with special category schools for those who really are troublesome, and we are away....

Oh and School Uniform is mandatory, checked on the gate. No tie, no entry.

It isn't hard to make a good education system.... what makes it hard is trying to please everybody at the fairness and equality of your system, when it is far better for hte child to be educated than just cuddled.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Sven said:
wet_blobby said:
Bring back the 11+, pass it and you can go to a grammer school. level playing field for everyone, what's the drama?
Not a level playing field, Blobby. Whilst some can pay to coach their children then children from poor backgrounds will not be able to compete.
Not everyone pays to coach their kids - you say it like ALL Grammar school kids are coached!

The fact is that many parents from poorer backgrounds are thick, not genetically, but by choice, and they don't instill in their misbegotten offspring the necessary moral and social tools to give them a good start in life. Thus, these poor buggers don't have the right role models, the right attitude, and the right incentive that will lead them to pass something like an 11+ exam.

This government, rather than get to the root of the problem and fixing it, like dealing with the attitudes of parents right across the country, and society as a whole, works on the principles that it is far better for 'equality' if the kids with the sh!te start, outlooks and approach to life (due to their parents' failings) mix with kids who've had a better start (due to THEIR parents providing a better start for THEIR kids - income, social upbringing having nothing to do with it). State schools do turn out incredibly talented and intelligent kids, DESPITE the education system. People living in abject poverty can and DO bring smart, bright, morally aware children up, who do incredibly well in life - it happens the world over.

Labour think that it matters not to break the cycle of poverty, poor attitudes and ignorance to allow ALL children to achieve as much as they are capable of; all that matters is that the 'robbed' children are mixed in with all other kids - whether that helps the brighter kids or not.

Labour and all these hand-wringing apologists for under-achievers KNOW that most of the fault for poor performance in school is down to the social backgrounds and conditioning of the kids at the hands of their parents. Labour has no plans now, or in the future to fix the social ills that come with deprivation. Labour has no plans now or in the future to engender a morally and socially improved mindset in society (poor or otherwise) from which endeavour and hard work will flow.

They would rather hold ALL children down to the lowest common denominator, disregarding the inate ability of many, and deny them the chance to compete for the best school, just as in later life they will be competing for good jobs, good salaries, good partners and more.

Selective schools (a horrible, ill-judged term) are simply schools with an entrance test that require a certain understanding of basic subjects before entry is allowed. If the government sorted out the primary education system, and more importantly the social conditioning of both parents AND children, pretty much EVERY child could pass this exam.

Why SHOULDN'T children have achieved a basic understanding or basic subjects by the age of 11? If they haven't, 60% of the problem is the social attitudes of their parents, peers and communities, 30% of the problem is down to the primary school they go to, and the other 10% is the unfortunate kids who may never pass such an exam due to congenital inability. FCUK ALL percent of the problem is down to money.

Remember that the 11+ exam is not a highly complex degree-standard exam - it's a basic test of basic subjects for 10 year old children.

Labour are test-crazy - they bombard kids with tests from primary school age onwards. No certificates - just tests until they finally take their GCSEs. Labour's testing regime offers nothing to kids - why not reward the ones who grab the opportunities that knowledge brings, and the parents of who instilled in them the right approach with places in good schools that will further drive in this knowledge?

Like I said - it's easier for Labour to hold everyone down to the lowest common denominator than raise the game of all.

Edited to add: By the way - I took and failed my 11+ - and it's not because of my social background - it's because I, ME, nobody else wasted my time and efforts, DESPITE the best intentions of my parents. I didn't fail because of money or lack of it, social background or poor schooling. I failed because I couldn't be arrsed to learn what was put in front of me.

I went to a state primary and then state comprehensive after that where I did appallingly, and got shoit exam results. Can't blame that on Primaries, Secondaries or poverty either, or my brother (at the same school) would not have gone on to get 2 first class honours degrees at uni.

The point is: I'm not speaking from the privileged heights - I know the Secondary system intimately.
 
#19
Sven said:
BambiBasher said:
Sven said:
To put it simplistically (there are many sub arguements that will come out as the thread progresses).

The reason that grammar schools do better than their surrounding schools is due to selection. The brightest pupils are cherry picked and therefore the schools get better exam results. Because of these better results parents aspire to send their children to the grammar school, the better teachers want to work at the supposedly better schools and so the grammar schools win both ways.

Meanwhile the surrounding comprehensives do not have the choices of their grammar school neighbours.
Which diesn't fit the socialist-paradise idea of 'equality of outcome', but is quite good at producing tens of thousands of well-educated people of the sort every country needs if it is to be successful. On the other hand, level down to the comprehensive standard and you get a nation of illiterate middle-managers at best, but it is supposedly fairer.

Quite how fair it is to the brightest pupils, who get put into poor schools, is another matter, but as they're bright they must be an elite so it doesn't matter about their rights. To the Great British Leftie, 'elite' means not 'the best' but 'unfalr.'
Funny that.

First. We have a pair of grammar schools in Skipton which only takes 25% of children from the catchment area. Do all those failed children go to another grammar school to try and get in there. Nope, they try and get into a comprehensive just down the road.

Second. Comprehensives do not automatically mean poorer. There are only 164 grammar schools in the UK, how many comrehensives?

Third. Margaret Thatcher turned more grammar schools into comprehensives than any other Education Secretary - bloody lefty.
My bold, Sven, I think you'l find that when Thatcher was the Shadow Education Secretary back in the 70's, she led a campaign to keep Grammar schools open as Old Labour were trying to bring them down to comprehensive level. How do I know this?? Because I was at one of the Grammar schools that managed to stay open thanks to her.
 
#20
chocolate_frog said:
Bring back the 11+ and bring back streaming and houses.

Once the kids are in a class with their intellectual peers you will find they progress better... as they are not being left behind nor moving to slow. If a teacher spots a child who might be better in the thicker or smarter class the child can be moved up or down.
It isn't neccesary to have seperate schools, this streaming could occur within the same building... ergo, the better teachers wont run off but will be employed in the same schools as the others.

Now bring in a robust system of suspensions and expulsion, with special category schools for those who really are troublesome, and we are away....

Oh and School Uniform is mandatory, checked on the gate. No tie, no entry.

It isn't hard to make a good education system.... what makes it hard is trying to please everybody at the fairness and equality of your system, when it is far better for hte child to be educated than just cuddled.
these comments are totally unfair because if you start bringing back streaming you will have kids who are struggling in school being out in to the lower grades where as if they had a support assistant with them they could stay in the grade they are all ready in.I totally disagree with bringing in with special category schools for those who really are troublesome.
All children should be treated equally and these problems should be addressed sensitively
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads