Cameron to Open thousands of Comprehensives

Quote-Speaking alongside Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, he said the Tories would encourage more charities and entrepreneurs to compete to run schools at taxpayers' expense.

That means not run by the Gov, so the best of the Charitable/business sector much along the lines of the current Oasis Trust Academy schools in London. Streaming will unfortunatly always be with us, the trauma a teacher would have running a class of 30 mix ability kids again the special needs would get the time, gifted would get adequate but not development teaching and the quiet middle for diddle brigade will fall down the cracks in the system-No change there!
 
no **** no the reg varnys of this world should not be indugled with state money. people lived happily with dinosaurs disabled people are due to orginal sin an arse bandits must be burned at the stake have no place at a school :twisted: :x

SHUT UP ABOUT GRAMMER SCHOOLS yeah they worked so what. If you pour resources into a 1/3rd of pupils at the expense of everybody else you will get results
 
PsyWar.Org 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.
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.
They aren't "the brightest children". In many cases they are those coached at fee-paying schools to pass the 11+.

"The brightest children" cannot be identified at 11 years of age.
 
brighton hippy said:
Theres only 164 grammer schools left in the whole country so bit of a red herring really.
system never worked secondary moderns were a dumping ground and the technical colleges were never built :x
Dave is just telling it as it is no point going back to a failed system. yes grammer schools worked but the rest of the system did'nt.
I think that's right. Grammer schools were just there to feed Universities. If you didn't go to such a school you weren't expected to go to university. So your school didn't need any particular attention. The cliché goes that you were "branded a failure at 11". And it's true.
 
ashie said:
"The brightest children" cannot be identified at 11 years of age.
When can/should they be identified then?
 
ashie said:
I think that's right. Grammer schools were just there to feed Universities. If you didn't go to such a school you weren't expected to go to university. So your school didn't need any particular attention. The cliché goes that you were "branded a failure at 11". And it's true.
It isn't a failure not to go to Uni. Nor is it a failure to bail school at 16 and work as a bricky or similar.

Simple fact. Some people are intelligent and academic, others are intelligent and practical, others are mince and practical.

We need a teaching system that reflects this, yet is not to robust to allow those who suddenly develop to move freely amongst the group.

A failure, is someone getting a degree and then ending up working as a plumber.
 
chocolate_frog said:
ashie said:
I think that's right. Grammer schools were just there to feed Universities. If you didn't go to such a school you weren't expected to go to university. So your school didn't need any particular attention. The cliché goes that you were "branded a failure at 11". And it's true.
It isn't a failure not to go to Uni. Nor is it a failure to bail school at 16 and work as a bricky or similar.

Simple fact. Some people are intelligent and academic, others are intelligent and practical, others are mince and practical.

We need a teaching system that reflects this, yet is not to robust to allow those who suddenly develop to move freely amongst the group.


A failure, is someone getting a degree and then ending up working as a plumber.
We had one in Scotland. The politicians fcuked it up!
 
ashie said:
brighton hippy said:
Theres only 164 grammer schools left in the whole country so bit of a red herring really.
system never worked secondary moderns were a dumping ground and the technical colleges were never built :x
Dave is just telling it as it is no point going back to a failed system. yes grammer schools worked but the rest of the system did'nt.
I think that's right. Grammer schools were just there to feed Universities. If you didn't go to such a school you weren't expected to go to university. So your school didn't need any particular attention. The cliché goes that you were "branded a failure at 11". And it's true.
No it isn't.

No child is "equal" with any other. They are all quite individual. In a perfect world, each individual would receive individual education that best suits their individual needs and abilities. That, of course, is a practical impossibility. A system that offers the greatest range of options/choices is thus the fairest solution. To make every child follow the same system is the unfairest of them all.

Pre-comprehensive education provided greater options, but was implemented poorly. Grammar schools were the piller that focussed on academic education - and thus, by default, meant they provided the greater proportion of university entrants. Technical schools, in theory, were to provide education focussed on less academic and more practical subjects that would provide a solid start to less academically gifted children. Secondary moderns, had no clear focus and thus were perceived as the poor relation, but filled a quite necessary gap for those of lesser academic or technical ability but had a solid all round capability.
 
chocolate_frog said:
ashie said:
"The brightest children" cannot be identified at 11 years of age.
When can/should they be identified then?
No. You're missing the socialist point.

Children are not to be identified as 'bright' at any stage. All children are to be sent through the same system regardless of ability - and thus, by default, the 'brighter' are to be prevented fom developing their talents as are the more technically gifted who are expected to perform academic miracles which they are incapable of achieving.
 
It would be nice to see ONE school building providing multiple solutions to the kids.

With technical, academic and "all rounder"s being taught.

Likewise some social building such as community service/spirit and some good adventure training or cultural visits.

I remember my school band going away EVERY year to somewhere in Europe. As far a field as Austria.

The very "hippy" solution to naughty children about 10 years ago, was to take naughty children to Africa to look at lions. Normally with about 30 social workers but hey. Now take the good kids on trips, and leave the naughty ones in Borstal. And the education system will start flowing with talent again.

kaka, forgot this question earlier....#
What is wrong with excluding naughty children from mainstream school and sending htem to a special secluded school? Maybe even a boarding school/boot camp where we can rebuild their personalities?
 
except technical schools did'nt get built and secondary moderns were 2nd class less resources seen as second class poor quality teachers etc etc.
A great system not write off 2/3rds of the population at age 11.
Now even more unfair with those parents who can afford it coaching there little darling for 18 months before the 11 plus.
By no means a level playing field
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
brighton hippy said:
Theres only 164 grammer schools left in the whole country so bit of a red herring really.
system never worked secondary moderns were a dumping ground and the technical colleges were never built :x
Dave is just telling it as it is no point going back to a failed system. yes grammer schools worked but the rest of the system did'nt.
I think that's right. Grammer schools were just there to feed Universities. If you didn't go to such a school you weren't expected to go to university. So your school didn't need any particular attention. The cliché goes that you were "branded a failure at 11". And it's true.
No it isn't.

No child is "equal" with any other. They are all quite individual. In a perfect world, each individual would receive individual education that best suits their individual needs and abilities. That, of course, is a practical impossibility. A system that offers the greatest range of options/choices is thus the fairest solution. To make every child follow the same system is the unfairest of them all.

Pre-comprehensive education provided greater options, but was implemented poorly. Grammar schools were the piller that focussed on academic education - and thus, by default, meant they provided the greater proportion of university entrants. Technical schools, in theory, were to provide education focussed on less academic and more practical subjects that would provide a solid start to less academically gifted children. Secondary moderns, had no clear focus and thus were perceived as the poor relation, but filled a quite necessary gap for those of lesser academic or technical ability but had a solid all round capability.
I think that's a bit starry-eyed about the old system (and I went to a Grammar School). There were so few Technical Schools that they didn't really make a difference (a great pity). The vast majority went to second-rate SM schools which were seen to be very much 2nd class. The resources went to the grammars.

But there were many decent people in SMs who would have done well in better schools had they not been "failed" at 11. Not everybody was "of lesser academic or technical ability".

What is true is that some SMs are now much better as Comprehensive Schools.
 
ashie said:
I think that's a bit starry-eyed about the old system (and I went to a Grammar School). There were so few Technical Schools that they didn't really make a difference (a great pity). The vast majority went to second-rate SM schools which were seen to be very much 2nd class. The resources went to the grammars.
I said it was implemented poorly. We thus agree on the past example in the UK, if not the theory.

ashie said:
But there were many decent people in SMs who would have done well in better schools had they not been "failed" at 11. Not everybody was "of lesser academic or technical ability".
Being "decent" is an irrelevancy. Each 'type' of school should cater for a different segment of education: academic, all round/non-specific and technical, for example.

I went to a comprehensive for 2 years. I had no choice in the matter, nor did my parents. During those 2 years I was taught metalwork, wordwork, multi-media (plastics), needlework, cooking and I'm buggered if I can remember the sixth technical subject. Each of them I thought were infinitely more useful to an individual than history, georgraphy, RE etc on leaving school. I was a keen and willing student in the technical subjects, but hopelessly inept! Had I been forced to continue with these subjects any longer (ie beyond 13) I would have left school as a happy failure - doing lots of interesting subjects for which I was completely unsuited.

ashie said:
What is true is that some SMs are now much better as Comprehensive Schools.
Comprehensives have a place between 'technical' and 'grammar' schools.
 
ashie said:
brighton hippy said:
Theres only 164 grammer schools left in the whole country so bit of a red herring really.
system never worked secondary moderns were a dumping ground and the technical colleges were never built :x
Dave is just telling it as it is no point going back to a failed system. yes grammer schools worked but the rest of the system did'nt.
I think that's right. Grammer schools were just there to feed Universities. If you didn't go to such a school you weren't expected to go to university. So your school didn't need any particular attention. The cliché goes that you were "branded a failure at 11". And it's true.
I went to a Grammar school, I didn't stay on to 6th year to gain A Levels and attend Uni, the choice was there by the way. I decided to work for a living, did that for 7 yrs, then joined up. I p**sed all over the 11+ and had a choice of schools, I didn't get coached and attended a school that had houses and streaming. I found myself in the B stream but soon worked my way up to A stream, again, not due to coaching, but due to parents that actually took an interest in my education, something that seems to be lacking in a lot of the country at the moment. My school had decided to amalgamate with the local comp as my brother got to secondary education stage, so he still joined me at school, only at the Comp. He also didn't go to Uni, but worked for 4 yrs as a mechanic, joined the FFL for 5 yrs and as of now, spent the past 18 yrs in the Army, holding the rank of WO2, which he has held for the past 3 yrs. Again, due to parents taking an interest in their kids education. BTW, I was bought up on a council estate in South London and dad wasn't loaded either, so a person's education standard is not down to class and money, capiche Ashie ???
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
BambiBasher 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.
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.
And in the grand socialist paradise Sven so desires,the present government has been doing precisely that since 2 May 1997.
 
Eh? Why doen't he first stop all the mergers? A load of RC high schools are being closed and merged with the local government sponsored schools. The results are much poorer results and a slide down the league table. I don't see how this is happening as RC schools recieve the majority of their funding from the church.
 
Le_addeur_noir said:
BambiBasher 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.
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.
And in the grand socialist paradise Sven so desires,the present government has been doing precisely that since 2 May 1997.
What's more worrying, is Sven thinks it's wrong for a parent to assist an offspring with additional coaching.

It's just that sort of attitude - no personal or social responsibility - that has taken the UK on a downward spiral.
 
Sven said:
It also turns out that the comprehensive system was in fact brought in by a Tory government
Bollocks, the idea of a tripartite education system, secondary modern, secondary technical and grammar was bought in by a Tory Govt, but the Labour party were the ones to implement comprehensives nationally.

Taken from Wiki :-

Nationwide implementation
The largest expansion of comprehensive schools resulted from a policy decision taken in 1965 by Anthony Crosland, secretary of state for education in the 1964-1970 Labour government, a fervent supporter of Comprehensive education. The policy decision was implemented by Circular 10/65, an instruction to local education authorities to plan for conversion.

In 1970 the Conservative Party re-entered government. Margaret Thatcher became secretary of state for education and ended the compulsion on local authorities to convert. However, many local authorities were so far down the path that it would have been prohibitively expensive to attempt to reverse the process, and more comprehensive schools were established under Mrs Thatcher than any other education secretary. However, she went on to be a vociferous critic of comprehensive education. By 1975 the majority of local authorities in England and Wales had abandoned the 11 plus examination and moved to a comprehensive system.

Over that 10 year period many secondary modern schools and grammar schools were amalgamated to form large neighbourhood comprehensives, whilst a number of new schools were built to accommodate a growing school population. By 1968 around 20% of children had been in comprehensives, and by the mid seventies, the system had been almost fully implemented. Nearly all new schools were built as comprehensives, and existing grammar and modern schools had either been closed (see for example the Liverpool Institute) or amalgamated with neighbouring secondary moderns to produce comprehensive schools.

Edited to add :-

Callaghan's Great Debate
In 1976 the future Labour prime minister James Callaghan gave a speech at Oxford's Ruskin College. He launched what became known as the 'great debate' on the education system. He went on to list the areas he felt needed closest scrutiny: the case for a core curriculum, the validity and use of informal teaching methods, the role of school inspection and the future of the examination system. Callaghan was not the first to raise these questions. A 'black paper' attacking liberal theories in education and poor standards in comprehensive schools had appeared in 1969, to be followed by a second in 1971. The authors were the academics Brian Cox and A E Dyson. They were supported by ex-headteachers, led by Dr. Rhodes Boyson, who later became a Conservative MP. The black papers called for a return to traditional teaching methods and an end to the comprehensive experiment.
 
Saintstone, Sven wont believe you because he thinks that wiki is rubbish. The pure fact remains that the European countries still have a selective system for education, usually 4 streams, not because of ideology or political expediency or jealousy/envy, but because IT WORKS!

Holland, Germany and France are not suffering the shortage of young engineers or scientists because their system is designed to educate, and provide the workplace with a well educated, literate, numerate and broadly skilled workforce to train. UK (Liberal and Labour policy) seems to provide the opposite, and Cameron's lack of support for the Grammar system is a huge mistake too. In life there is competition, you get selected for Jobs, its all done by a process of selection, so why not start at 10 or 11!
 

Latest Threads

Top