Cameron to Open thousands of Comprehensives

I'm not that worried whether he believes it or not, but it does back up the argument I put forward earlier on about Thatcher, much against the shite spawned by Sven, especially as he didn't even bother fighting back.
 
whitecity said:
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.
The you clearly don't want "the brightest" to emerge. You want "the best coached by parents with the money".

That's the kind of attitude which holds Britain's talent back.
 
saintstone 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.
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 ???
The old straw man argument. Why not argue against something someone has said.
 
ashie said:
saintstone 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.
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 ???
The old straw man argument. Why not argue against something someone has said.
I think you'll find I did argue against something someone said, see bold.
 
Likewise Saintstone - I went to Grammar school and left at 16 to join the forces, completing my education at an apprentice college. Grammar schools provide a rounded education with the onus on the individual to perform. I had no great desire to go to University (there were only the mainstream ones in those days) unlike those of today with multiple "media studies" degrees available.
 
bobthedog said:
Likewise Saintstone - I went to Grammar school and left at 16 to join the forces, completing my education at an apprentice college. Grammar schools provide a rounded education with the onus on the individual to perform. I had no great desire to go to University (there were only the mainstream ones in those days) unlike those of today with multiple "media studies" degrees available.
Media Studies, when I was at school was watching telly once my homework had been done, you didn't get a degree in it 8O
 
ashie:
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
Pity they didnt teach you much in the way of spelling, surprised you got through the 11+
 
ashie said:
The you clearly don't want "the brightest" to emerge. You want "the best coached by parents with the money".

That's the kind of attitude which holds Britain's talent back.
Utter, utter balls.

A bright kid will always be bright. Additional coaching over and above the state minimum will assist that child's worldly education. It doesn't make him/her brighter, it provides them with additional knowledge, capabilities and skills.

A non-bright kid will remain non-bright. Additional coaching over and above the state minimum will assist that child's worldly education. It doesn't make him/her brighter, it provides them with additional knowledge, capabilities and skills.

If a parent has worked hard to earn some additional cash to spend on their child's education, then so be it. Just because one child is less fortunate in having parents willing or able to spend money on their education, that should not prevent those children who are fortunate.

Why should the fortunate be expected to forsake such an opportunity?
 
ashie said:
saintstone 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.
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 ???
The old straw man argument. Why not argue against something someone has said.
Why-what is wrong with providing counter-proof to the statement made. I know the prrof wasn't welcome but that doesn't make it invalid.
 
Ooops! Double tap! Grrrrr!
 
ashie said:
saintstone 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.
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. [snipped]
The old straw man argument. Why not argue against something someone has said.
Well here's another straw man argument as you call them. I prefer to see it as a real life example.

After 2 years of comprehensive (see above), my parents moved house. In the new location they applied for me to join the nearest school to home - a grammar school. I did an enterance test, at 13, and passed. The grammar school then proceeded to screw up my intended life very professionally - but that's another story.

I became the laziest bone-idle student ever invented. After pressure from my parents to enter the 6th form and go to university (my father was unable to go to university even though he had the ability but his parents didn't have the wherewithal to support him there), I dropped out in the first year and found a job. I thus left school with 8 marginally above-average O levels without having made any effort in over 4 years! Had I remained at the comprehensive, the very best I could have walked away with would have been 5 CSEs. The average at the time was 2-3! Same person, different stream.

I worked bloody hard at a range of jobs over the next 3 years and earned enough dosh to put myself through pilot school. My dream. I then worked as a professional pilot until a sports injury ended my career. :(

20 years after leaving school, on a completely different career path, I put myself through university for a year. Straight to MA without BA after a series of enterance tests. It was a serious 'academic' course rather than 'soft' one. I attained a distinction. I put that success down to my parents and grandmother who brought me up the correct way, understanding self-responsibility (not reliance on the state - hardwork trumps handouts), and their efforts to teach me to read, write and add up.
 
Sven said:
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.
So there's no such thing as streaming in comps then?
Hardly, at the comp I attended it was only in Maths and to a lesser extent in English. There just were not the resources, number of teachers, and students to stream in any other subjects. All the other subjects were mostly a waste of time because of the one or two disruptive kids and excessive time spent on re-explaining the basics to the kids that just didn't get it.

Much of my wider education came from my visits to the local library on my own initiative.
 
ashie said:
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.
It that how you got into "grammer" school then? Do you have children of your own?

(PS Sven this "Ashie" alter-ego charade isn’t fooling anyone you know)
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
The you clearly don't want "the brightest" to emerge. You want "the best coached by parents with the money".

That's the kind of attitude which holds Britain's talent back.
Utter, utter balls.

A bright kid will always be bright. Additional coaching over and above the state minimum will assist that child's worldly education. It doesn't make him/her brighter, it provides them with additional knowledge, capabilities and skills.

A non-bright kid will remain non-bright. Additional coaching over and above the state minimum will assist that child's worldly education. It doesn't make him/her brighter, it provides them with additional knowledge, capabilities and skills.

If a parent has worked hard to earn some additional cash to spend on their child's education, then so be it. Just because one child is less fortunate in having parents willing or able to spend money on their education, that should not prevent those children who are fortunate.

Why should the fortunate be expected to forsake such an opportunity?
Why should the unfortunate be deprived of that opportunity? It all boils down to money with you, doesn't it?
 
PsyWar.Org said:
ashie said:
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.
It that how you got into "grammer" school then? Do you have children of your own?

(PS Sven this "Ashie" alter-ego charade isn’t fooling anyone you know)
I have two kids. One went to a gramma(e)r school. The other didn't. They both went on to Uni.
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
saintstone 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.
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. [snipped]
The old straw man argument. Why not argue against something someone has said.
Well here's another straw man argument as you call them. I prefer to see it as a real life example.

After 2 years of comprehensive (see above), my parents moved house. In the new location they applied for me to join the nearest school to home - a grammar school. I did an enterance test, at 13, and passed. The grammar school then proceeded to screw up my intended life very professionally - but that's another story.

I became the laziest bone-idle student ever invented. After pressure from my parents to enter the 6th form and go to university (my father was unable to go to university even though he had the ability but his parents didn't have the wherewithal to support him there), I dropped out in the first year and found a job. I thus left school with 8 marginally above-average O levels without having made any effort in over 4 years! Had I remained at the comprehensive, the very best I could have walked away with would have been 5 CSEs. The average at the time was 2-3! Same person, different stream.

I worked bloody hard at a range of jobs over the next 3 years and earned enough dosh to put myself through pilot school. My dream. I then worked as a professional pilot until a sports injury ended my career. :(

20 years after leaving school, on a completely different career path, I put myself through university for a year. Straight to MA without BA after a series of enterance tests. It was a serious 'academic' course rather than 'soft' one. I attained a distinction. I put that success down to my parents and grandmother who brought me up the correct way, understanding self-responsibility (not reliance on the state - hardwork trumps handouts), and their efforts to teach me to read, write and add up.
Good on you. Good on the parents and grandparents. You'll find no argument from me on that score. Education should begin at home.
 
rickshaw-major said:
ashie said:
saintstone 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.
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 ???
The old straw man argument. Why not argue against something someone has said.
Why-what is wrong with providing counter-proof to the statement made. I know the prrof wasn't welcome but that doesn't make it invalid.
The straw-man argument is: a person's education standard is not down to class and money, capiche Ashie ???

Who said it was?

You can buy an education. A good education. But there is good education to be had which is free. Class? Well the toffs will always have their schools, no?
 
As long as comprehensives schools are made to teach children in sets i.e the brightest in one class, the average in another, and the lower performers in another for English, Maths, Languages before and during GCSE then there shouldn't be a problem.

It's when you get a mix of children with different abilities in the same class that causes difficulties for the teacher along with potential for those that don't want to be there or can't keep up to cause problems.

Streaming or setting means that those that don't perform go "down" a set and those that show promise go "up", that way performance and potential is monitored over a number of years rather than just at age 11 with an 11 plus system.
 
bobthedog said:
ashie:
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
Pity they didnt teach you much in the way of spelling, surprised you got through the 11+
There should be an apostrophe in 'didn't', bob!
 
You can buy an education. A good education. But there is good education to be had which is free.

No such thing as free education in this country - we all pay for it, and it has got significantly worse over the past 20 years thanks to constant interference by government and a lowering of standards to "show improvement".

When we have 20% of our children leaving school at 16 who are neither literate nor numerate there is something wrong.

I have been to countries where education has to be paid for, because there is no state provision, and where it is far more appreciated than the efforts we have here. In those countries the parents know that the only way to make a difference for their children is to work hard and pay for an education for their children, in that way they break the poverty trap.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top