Cameron to Open thousands of Comprehensives

ashie said:
Why should the unfortunate be deprived of that opportunity? It all boils down to money with you, doesn't it?
No.

Who said the unfortunate should be deprived? I certainly didn't. I was never deprived and my family didn't have a brass farthing to rub together.

Most "deprived" kids are deprived due to societal and parental problems not lack of money. Those societal and parental problems stemming from an expectation that everything should be given on a platter not earned and a lack of individual self-responsibility.
 

DH24

Clanker
I'm going to have to second this part of Whitecity's post:

"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."

I tentatively assume that Whitecity is a degree older than me (I'm 21...yet feel old) but I passed my 11+, was overjoyed even if it was 238, 3 points more than the minimum requirement to get into Grammar school at the time. Then I got a bit of shock getting dumped into bottom (5/5) set maths in year 8. I had to work my arse off to get into second set by the time I left.

I believe that combining a teaching methodology that encourages kids to better themselves off their own backs in addition with the 'harshness' of them being told they've done crap in something (backed up with showing why they've done crap) with a decent and varied academic and vocational syllabus on top will result in more kids coming out with better qualifications and prospects.

But, going back to the part of Whitecity's post that I referenced, it is also the responsibilities of the parents to steer their offspring towards a mindset that is compatible with a disciplined class room, without that then you might as well call these new comprehensives 'daylight sprog holding centres'.

BRB off to take a chill-pill
 
ashie said:
Good on you. Good on the parents and grandparents. You'll find no argument from me on that score. Education should begin at home.
Indeed it should. But it seems not to these days. Moreover, private tuition is merely sub-contracting out family tuition, not so?
 
DH24 said:
I'm going to have to second this part of Whitecity's post:

"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."

I tentatively assume that Whitecity is a degree older than me (I'm 21...yet feel old) but I passed my 11+, was overjoyed even if it was 238, 3 points more than the minimum requirement to get into Grammar school at the time. Then I got a bit of shock getting dumped into bottom (5/5) set maths in year 8. I had to work my arse off to get into second set by the time I left.

I believe that combining a teaching methodology that encourages kids to better themselves off their own backs in addition with the 'harshness' of them being told they've done crap in something (backed up with showing why they've done crap) with a decent and varied academic and vocational syllabus on top will result in more kids coming out with better qualifications and prospects.

But, going back to the part of Whitecity's post that I referenced, it is also the responsibilities of the parents to steer their offspring towards a mindset that is compatible with a disciplined class room, without that then you might as well call these new comprehensives 'daylight sprog holding centres'.

BRB off to take a chill-pill
Seconded, well said.
 
ashie said:
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?
You can lavish money on education, but it won't educate your child if he/she is incapable, lacks the talent or is simply too bone-idle.

Class and money have little to do with education these days. Although, having some extra cash can help rectify some of the state-sponsored rubbish.
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
Good on you. Good on the parents and grandparents. You'll find no argument from me on that score. Education should begin at home.
Indeed it should. But it seems not to these days. Moreover, private tuition is merely sub-contracting out family tuition, not so?
Family tuition is not necessarily of the formal variety.

I know sub-contracting out is very popular, such as in some of our oil-refineries. But I find that one often ends up with foreigners taking the jobs.

And as always, it depends on ability to pay.
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
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?
You can lavish money on education, but it won't educate your child if he/she is incapable, lacks the talent or is simply too bone-idle.

Class and money have little to do with education these days. Although, having some extra cash can help rectify some of the state-sponsored rubbish.
Not so. It is possible, with intensive tuition, to give the less able child from a wealthy background the basic skills to pas his/her exams.

Some maintained-sector education is first-class.
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
Why should the unfortunate be deprived of that opportunity? It all boils down to money with you, doesn't it?
No.

Who said the unfortunate should be deprived? I certainly didn't. I was never deprived and my family didn't have a brass farthing to rub together.

Most "deprived" kids are deprived due to societal and parental problems not lack of money. Those societal and parental problems stemming from an expectation that everything should be given on a platter not earned and a lack of individual self-responsibility.
You're better when you stick to facts, Not the Daily Vile opinion stuff.
 
ashie said:
And as always, it depends on ability to pay.
And if parents have earned the cash, why shouldn't the spend it on their offspring's education?

Frankly, it's a far better outlay in my book than frittering it away on a new TV, car or designer label gear.
 
ashie said:
whitecity said:
ashie said:
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?
You can lavish money on education, but it won't educate your child if he/she is incapable, lacks the talent or is simply too bone-idle.

Class and money have little to do with education these days. Although, having some extra cash can help rectify some of the state-sponsored rubbish.
Not so. It is possible, with intensive tuition, to give the less able child from a wealthy background the basic skills to pas his/her exams.

Some maintained-sector education is first-class.
You did read the post?? Straw man argument ??
 
Garhwal said:
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.
And that's the way it was supposed to be. Streaming in each subject. I'm not sure when that changed.
 
ashie said:
Garhwal said:
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.
And that's the way it was supposed to be. Streaming in each subject. I'm not sure when that changed.
I don't think it has.
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
And as always, it depends on ability to pay.
And if parents have earned the cash, why shouldn't the spend it on their offspring's education?

Frankly, it's a far better outlay in my book than frittering it away on a new TV, car or designer label gear.
So you agree that wealth should be able to buy a "better" education for those with money. That's what I said you said. You said that's not what you said.
 
ashie said:
You're better when you stick to facts, Not the Daily Vile opinion stuff.
Have no idea what or who you refer to by "Daily Vile". My experience of living in the UK is that far too many people now expect others to be responsible for all the things that they should be responsible for.

You present a little conundrum yourself, you advocate education starting in the home, ie, the family accepts responsibility for their child's education and does what is necessary to ensure the child gets the best possible. On the otherhand, you seem to propose that all children should be educated in exactly the same dry format at the level of the poorest student - ie, the state taking away responsibility, or the parent passing up responsibility.

Which do you actually advocate? The family doing the best for their children, and ig they have money spare using it; or the state taking full control at the lowest common denominator?
 
For a government that came into power using the mantra "education, education, education" it has failed dismally. Constant lowering of standards to prevent embarrassment in parliament and to try to bluff the idea that things have really got better with the electorate havent worked. The university's (and by that I dont mean the ex polytechnics) have noticed these lowered standards, and the decline in the general standard of admissions over the past 10 years.
 
ashie said:
And that's the way it was supposed to be. Streaming in each subject. I'm not sure when that changed.
So if you accept streaming within an establishment, why not stream without? Especially when considering separate institutions are able to offer better focus for later life to their students?
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
You're better when you stick to facts, Not the Daily Vile opinion stuff.
Have no idea what or who you refer to by "Daily Vile". My experience of living in the UK is that far too many people now expect others to be responsible for all the things that they should be responsible for.

You present a little conundrum yourself, you advocate education starting in the home, ie, the family accepts responsibility for their child's education and does what is necessary to ensure the child gets the best possible. On the otherhand, you seem to propose that all children should be educated in exactly the same dry format at the level of the poorest student - ie, the state taking away responsibility, or the parent passing up responsibility.

Which do you actually advocate? The family doing the best for their children, and ig they have money spare using it; or the state taking full control at the lowest common denominator?
I think that what he's trying to advocate is that every child is educated to the poorest standard by the Govt and if you have the money, pay for your child's better education, bringing in a 2 tier system, the haves and the have-nots.
 
ashie said:
whitecity said:
ashie said:
And as always, it depends on ability to pay.
And if parents have earned the cash, why shouldn't the spend it on their offspring's education?

Frankly, it's a far better outlay in my book than frittering it away on a new TV, car or designer label gear.
So you agree that wealth should be able to buy a "better" education for those with money. That's what I said you said. You said that's not what you said.
If you mean that private tuition offers better education than state education with 29 other children, then yes private education is superior - if the teacher is up to it.

A pair of designer label trainers cost what these days? £100. You can get a hell of a lot of good private tuition for that.

Private tuition is NOT all about £25,000 a term prep schools. A lot of private tutors will come round to your house for £10 an hour. Just 10 hours will advance your child no end compared to 10 hours in an average state comprehensive.

How many of your "deprived" kids wear £100 trainers?
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
You're better when you stick to facts, Not the Daily Vile opinion stuff.
Have no idea what or who you refer to by "Daily Vile". My experience of living in the UK is that far too many people now expect others to be responsible for all the things that they should be responsible for.

You present a little conundrum yourself, you advocate education starting in the home, ie, the family accepts responsibility for their child's education and does what is necessary to ensure the child gets the best possible. On the otherhand, you seem to propose that all children should be educated in exactly the same dry format at the level of the poorest student - ie, the state taking away responsibility, or the parent passing up responsibility.

Which do you actually advocate? The family doing the best for their children, and ig they have money spare using it; or the state taking full control at the lowest common denominator?
I have long thought that private elitist education distorts society. I realise that I am unlikely to see its abolition, but it would be nice. Because only once the children of those in authority are affected by state education, will the government - any government - sit up and take notice. Ditto private medicine, BTW. That's just me.

I believe that parents have a responsibility to begin the education - formal or informal - of their children. And to continue it. I believe that they should take a direct interest in their education, encouraging and supporting them.

When you have relatives who are teachers telling you that parents complain because: "Our Chardonnay don't even know her birfday"; or '"E don't even know 'ow to tie 'is shoelaces", you can be under no illusion about some parents. And if parents support their kids and they get on better than some other kids, well.....hey!

But that's heck of a difference, not least morally, to, as you put it, sub-contracting out the job.
 
whitecity said:
ashie said:
whitecity said:
ashie said:
And as always, it depends on ability to pay.
And if parents have earned the cash, why shouldn't the spend it on their offspring's education?

Frankly, it's a far better outlay in my book than frittering it away on a new TV, car or designer label gear.
So you agree that wealth should be able to buy a "better" education for those with money. That's what I said you said. You said that's not what you said.
If you mean that private tuition offers better education than state education with 29 other children, then yes private education is superior - if the teacher is up to it.

A pair of designer label trainers cost what these days? £100. You can get a hell of a lot of good private tuition for that.

Private tuition is NOT all about £25,000 a term prep schools. A lot of private tutors will come round to your house for £10 an hour. Just 10 hours will advance your child no end compared to 10 hours in an average state comprehensive.

How many of your "deprived" kids wear £100 trainers?
Dunno. I suspect you don't either. It sounds like another Daily Vile stereotype.
 
Top