Is Chris Woodhead, The Ex Schools Inspector, Right . . . . .

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sven, Oct 3, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. . . . when He said

  2. Define working class children? Surely being down 't mine for 16 hours a day would leave little time to be schooled anyway, therefore the Tories are proposing a saving?
  3. Do we need more schools?

    Lets concentrate on the shitholes we have at the moment and make them work.
  4. He is correct but has used incorrect terminology. He should have said 'children whose parents have insufficient means to afford private education'. Grammar school was a means of lifting bright children in this category out of the 'comprehensive trap'.
  5. WTF :!: My daughters are going to the best schools in this area and they are doing so because of their ability not social background (which is work class).

    I'd be more concerned that people in Labour areas are going to get crap/poor education because their vote is taken for granted. Labour or Torey is going to do nothing for these people. Some of the more socially concerned teachers will try their best to sort this but they will get very little in return.

    I live in a mega safe Labour area (BNP trying hard) but my kids can choose their school. I hope to move to a less labour area and give them a more all round education - If I stay in Leeds they will either get a working class education or a snobby one, moving slightly south makes that more even
  6. No, in most respects he was wrong.

    The average Comprehensive has a 'Gifted or talented' group for those who have the ability and many other groupings for the daft and dozy groups. It wasn't always like that but they have improved markedly lately. I believe this is more flexable than the purely academic structure of a grammar school.
  7. In the 21st century what exactly is "working class"
    Obsessed by class this country is.
  8. I dont think there is any such thing anymore.

    Chav scum and dole scroungers seem to think they are proud to be 'working class' and Labour have destroyed the country trying to sex it up.
  9. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Odd topic from an avowed 'Liberal Democrat'. Both my children went/are going to Grammar schools. They got there on merit, not though my having enough money to pay for private education (cos I don't). Without the opportunity they offer, my children would undoubtedly be less well educated. My daughter's school is consistently the top non-fee paying school in the Country for A and AS level results - and it's not a crammer's paradise - the girls are encouraged to LEARN, and assisted by excellent Staff, who really like working with pupils who want to learn.

    And which Local Council grouping is most determined to get rid of them? Tha's right, the LibDems. There's little or no Labour around here, but that doesn't matter, as all the rabid class-war idiots have a fine home in the LibDems.

    This is a fine example of Sven choosing anything to have a go at the Conservatives. Look for motes in your own eye, first, stirrer!
  10. But Labour , who claim to represent the "working class " and have been in power for 10 years haven't. The Tories say they won't build any more not that they'll cl;ose down the ones thatb are already there, unlike the Labour party who have.

    The Lib Dems of course can promise all they like because they know that they'll never be called on to fulfil those promises.
  11. I think he's wrong, and I teach in a grammar school.

    Nothing wrong with the comprehensive concept; much is wrong with its implementation:

    1. Many are far too big. IMO, the optimum size for a secondary school is 8-900 pupils; large enough to accommodate most needs, but not so large that it becomes anonymous/ alienating.
    2. Streaming/ setting by ability is a must: mixed ability/ "one size fits all" teaching has been disasterous for all.
    3. Focus relentlessly on teaching "proper subjects" - drop all the trendy nonsense, and - yes - "get back to basics". Hold back pupils who do not meet the required minimum standards - they've done this for years in Germany & France, and it works.
    4. "Inclusion" of disturbed, anti-social, and psychopathic in mainstream ed has had catastrophic effects, and should end asap.
    5. All secondary schools should have their own integral 6th Forms - doesn't have to be academic; could be vocational, or a mixture of both. In my experience, it's bad news for any school where the "top dogs" are aged 15/16.
    6. Plenty of opportunities for competitive sport is a must (esp for boys!), plus a good range of other extracurricular activities. Many schools provide this, of course, but too many do not - in no small part because teachers are mired in bureaucracy; terrified by the growing "litigation culture", and no longer have ready access to appropriate playing fields.

    If these principles were implemented in all secondary schools most of the "problems" so prevalent today would disappear. Won't happen, of course, because it would be too expensive/ " not cost effective". It could easily be afforded, however, if the monumental waste that pervades education was eliminated.
  12. I was a governor of a grant-maintained selective Grammar school for several years.

    Without doubt it was the best way for underprivileged but gifted pupils to attain their academic heights.

    Pupils, from whatever backgrounds, could thrive and be happy.

    They should be encouraged, not dismissed.
  13. Is Chris Woodhead, The Ex Schools Inspector, Right . . . . . when he says sh*gging schoolgirls is good fun? I couldn't possibly comment.

    But he's not exactly shown himself to be a 'safe pair of hands', for want of a better phrase.

    Cue Frankie Howerd impressions.
  14. Totally agree.

    The bloke has got more neck than a herd of giraffes still commenting on education with his background.
  15. Grammar schools should be the socialist's ultimate weapon. Grammar schools select pupils purely on ability, regardless of class or income. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in the catchment area for a Grammar school and benefitted from it enormously. Those pupils in my year who were from low income backgrounds were given an unrivalled opportunity to develop.

    My school routinely outperformed local Independant Schools and 90% of it's pupils went on to University, some 10% of which went to Oxbridge. All of this cost my parents an optional £5 subs per term plus lunch and uniform (available free for those on income support).

    Grammar schools give pupils from low income backgrounds an unrivalled opportunity to excel on the basis of talent alone, every child should have the opportunity to sit the 11+ and attend a Grammar school if they are good enough.