Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
RichB said:
Of course an intelligent person, which you are, would also understand that a simplification of the tests will also result in the same outcome.
Now I'm not saying that has been the case but I will say categorically that an increase in A* results does not prove a improvement in the standard of education.
In general, the questions have been simplified - e.g. less complex verbiage on GCSE maths than there was on GCE - but the subject matter remains just as demanding. It's a strategy designed specifically to diminish middle class advantage, something UKIP supporters should applaud.Now I'm not saying that has been the case but I will say categorically that an increase in A* results does not prove a improvement in the standard of education.
Scuffers said:
andymadmak said:
fido said:
tangerine_sedge said:
Pushy middle class parents would do their upmost to secure grammar places for their children, leaving no space for children from poorer families.
Really, loads of poorer kids when I was at Grammar School. Yes, there were also some push parents who wanted their kids in Oxbridge, but then aspiration used to be a good thing?My brother and I were both dirt poor council house kids and we both went to Grammar school in the 70s. Most of my mates were equally poor. In fact the mix at my school was great - education was a great leveller! The entrance exam (11+) meant that if you were bright enough you got in REGARDLESS OF YOUR BACKGROUND! Thats the point that so many people miss. Put a Grammar school or two in every town and you'd have no problem with the poor being outgunned by the pushy middle classes.
11+ was abandoned because the trendy educationalists (of the Left) felt that sorting pupils by ability at that age was wrong (entirely forgetting that even if you failed 11+ you had further opportunities to qualify for Grammar education in later years)
The massive problem that needed to be addressed was the dire state of the secondary modern system that ran alongside the Grammars. These schools needed bringing up to standard by adapting the curriculum to the abilities of the kids that went to them. Instead, it was decided to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator and so Grammars were abolished. A crying shame imho. In previous decades a LOT of famous conservatives were ex Grammar school kids rather than privately educated.
no amount of middle-classness changes the outcome of the 11+
I was one of the last to do the 11+, went to a really decent grammar school only for Labour to destroy it when I was half-way though, literally turned the school into a war zone, all the decent teachers left overnight and it just became an exercise in crowd control.
Shirley Williams has a lot to answer for.
Never read so much " Ee, when I was a lad" from you both.
You ain't. You haven't been for a long time. Your comments are out of date and worthless.
Don't let that stop you lefty bashing though.
PS She did get in with flying colours, so no bitterness here, it did make me laugh though the desperation and sadness involved from a lot of parents. It's like their kid had lost out on the Noble prize. That's why Bill Gates never made any money, did sheet in his 11 plus.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 12th December 14:56
King 
said:
said: In general, the questions have been simplified - e.g. less complex verbiage on GCSE maths than there was on GCE - but the subject matter remains just as demanding. It's a strategy designed specifically to diminish middle class advantage, something UKIP supporters should applaud.
But there's the dichotomy. Why is having the ability to comprehend a question considered a middle class attribute? I would have thought it's a skill everyone would aspire to. tangerine_sedge said:
Too many different questions/responses to quote from, so I'll try and respond in one big mind-gasm!
Why do you need a different physical school to separate high achievers from the rest? Classes can be (and are) streamed by capability. Is there a worry that nice middle class kids will be tainted by urchins from the estate?
By introducing grammar schools you are re-inforcing the lack of mobility. If you don't make grammar you are not good enough for University, off to the factories and shops for you uncouth lot! What a lesson for an 11 year old kid - you are not good enough! One of my parents attended grammar in the 1950's, the other didn't. Both of them hated the system, one because opportunities were lost and the other because expectations were too high.
How do middle class parents get their kids into the local grammar? They can ensure that they are in the catchment area. They can buy extra tuition. They can cram. And they get the benefit that their parents care and read to them, etc.
Grammar schools are just better - fact. No they're not, they cherry pick the best and brightest and re-inforce the sense of elitism. You are "better" than the others because you passed the test and they didn't.
Education has gone 'down the toilet' since they abolished grammars. certainly not supported by the stats, the percentaqe of children leaving school with 5+ 'O' levels (or equivalent) has gone up from 10% in 1953 to 80% in 2009 see PDF here.
Put a grammar school or two in every town! What, build another few hundred schools across the country? What this would actually mean is some existing schools will chase grammar school status, these are not ncessarliy the best ones, or the ones with the best teachers or results. This would also mean that many children will have to make unnecessary journies across town when they have a perfectly good school just down the road. One child clever and the other a dunce? That's OK, send them off on 2 different buses!
Grammar schools are an easy 1 word solution for the core UKIP voter reminiscing about the good old 1950's. They are not inherently better than existing schools. They are divisive. They will cost additional money (either new schools built, or extra travel costs or more likely both!).
Finally, I had a very good education through the Comprehensive system. I had friends who were very clever and some who were less so. If the 11+ had existed, I would probably have passed it and ended up having to travel 4 miles to the nearest grammar rather than the 1 mile to the local comp. I was streamed all the way through to 'O' levels and had the same opportunities and chances as every one else, even though I was one of the 'rough boys' off of the estate.
Apologies for spelling etc, I should be doing my day job and not posting here!
Very good post.Why do you need a different physical school to separate high achievers from the rest? Classes can be (and are) streamed by capability. Is there a worry that nice middle class kids will be tainted by urchins from the estate?
By introducing grammar schools you are re-inforcing the lack of mobility. If you don't make grammar you are not good enough for University, off to the factories and shops for you uncouth lot! What a lesson for an 11 year old kid - you are not good enough! One of my parents attended grammar in the 1950's, the other didn't. Both of them hated the system, one because opportunities were lost and the other because expectations were too high.
How do middle class parents get their kids into the local grammar? They can ensure that they are in the catchment area. They can buy extra tuition. They can cram. And they get the benefit that their parents care and read to them, etc.
Grammar schools are just better - fact. No they're not, they cherry pick the best and brightest and re-inforce the sense of elitism. You are "better" than the others because you passed the test and they didn't.
Education has gone 'down the toilet' since they abolished grammars. certainly not supported by the stats, the percentaqe of children leaving school with 5+ 'O' levels (or equivalent) has gone up from 10% in 1953 to 80% in 2009 see PDF here.
Put a grammar school or two in every town! What, build another few hundred schools across the country? What this would actually mean is some existing schools will chase grammar school status, these are not ncessarliy the best ones, or the ones with the best teachers or results. This would also mean that many children will have to make unnecessary journies across town when they have a perfectly good school just down the road. One child clever and the other a dunce? That's OK, send them off on 2 different buses!
Grammar schools are an easy 1 word solution for the core UKIP voter reminiscing about the good old 1950's. They are not inherently better than existing schools. They are divisive. They will cost additional money (either new schools built, or extra travel costs or more likely both!).
Finally, I had a very good education through the Comprehensive system. I had friends who were very clever and some who were less so. If the 11+ had existed, I would probably have passed it and ended up having to travel 4 miles to the nearest grammar rather than the 1 mile to the local comp. I was streamed all the way through to 'O' levels and had the same opportunities and chances as every one else, even though I was one of the 'rough boys' off of the estate.
Apologies for spelling etc, I should be doing my day job and not posting here!
I live in Sevenoaks, one of the richest towns in one of the richest counties in one of the richest regions of the UK and we still have grammar schools. The pressure at 11+ is now intense. Stoked by everyone being interconnected just an email away.
My wife is a teacher of 4-5 year olds and she gets pulled in by desperate parents who are worried about the 11+.
I think it's unfair and don't agree with it.
Mind you I came from oop north, went to a state school and only got 9 o levels, 4 a levels, 1 BSc and an MSc so what do I know?
tangerine_sedge said:
Why do you need a different physical school to separate high achievers from the rest? Classes can be (and are) streamed by capability. Is there a worry that nice middle class kids will be tainted by urchins from the estate?
Too many oversimplifications to know where to start with this.The kids with higher intelligence will do better when they're surrounded by the same.
FWIW I was a nice, middle class kid who could have done a hell of a lot better at school if I'd been minded to and that does not bother me - I don't feel 'let down' by not having had a grammar school opportunity - as much as the fact that some of my antics may have hindered others who did want to learn. It being a state school, I was by no means the biggest or worst distraction. I personally never mocked or bullied those who were exceptionally intelligent or talented, but there were those who did.
From what I understood of the old grammar school system, the selection was on merit and ability, rather than background. That was certainly my father's experience. So the inference that 'urchins' would not be attending grammar schools is eroneous at best.
MarshPhantom said:
In fact it would make a lot of sense to move farming away from the over crowded (in your opinion) South East.
It would make more sense to move people. Farming happens where it happens for many reasons, but being a good place to grow stuff is a fairly fundamental one.
otolith said:
MarshPhantom said:
In fact it would make a lot of sense to move farming away from the over crowded (in your opinion) South East.
It would make more sense to move people. Farming happens where it happens for many reasons, but being a good place to grow stuff is a fairly fundamental one.Agriculture needs sun, and surprise surprise, the south gets more sun than the north!
not seen any vineyards in Scotland lately?
if your all so keen on concreting over land, why not go and do it in scotland, there's only some 5M people on 30% of the UK land mass up there.
why everybody choices to centre on the great toilet that is london I will never understand.
crofty1984 said:
Digga said:
So you're one of those pigeon-holers who thinks women can be intelligent or shaggable but not both?
Yes - too smart and my rubbish chat-up lines would never work!
The original line someone posted last night was simply "Did anyone else fall in love with her? Tiny bit?" to which someone else responded in the positive "Eye wood".
It's hardly sexist, objectification, rather a complimentary remark, so I fail to understand how people were getting so irate about it. It's not like anyone tried to belittle her (frankly impressive) performance in the debate.
Digga said:
oo many oversimplifications to know where to start with this.
The kids with higher intelligence will do better when they're surrounded by the same.
And that's exactly what streaming does. The kids of similar abilities all sit in the same classes. There is elitism, but it's in the framework of allowing children to move up or down sets as their abilities/behaviour changes. Seeing that streaming is already available, what does creating grammar schools actually do? My argument is that they don't achieve anything which most good schools are not already doing.The kids with higher intelligence will do better when they're surrounded by the same.
Digga said:
FWIW I was a nice, middle class kid who could have done a hell of a lot better at school if I'd been minded to and that does not bother me - I don't feel 'let down' by not having had a grammar school opportunity - as much as the fact that some of my antics may have hindered others who did want to learn. It being a state school, I was by no means the biggest or worst distraction. I personally never mocked or bullied those who were exceptionally intelligent or talented, but there were those who did.
That's because the grammar school system has not been functioning for a long time, therefore employers do not discriminate based upon it. Certainly in the 1950's, those that went to grammar school were expected to work in the office, and those that went to secondary or technical school were expected to man the machines.Digga said:
From what I understood of the old grammar school system, the selection was on merit and ability, rather than background. That was certainly my father's experience. So the inference that 'urchins' would not be attending grammar schools is eroneous at best.
Not entirely on merit and ability, some of the questions were biased towards middle class culture and experiences that working class kids might not have been exposed to - the often cited example is one question concerning classical composers which middle class children might know, but working class children are very unlikely to know.Mordaunt tried to be mordant, but failed. However she did manage to get the word for which she is famous into the proceedings. Not another jolly jape surely?
Brand keeps insisting he is a comedian. Well he's about as funny as haemorrhoids.
Farage was controlled, as usual, by nobody but himself. Quite reticent I thought, but relevant.
Creagh was spouting the official party line. Boring. Obviously sees a promotion opportunity.
Camilla, beg pardon for the familiarity m'dear but you are fragrant, should stand for office.
DD was very selective in who he jumped on, as ever.
Brand keeps insisting he is a comedian. Well he's about as funny as haemorrhoids.
Farage was controlled, as usual, by nobody but himself. Quite reticent I thought, but relevant.
Creagh was spouting the official party line. Boring. Obviously sees a promotion opportunity.
Camilla, beg pardon for the familiarity m'dear but you are fragrant, should stand for office.
DD was very selective in who he jumped on, as ever.
LMAO
This clip is kinda surreal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30441293
On its own its like a spoof/sketch. The lady at the end could easily have been Kathy Burke.
This clip is kinda surreal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30441293
On its own its like a spoof/sketch. The lady at the end could easily have been Kathy Burke.
This is the top of the Most Read list on the BBC News website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-3038475...
Does QT usually do that? Are the BBC hyping it up? Dimbleby slaps down Brand where Murdoch failed? Brand is a bit 6th form isn't he?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-3038475...
Does QT usually do that? Are the BBC hyping it up? Dimbleby slaps down Brand where Murdoch failed? Brand is a bit 6th form isn't he?
wc98 said:
FredClogs said:
Reduced welfare spending, tax cuts for the rich, grammer schools... UKIP is chock full or people who think the Tories have gone soft we all know it, an appeal to any political parties manifesto or policy statement as an explanation of their beliefs and motives is ridiculous, we all know politicians lie and deceive, don't kid yourself that UKIP are any different.
my initial reaction to the grammar school proposal was against it. the actual proposal involves creating enough that the current inflated house prices near grammar schools would end ,as there would be no need for people to move to be near them,creating a situation where only the well off can afford to live in the catchment area.the simple fact is since the late 80,s education standards have gone down the toilet. there should be schools where the very best students that are willing to learn get an opportunity to attend. we are wasting thousands of the very brightest kids from the poorer communities who get taught at the level of the lowest common denominator in the classes they attend. this is simply wrong,accept what we need are equal opportunities for all,but that not all are equal ,either mentally or physically. if we were ,we would all be brain surgeons and footballers and we could import half the population of europe to cover the menial tasks like banking,insurance, building formula one cars ,etc,etc
Of course Singapore based its own education system on the one left them by their appalling colonialists.
SS7
Scuffers said:
love him or loath him, Gove actually knew what he was doing, just required more bravery than the current leadership to muster.
With education? Go speak to some teachers ... I'm not sure they'd agree with you (or him) ...
Edited by uk66fastback on Friday 12th December 17:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff