Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
What the hell?!? Since when did some spaced out pseudo-intellectual druggie "comedian" like Brand become some sort of politi heavyweight debater? Why is the daft twerp even given air time? He should sick to what he knows best ie. Shooting up whatever s
t he's got up the veins in his arms.
How have things got to this? What next? Brain surgery consultations from Krusty the Clown?
t he's got up the veins in his arms. How have things got to this? What next? Brain surgery consultations from Krusty the Clown?
Let's not forget Nulabour's abolition of the assisted places scheme that actually allowed people such as myself (both parents were printers) to attend a Grammar school
I can honestly say that I am an underachiever from the guys that I went to school with - but gained a superb and well rounded education and foundation in life
Since the abolition of assisted places it's results have declined, as they have had to chase the money rather than the quality of student. They also opened a primary school and nursery for the same reason. This used to be one of the top schools in the area. It then went free around 2 years ago and has recently announced that they are closing the 6th form next year due to lack of subscription
How is that progress?
I can honestly say that I am an underachiever from the guys that I went to school with - but gained a superb and well rounded education and foundation in life
Since the abolition of assisted places it's results have declined, as they have had to chase the money rather than the quality of student. They also opened a primary school and nursery for the same reason. This used to be one of the top schools in the area. It then went free around 2 years ago and has recently announced that they are closing the 6th form next year due to lack of subscription
How is that progress?
King said:
said: Not to mention that, despite being no more intelligent, public school children also monopolise a disproportionate number of places at our best universities and, once they graduate, their parents can afford to support them through years of unpaid internships. (Let's not forget that a bog standard private education costs iro £30,000 pa - paying upkeep for another couple of years means very little to someone with the means to afford it).
Of course, Turbobloke will be along to tell us how the whole system is skewed towards the poor and stupid, who should be grateful for any gobbets of nourishment falling from his silver plated trough.
May I correct you. Paying upkeep for a few more years means very much to most parents of privately educated children. Most parents of privately educated children are not billionaires, or even millionaires, they are instead making a lot of sacrifices to put their children through private school. The route to my children's school goes past a state school. It is noticeable that the cars dropping children off there are much more expensive than those at the private school- because the former aren't making the same sacrifice.Of course, Turbobloke will be along to tell us how the whole system is skewed towards the poor and stupid, who should be grateful for any gobbets of nourishment falling from his silver plated trough.
And before you accuse me of being born "in a silver trough", I wasn't. I went to state (comprehensive) school, and never got the new bike, or went on the nice holidays that many of my friends did. What I did get, was two loving parents who believed in education, and did all they could to help me. Please don't whinge if I do the same for my children (whilst still of course paying tax for the places at a state school that my children don't use)
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Friday 12th December 14:09
I live in south Buckinghamshire where grammar schools still survive. There were some children from a local council estate who went to, and thrived at, local grammars, including a girl whose father worked for a HGV breakdown company - hardly middle class and pushy. She went on to Oxford University. If the 11+ is correctly designed as an aptitude test rather than a knowledge test it is not possible to cram for it. As it happens the local secondary modern school was rated better than many comprehensives over the county borders, so losing the 'cream' didn't hamper them particularly. At the time my children were entering secondary education c.15% went to grammars. Of course there will always be those who try to beat the system but I imagine if there's only comprehensives and there's a locally well regarded one such as the London Oratory, even a true socialist might be tempted to do what is necessary to get his/her offspring into it by whatever means it takes. 
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.
andymadmak said:
The massive problem that needed to be addressed was the dire state of the secondary modern system that ran alongside the Grammars.
Especially true of the town I grew up in. A Grammar school and private school, both surrounded by very bad secondary schools. Guess where everyone tries to their kids into? Clue: I passed the entrance/scholarship exam for the private school but still went to the Grammar. Have to say, I didn't enjoy the experience because I was one of the less well-off kids but it would have been same or worse at a private school. This has been made worse as the neighbouring Grammar schools became comprehensive and parents are now stuck with spending over £15k a year OR moving to a house in the Borough with some change from a £1m! It's basically a private school lottery for the middle classes - but that's not the fault of the Grammar system.Edited by fido on Friday 12th December 14:14
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.
Scuffers said:
MarshPhantom said:
There are vast swathes of unspoilt countryside just 20 miles from central London.
and just does one propose we actually do agriculture (ie, where do you think food comes from?)I would like to think that the UK has enough arable land and livestock to sustain the needs of the country if the worst happens.....
Scuffers said:
MarshPhantom said:
There are vast swathes of unspoilt countryside just 20 miles from central London.
and just does one propose we actually do agriculture (ie, where do you think food comes from?)In fact it would make a lot of sense to move farming away from the over crowded (in your opinion) South East.
wc98 said:
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 
NONSENSE!!! Standards have risen year on year for the last 3 decades with a good jump forward coming in the late '90s. This is the issue that people can't face, the amount of A* pupils proves that standards are better and the fact that there's such an outcry about university places proves people are cleverer and more better educmacated than when I was young!.... which is what I would be saying if I were a brain-dead labour apparatchik
Scuffers said:
well said!
no amount of middle-classness changes the outcome of the 11+
Please look up Cyril Burt, the man behind the 11+.no amount of middle-classness changes the outcome of the 11+
The 11+ was never a 'fair' unbiased examination. Nor are current IQ type tests unbiased.
If you were wishing to design a series of tests to select middle class people, IQ tests would be an excellent place to start.
MarshPhantom said:
Scuffers said:
MarshPhantom said:
There are vast swathes of unspoilt countryside just 20 miles from central London.
and just does one propose we actually do agriculture (ie, where do you think food comes from?)In fact it would make a lot of sense to move farming away from the over crowded (in your opinion) South East.
irocfan said:
...the amount of A* pupils proves that standards are better...
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.
RichB said:
irocfan said:
...the amount of A* pupils proves that standards are better...
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.
Question 1. Iroc has two parrots. He gives Rich a parrot. How many parrots does Rich have?
Smiler. said:
MarshPhantom said:
Scuffers said:
MarshPhantom said:
There are vast swathes of unspoilt countryside just 20 miles from central London.
and just does one propose we actually do agriculture (ie, where do you think food comes from?)In fact it would make a lot of sense to move farming away from the over crowded (in your opinion) South East.
Justayellowbadge said:
RichB said:
irocfan said:
...the amount of A* pupils proves that standards are better...
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.
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!
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!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff