vimothy
yurp
The point, as ever, is to return the incumbent leadership to power.
The point, as ever, is to return the incumbent leadership to power.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Poly students I knew were more likely to go straight into decent jobs cos their courses were generally more vocational
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
3 Body No Problem
Well-known member
Many vocational jobs require a much higher skill-set than in the past. I was discussing this matter with a guy who has a medium sized plumbing company that mostly installs heatings and AC-units. The equipment used for e.g. measuring energy efficiency is quite computer heavy: the type of person who used to do plumbing in the past lacks numeracy and computer skills to deal with this. A friend of mine teaches at a school where car mechanics have part of their training and he tells similar stories.
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
Ok, while I was cogitating this thread has moved on a lot and a whole bunch of different things have been brough up, so I'm just going to concentrate on what initially caught my interest (and pushed my blood pressure up a little 
).
What you’re conveniently overlooking here is the small matter of money. Private schools bring in fees which pay for better facilities, up to date teaching materials and equipment and higher wages that can entice the best teachers to work for them. It is this hefty financial input which is initially required to get the virtuous circle you describe moving in the first place; so not only is entry determined by financial matters unrelated to the pupils' intelligence, but these entry fees help fuel the development of a structural inequality in the system. This is why to my mind the continued existence of 'public' schools and other independent fee-paying institutions is unacceptable.
(I suspect that you might reply by saying something like ‘well, people wouldn’t pay the fees and put so much effort into getting a place if they weren’t already confident in getting good results for their investments’, and then we’re left with a sort of chicken-and-egg scenario, what comes first, the funding or the success? We can partially avoid this problem in the case of public schools by remembering why historically they were first founded – they were tied specifically to providing an education for certain wealthy and powerful families, to help maintain and strengthen a position of privilege. This is clearly no longer their explicit purpose, but it is what has allowed to grow into such wealthy, attractive, high-prestige institutions).
It’s also worth remembering that even if they wanted to, private schools can’t offer anything like all of their places in the form of scholarships; their survival clearly depends on taking in substantial fees from the families of paying students. (And if private schools paid for all of their tution fees through government-funded scholarships, then clearly they wouldn't be private any more!).
When it comes to grammar schools things are more complicated, as it is at least possible to have a system which is based on selection but not on ability to pay - that was more or less how it used to work after all. I am open to persuasion about some kind of reintroduction of the old 11-plus, tripartite system, although at heart I would prefer not to go in this direction, because of the potential for divison and tension within communities that it opens up and also because I believe that the only feasible times for the entry tests would still be too early in the child's intellectual development.
But all this aside, surely you can’t be in favour of the current compromise system, where a small percentage of grammar schools are allowed to survive within a wider comprehensive system? Not only does this mean that most grammar school pupils do end up having to pay some form of fee, but the scarcity of the schools means that extraneous factors play a big part in determining who can attend them. As Mr Tea touched upon upthread, where there is only one grammar school within a wide area, determination to fall within the catchment area leads to people moving home, already a substantial financial undertaking for most people, and as this process continues over time, house prices rise in the area, making it more difficult for people to access the school. Not to mention that for people in many parts of the country, even this isn’t an option, there are literally no grammar schools within any feasible distance of where they live.
The above points are the crux of my position, and the ones I would most like to see addressed. Bearing that in mind, I have also have some more rambling, half-finished thoughts about the whole debate:
A question that has come up a few times - Do the minority of highly intelligent pupils, (agreeing for the sake of argument that their intelligence is primarlily innate, rather than an upshot of the education itself) always suffer from being taught solely through an 'average', mixed-stream comprehensive education system? Well, clearly sometimes they do, though it’s an open question how much of this is currently due to underfunding, poor facilities and resultant demotivation of staff than to the inherent limitations comprehensive system itself.
But there are plenty of counter-examples too - don_quixote has talked about going from a local comp to Oxbridge (which is a bloody brilliant achievement of course) and I could add my own experience: going to a comprehensive which was basically the only high school in the area, with dilapitaed facilities and few oddball teachers with outdated views of the curriculum and career axes to grind, but also with plenty of really enthusiastic, hard-working ones who went well beyond the call of duty for us; working pretty damn hard through out, ending up with good grades and then getting accepted to one of the best Scottish unis where I eventually graduated top of my year. Which I'm aware sounds like a show-off statement, but my point is that I'm sure there are plenty of other stories like that out there.
But again, the main point for me is not a comprehensive education is somehow intrinsically deficient, but that it's at a structural disadvantage to the other current options. No matter how well the average intelligent pupil is doing at a comp high school, in terms of grades, depth and variety of knowledge, and also prospects for the future, my hunch is that the average intelligent pupil at a grammar school will be being provided a better service, and the average one at a public school a better one still. Which strikes me as neither fair or neccessary.
Another thing worth mentioning, and this would go back to a less positive side of my high-school experience, is that I believe the average middle-class pupil will fit in better or feel more at home in the current education system than the average working-class one (again, assuming here comparable levels of native intelligence, and keeping our considerations purely to comprehensive schools). I don’t think this is primarily down to prejudice, certainly not some kind of conspiracy, it’s an unhappy accident of the whole school set-up. Middle-class pupils and their teachers are more likely to relate to each other through shared accents and vocabularly, shared cultural reference points, perhaps being in contact socially through parents, etc. At the time of our Highers espcially, it seemed like middle-class chappies such as myself ended up pretty much monopolising the teachers' time in terms of study help etc., without anyone involved really wanting or meaning for it to end up like this, and this is clearly a real shame if true But I'm aware from what some other people have posted that this view will be a bit controversial, so
I'd like to say again that it's not at the core of my argument.
You've posed the question, how would I reform the current educations system? (Which seems a bit of an evasive way to respond, btw, the good old 'but what's your alternative?' strategy). Well, I’ll lay my cards on the table and say that a first stage has to be to the bringing to an end, without exception, of fee-paying education and the nationalisation of all current private schools. I would then be in favour of the introduction of a single comprehensive system of education for children, reaching up to their mid-to-late teens. Whilst I’m not opposed to specialisation, diversity, even some selection, I believe it has to exist against the backdrop of this standard, equal education; not as an alternative to it, but as an addition to it.
).What you’re conveniently overlooking here is the small matter of money. Private schools bring in fees which pay for better facilities, up to date teaching materials and equipment and higher wages that can entice the best teachers to work for them. It is this hefty financial input which is initially required to get the virtuous circle you describe moving in the first place; so not only is entry determined by financial matters unrelated to the pupils' intelligence, but these entry fees help fuel the development of a structural inequality in the system. This is why to my mind the continued existence of 'public' schools and other independent fee-paying institutions is unacceptable.
(I suspect that you might reply by saying something like ‘well, people wouldn’t pay the fees and put so much effort into getting a place if they weren’t already confident in getting good results for their investments’, and then we’re left with a sort of chicken-and-egg scenario, what comes first, the funding or the success? We can partially avoid this problem in the case of public schools by remembering why historically they were first founded – they were tied specifically to providing an education for certain wealthy and powerful families, to help maintain and strengthen a position of privilege. This is clearly no longer their explicit purpose, but it is what has allowed to grow into such wealthy, attractive, high-prestige institutions).
It’s also worth remembering that even if they wanted to, private schools can’t offer anything like all of their places in the form of scholarships; their survival clearly depends on taking in substantial fees from the families of paying students. (And if private schools paid for all of their tution fees through government-funded scholarships, then clearly they wouldn't be private any more!).
When it comes to grammar schools things are more complicated, as it is at least possible to have a system which is based on selection but not on ability to pay - that was more or less how it used to work after all. I am open to persuasion about some kind of reintroduction of the old 11-plus, tripartite system, although at heart I would prefer not to go in this direction, because of the potential for divison and tension within communities that it opens up and also because I believe that the only feasible times for the entry tests would still be too early in the child's intellectual development.
But all this aside, surely you can’t be in favour of the current compromise system, where a small percentage of grammar schools are allowed to survive within a wider comprehensive system? Not only does this mean that most grammar school pupils do end up having to pay some form of fee, but the scarcity of the schools means that extraneous factors play a big part in determining who can attend them. As Mr Tea touched upon upthread, where there is only one grammar school within a wide area, determination to fall within the catchment area leads to people moving home, already a substantial financial undertaking for most people, and as this process continues over time, house prices rise in the area, making it more difficult for people to access the school. Not to mention that for people in many parts of the country, even this isn’t an option, there are literally no grammar schools within any feasible distance of where they live.
The above points are the crux of my position, and the ones I would most like to see addressed. Bearing that in mind, I have also have some more rambling, half-finished thoughts about the whole debate:
A question that has come up a few times - Do the minority of highly intelligent pupils, (agreeing for the sake of argument that their intelligence is primarlily innate, rather than an upshot of the education itself) always suffer from being taught solely through an 'average', mixed-stream comprehensive education system? Well, clearly sometimes they do, though it’s an open question how much of this is currently due to underfunding, poor facilities and resultant demotivation of staff than to the inherent limitations comprehensive system itself.
But there are plenty of counter-examples too - don_quixote has talked about going from a local comp to Oxbridge (which is a bloody brilliant achievement of course) and I could add my own experience: going to a comprehensive which was basically the only high school in the area, with dilapitaed facilities and few oddball teachers with outdated views of the curriculum and career axes to grind, but also with plenty of really enthusiastic, hard-working ones who went well beyond the call of duty for us; working pretty damn hard through out, ending up with good grades and then getting accepted to one of the best Scottish unis where I eventually graduated top of my year. Which I'm aware sounds like a show-off statement, but my point is that I'm sure there are plenty of other stories like that out there.
But again, the main point for me is not a comprehensive education is somehow intrinsically deficient, but that it's at a structural disadvantage to the other current options. No matter how well the average intelligent pupil is doing at a comp high school, in terms of grades, depth and variety of knowledge, and also prospects for the future, my hunch is that the average intelligent pupil at a grammar school will be being provided a better service, and the average one at a public school a better one still. Which strikes me as neither fair or neccessary.
Another thing worth mentioning, and this would go back to a less positive side of my high-school experience, is that I believe the average middle-class pupil will fit in better or feel more at home in the current education system than the average working-class one (again, assuming here comparable levels of native intelligence, and keeping our considerations purely to comprehensive schools). I don’t think this is primarily down to prejudice, certainly not some kind of conspiracy, it’s an unhappy accident of the whole school set-up. Middle-class pupils and their teachers are more likely to relate to each other through shared accents and vocabularly, shared cultural reference points, perhaps being in contact socially through parents, etc. At the time of our Highers espcially, it seemed like middle-class chappies such as myself ended up pretty much monopolising the teachers' time in terms of study help etc., without anyone involved really wanting or meaning for it to end up like this, and this is clearly a real shame if true But I'm aware from what some other people have posted that this view will be a bit controversial, so
I'd like to say again that it's not at the core of my argument.
You've posed the question, how would I reform the current educations system? (Which seems a bit of an evasive way to respond, btw, the good old 'but what's your alternative?' strategy). Well, I’ll lay my cards on the table and say that a first stage has to be to the bringing to an end, without exception, of fee-paying education and the nationalisation of all current private schools. I would then be in favour of the introduction of a single comprehensive system of education for children, reaching up to their mid-to-late teens. Whilst I’m not opposed to specialisation, diversity, even some selection, I believe it has to exist against the backdrop of this standard, equal education; not as an alternative to it, but as an addition to it.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Some good points, Andy, but the 'how would would you set things up' question that I posed is a bit of a strategic one, rather than a cop-out or diversion. This is because I think that envisaging a private-school-less system is possible, but only at first glance.
Abolish private and grammar schools and the advantages that financially or culturally-blessed families have would still express themselves. The diet that state schools provide would be supplemented by out-of-hours tuition by, yet again, the best tutors that money can buy. Or, even more drastically, parents would withdraw their children completely and home-school, either themselves or using tutors (private schools as they are could be seen as 'grouped home-tutoring arrangements'). Or, they would emigrate. Q. How would you prevent this?
I don't see how private tuition or opting-out could be prevented without infringing civil liberties.
Q. Would you abolish special schools and integrate their charges into the comprehensive system too?
Abolish private and grammar schools and the advantages that financially or culturally-blessed families have would still express themselves. The diet that state schools provide would be supplemented by out-of-hours tuition by, yet again, the best tutors that money can buy. Or, even more drastically, parents would withdraw their children completely and home-school, either themselves or using tutors (private schools as they are could be seen as 'grouped home-tutoring arrangements'). Or, they would emigrate. Q. How would you prevent this?
I don't see how private tuition or opting-out could be prevented without infringing civil liberties.
Q. Would you abolish special schools and integrate their charges into the comprehensive system too?
Last edited:
Tentative Andy
I'm in the Meal Deal
Thanks very much for geting back to me, m_b
The things you mention here concern me, for sure, and I'm not at all sure that I have solutions to them at the moment. What I would say, though, is that any inequalities generated by these developments would be piecemeal ones compared to the current structurally institutionalised ones. So things would be on balance improved, if not perfect. Not every wealthy child or family is going to want to take on the extra effort of either engaging in extra tutition on top of normal school hours or opting out and learning how to teach themselves entirely. Similarly, I think the number of potential teachers who would be attracted into private tuition would be rather less than those attracted into fee-paying schools, given that tutoring involves a rather different skill set and, as I understand it, often less regular work.
"Q. Would you abolish special schools and integrate their charges into the comprehensive system too"
Yes, to as much of an extent that it didn't damage the education of those currently within the special schools. And if this stage was reached, then I think it would have to be a requirement that governent funding should be availabe for all those who wished to attend the special skills but had difficulties with any fees involved.
And, as I tried to explain before but prob didn't make very clear, I mentioned my own comprehensive education experiences as a counterpoint to the claim that comps will always hold back intelligent pupils that somtimes advanced as an argument in favour of the increased use of selection and grammar schools.
The things you mention here concern me, for sure, and I'm not at all sure that I have solutions to them at the moment. What I would say, though, is that any inequalities generated by these developments would be piecemeal ones compared to the current structurally institutionalised ones. So things would be on balance improved, if not perfect. Not every wealthy child or family is going to want to take on the extra effort of either engaging in extra tutition on top of normal school hours or opting out and learning how to teach themselves entirely. Similarly, I think the number of potential teachers who would be attracted into private tuition would be rather less than those attracted into fee-paying schools, given that tutoring involves a rather different skill set and, as I understand it, often less regular work.
"Q. Would you abolish special schools and integrate their charges into the comprehensive system too"
Yes, to as much of an extent that it didn't damage the education of those currently within the special schools. And if this stage was reached, then I think it would have to be a requirement that governent funding should be availabe for all those who wished to attend the special skills but had difficulties with any fees involved.
And, as I tried to explain before but prob didn't make very clear, I mentioned my own comprehensive education experiences as a counterpoint to the claim that comps will always hold back intelligent pupils that somtimes advanced as an argument in favour of the increased use of selection and grammar schools.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
If I were wealthy, had children of talent who were en route to an unsatisfactory school and were bereft of alternatives, I would send them to a top private school abroad, possibly following them. Many parents rightly see their children's years of schooling as of paramount importance and widen their net accordingly - this is why so many private school pupils here are received from abroad. Would you want to risk such an exodus of talent (and cash)?
Would you abolish private faith schools, eg. Muslim schools? Q. Don't communities have a right to establish schools that communicate their own beliefs?
After all, without the somewhat artificial organised schooling/babysitting system, children would be taught by their immediate community.
bassnation
the abyss
i think every school in the uk (which is after all secular) should teach a defined curriculum which encompasses evolution and also sex education. if they don't agree to that, then they shouldn't be teaching British children, full stop. what people do in their own homes is up to them, but i'll be damned if i'm going to pay to teach kids fairy tales and bigotry.
in addition, my view is that money should not be able to buy a better future. every kid deserves the best chance. i am not prepared to jump the queue and pushy parents who want the best for their kids not giving a fuck about the bigger picture make me angry. why not pump that energy and drive into improving things for everyone.
however, my girlfriend has made me question my view of this. she is 2nd generation british black, her parents were jamaican. her mum got her a scholarship in a public school. she is doing the same for her kids. she pointed out to me that black kids, especially boys have to work that much harder here to achieve the same. she does not see it as cheating, but more levelling the opportunities. i hadn't considered this. i went to a comprehensive in a rough area and have maintained a chip on my shoulder about what i perceive to be the unfairness of the world at large. how people thicker than me ended up by default as asset managers in banks, by virtue of their parents wealth. its very confusing and i'm not sure how i really feel about it.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
It's a private school - you wouldn't be paying for any of it; the parents who send their children there would! And being 'private', it's an extension of another private sphere: the home.
Just throwing this out there...There might also be an issue with nurseries - they are fee-paying and arguably give an unfair advantage. Are they to be banned or state-subsidised across the board (at great expense)?
Last edited:
bassnation
the abyss
good point, but even private schools have to abide by the curriculum. and don't forget that 1 in 10 of every human being is gay. what kind of support are religious schools going to give to those students? there is cultural sensitivity and then there is turning a blind eye to things you know are wrong. i don't believe in objectivity when it comes to human rights but I have no problem at all with communities providing the education that they feel their kids need, but some lines should not be crossed.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I don't think that this is the case, as private schools have been discussing abandoning the NC recently (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article2872801.ece)...You seem to be arguing for at least a legally-enforced basic curriculum, I suppose.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yes, in the blink of an eye. That's just me being me, though.
But seriously, there's nothing to stop parents bringing their kids up to believe whatever nebulous hokum they like at home, so why must there be schools to ram it down their throats as well? If you've got religious kids who feel they have to take a couple of minutes out from each day to pray or whatever, or there's enough kids from a certain community to justify halal or kosher lunch options, then fair enough. Accommodating existing beliefs is one thing, but I don't think schools should be reinforcing and propagating them.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Yes, in the blink of an eye. That's just me being me, though.
But seriously, there's nothing to stop parents bringing their kids up to believe whatever nebulous hokum they like at home, so why must there be schools to ram it down their throats as well? If you've got religious kids who feel they have to take a couple of minutes out from each day to pray or whatever, or there's enough kids from a certain community to justify halal or kosher lunch options, then fair enough. Accommodating existing beliefs is one thing, but I don't think schools should be reinforcing and propagating them.
Mosques, synagogues, churches do the same thing, with teachers that claim that their word is the truth and children, dragged along by their parents, obliged to attend, arrayed in observant rows. Shall we ban them too?
And presumably Muslims would feel aggrieved to find, once their teachings have been outlawed - private actions forbidden by being dragged into the public sphere - that they must swallow hokum that has been designed precisely to be nebulous: namely the short period of pseudo-religious observance that state schools are required to provide. The only difference being that the latter hokum has been sanctioned by the majority...
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I never said I wasn't going to ban that too!
However I can't see where you got the idea I want to ban churches, mosques &c. - places of worship are places for, well, worship. Schools are there to educate, not indoctrinate.
(I bet everything I own someone is going to tell me that the REAL purpose of schools is to do EXACTLY THAT, of course...
)
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Subjective terms really:
'educate' = ppl teaching things that I believe are true
'indocrinate' = ppl teaching things that I believe are false
It seems a little inconsistent that private faith schools be not permitted to teach their faith whilst places of worship still are, when there is no real difference between them: they are both sites where communities voluntarily assemble to tell each other stuff.
Quite what business we have meddling in either place, barring a clear and present danger to our own safety, is beyond me.
(And if it's coercion to believe (ie. ppl teaching things that not only I believe are false, but also the student privately regards as false) per se that worries you, then places of worship, being far more effective at this kind of thing than schools are, are where efforts should be directed.)
Last edited:
bassnation
the abyss
yes, i believe the state has a responsibility to teach certain things, particularly in the realm of science and sex education, no matter what particular faith the school proclaims. there are important social and health reasons for doing so, don't you think?
the whole point of having a secular society is to permit worship and tolerance thereof, but also to garantee a framework of fairness for everyone. this means that bigotry, even if people claim it is integral to their faith is unacceptable. we don't allow kingdoms within kingdoms as we once did with the christian church, where clergymen were not subject to the laws of the land, but only to the laws of the church. we had to fight long and hard to achieve this and i will fight the creeping encroachment of religiosity in public life as long as i have breath in my body.
Last edited: