Grammar Scools - should they continue: how would you vote if you had the chance?
Martin Frey
grammar schools to vote on whether selection should be ended and
comprehensive schools introduced, or whether the grammar and secondary
modern schools should continue.
If you had a vote on this issue how would you vote?
Please let me know, by filling in a form at
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~markat/survey.htm
You'll see from my signature that I'm against, but all opinions are
valued and recorded.
Cheers
Martin Frey
------------------------------------------------------
From Martin Frey mar...@easynet.co.uk
STEP - Stop The Eleven Plus in Kent and Medway
http://www.gn.apc.org/makstep/
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~markat/
------------------------------------------------------
Philip J West
Martin Frey wrote in message <36475262...@news.easynet.co.uk>...
[snip]
>------------------------------------------------------
>From Martin Frey mar...@easynet.co.uk
>STEP - Stop The Eleven Plus in Kent and Medway
>http://www.gn.apc.org/makstep/
>http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~markat/
>------------------------------------------------------
If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
Phil
Stuart James Fotheringham
<910655411.3413.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
>and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
>
>Phil
>
Bullshit!
Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
intellectually different.
Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
travesty to all.
Stuart James Fotheringham
st...@stoo.demon.co.uk
Tom Sacold
Ian Diddams
through a 13+ system whereby all children attended a comprehensive
school for the first two years of post-primary education.
A form of "continual assessment" (I assume) was then used to select
those children that would pass on to a local Grammar school (then
renamed "Upper" school but the the schools had the same heads and staff
etc and reverted to the "Grammar" school name sometime in the 80s!!).
We sat no formal exams (that I know of anyway), hence I assume the
"continual assessment" route.
Having been educated at both a streamed comprehensive (A and B streams)
and a Grammar school, I would have to say based on my personal
experiences I would have to vote in favour of Grammar schools, with the
caveat that I am not personally cponvinced that an 11+ exam would
necessarily "catch" the "correct person" at the right time. For
example, almost undoubtably my brother would have failed an 11+
following his (frankly) poor primary education (we attended different
primary schools), but had progressed enough to "pass" the 13+
assessment, and ended up acheiving a higher level degree than I - a path
that would have effectively been denied him had he attended instead the
comprehensive schools in our area (aside from a lot of "external" hard
work by him, and delaying University entrance by at least a year and
probably two). That all said, my old Grammar school has now reverted to
an 11 year old intake but I have no idea of the entrance criteria now
and how it is "acheived", and I would have to add that I didn't
particularly enjoy my 2 years at the comprehensive - I basically found
it too impersonal.
In my experience (and thus I suppose opinion) this system served
children reasonably well... it was more likely to find the more
academically orientated scholars while ensuring that those whose
academic development wained (for whatever reason) didn't end up
struggling for their entire Grammar school life.
The "problem" with a streamed system (and as i pointed out above the
secondary school I attended used streaming itself!) I feel lies mainly
with the perception that Grammar school education is "better" than that
of "secondary" school... it needs to be widely/universally understood
that the education is not "better" but rather "better applied" - ie
academic kids get an academic education, wheras those echildren whose
skills and abilities lie on other areas - practical subjects such as
woodwork, metal work, home economics, clothing etc, or art and design -
end up at schools that can offer those areas. My Grammar school would
have useless for anybody that struggled with the written word but whose
hands could talk... similarly, those of us whose bent was turning
num,bers inside out would have floundered in our pathetic efforts at
trying to make anything out of wood that didn't fall apart immediately
it was picked up (Bill Bryson describes this non-ability brilliantly in
one of his books where he was reduced to the woodwork table with the kid
that nobody liked and the kid that spent the entire class eating the
glue and whose name he never learnt in several years of woodwork!)
So - Grammar schools yes, but 11 is too young to select, and general
perceptions of a "better" education need to be re-aligned.
--
Didds.
Need a UK mobile phone deal? Full packages and SIM-only deals available
at low cost - mailto:di...@usa.net
Richard Herring
> If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
> and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
If primary education were beter,maybe idiots wouldn't crosspost
to inappropriate and nonexistent groups.
[followups trimmed].
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
Rapunzel
> If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
> and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
a
ironic?
Rapunzel
> Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
> children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
> intellectually different.
>
> Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
> less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
> travesty to all.
Ah but ability varies differently in different areas, so you need one
school covering the full ability range in each subject so that math
dummies who happen to be ace at geography can be streamed accordingly.
Selection is good but has to be done separately for each subject,
otherwise you lose more than you gain.
My ideal would be to have each subject modular, with 2 or even 3
'speeds' for each module, so that the pupils can take an appropriate
module for their ability when they're ready in any subject.
Jeremy Barker
James Fotheringham <st...@stoo.demon.co.uk> writes
>Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
>children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
>intellectually different.
>
>Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
>less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
>travesty to all.
>
Not separating by ability (in different schools) does not mean
treating them all the same.
Jeremy Barker
Innumerable forms of evaluation haunt our simplest decisions
Iris Murdoch
Stuart James Fotheringham
>grammar schools to vote on whether selection should be ended and
>comprehensive schools introduced, or whether the grammar and secondary
>modern schools should continue.
>
>If you had a vote on this issue how would you vote?
I've donated cash to the campaign to keep selection in Kent, because I would
vote to keep it -- it worked for me and my friends and family.
The Sunday Times published the list of the top 250 state schools in England
and Wales two weeks ago, it was immediately apparent that Kent had much
better results than the rest of the country. More than 10% of the top
performing schools were located within this county, no other part of the
country even came close, and every one of these Kent schools (in the top
250) is a selection driven grammar/high school.
<<snip>>
>From Martin Frey mar...@easynet.co.uk
>STEP - Stop The Eleven Plus in Kent and Medway
Medway is in the county of Kent -- isn't this like saying Kent and Dover?
Stuart James Fotheringham
st...@stoo.demon.co.uk
Nick Leaton
> The Sunday Times published the list of the top 250 state schools in England
> and Wales two weeks ago, it was immediately apparent that Kent had much
> better results than the rest of the country. More than 10% of the top
> performing schools were located within this county, no other part of the
> country even came close, and every one of these Kent schools (in the top
> 250) is a selection driven grammar/high school.
The obvious question. Are these at the expense of the other schools. If
not, no problem. If they are, then there is a problem in that 90% are
being denied an education comparable with elsewhere in the country.
--
Nick
Tom Sacold
Jeremy Barker wrote in message <86GsNCAk...@jbark.demon.co.uk>...
From my experience from teaching in a variety of comps. you will find that
setting produces generally the same group of pupils in each set. Most
children who are bright / intelligent / have ability (choose the one you
prefer) are good across the subject range. Most also tend to come from a
normal home background.
Dead Mangled Pigeon
Tom Sacold wrote in message <729r6t$ejh$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>...
>
[snip]
>From my experience from teaching in a variety of comps. you will find that
>setting produces generally the same group of pupils in each set. Most
>children who are bright / intelligent / have ability (choose the one you
>prefer) are good across the subject range. Most also tend to come from a
>normal home background.
>
With respect, sir, doesn't that indicate that there might be something
lacking in your methods of determining intelligence/ability?
Some children with Autism are extreme examples of people who appear less
intelligent in many conventional ways yet exhibit remarkable abilities in
other areas.
Surely all children excel in certain areas ("everybody is good at
something...") and it is the duty of the education community to unearth
these "hidden" skills and to develop them in ways that can be used to
provide the child with their benefits?
The penal system already does this in a very small way by teaching young
car-thieves how to build and race stock cars, etc.
Julian
Paul Womar
> If you had a vote on this issue how would you vote?
I would vote to have people who crosspost randomly with off-topic shit
set of fire.
If anyone else feels like they'd like to comment of the original drivel,
please cut out the inappropriate groups.
FU set.
--
-> The email address in this message *IS* Valid <-
Karim Adab
>Bullshit!
>
>Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
>children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
>intellectually different.
>
>Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
>less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
>travesty to all.
Couldn't agree more, same applies to private schools. Let there be
CHOICE for parents and kids.
Cheers,
Karim
--
ka...@nospamzaki.demon.co.uk (remove "nospam" to mail)
Keep Right On.....BCFC
algoss
Fotheringham" <st...@stoo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Philip J West wrote in message
><910655411.3413.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
>>and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
>>
>>Phil
>>
>
>
>Bullshit!
>
>Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
>children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
>intellectually different.
>
>Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
>less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
>travesty to all.
>
>
Bullshit
Children develope at different rates. Seperating them at 11
throws a hell of a lot on the scrap heap. We need continuous
assessment and more money thrown at education.
Alan Goss
J W B Greenwood
Stuart James Fotheringham <URL:mailto:st...@stoo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Philip J West wrote in message
> <910655411.3413.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
> >and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
> >
> >Phil
> >
>
>
> Bullshit!
>
> Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
> children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
> intellectually different.
>
> Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
> less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
> travesty to all.
>
>
Comprehensives, properly run according to the original concepts, give that
to their pupils within the same school. Thus no pupil will feel that they
have been singled out for different treatment, better or worse, than their
peers.
--
Malcolm Campbell
Stuart James Fotheringham wrote:
> I've donated cash to the campaign to keep selection in Kent, because I would
> vote to keep it -- it worked for me and my friends and family.
So you're saying "I'm all right Jack" ?
I don't think there's much dispute about it serving those that pass
the 11+ well - surely the issue is that those who "fail" and go to
other schools have a vastly reduced chance of reaching their academic
potential?
Not being particularly knowledgable about education, I listen to the
views of a relative who has many years experience teaching final year
primary children. She says the problem is that a number of children of
average ability (or higher) are sent to schools where they stand
little or no chance of gaining good academic qualifications, merely on
the dice throw of one or two exams.
Surely a system where children can move up (or down) a set once a year
is going to be fairer than one where the unlucky ones are consigned to
the academic dustbin at age 11?
--
MalcolmC
Steve
<arf...@hotmail.com> writes
>Bullshit
>Children develope at different rates. Seperating them at 11
>throws a hell of a lot on the scrap heap. We need continuous
>assessment and more money thrown at education.
That isn't an argument against selection. That's an argument against
throwing those who are less able at 11 on the scrapheap.
FWIW, I did very well at school, in a non-selective environment. I might
have done better out of the company of dickheads.
--
Steve
Lose the Zs to reply
Jeremy Barker
<tom.s...@NoSpam.com> writes
>>>Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
>>>children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
>>>intellectually different.
>>>
>>
>>>Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also
>the
>>>less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
>>>travesty to all.
>>>
>> treating them all the same.
>
>setting produces generally the same group of pupils in each set. Most
>children who are bright / intelligent / have ability (choose the one you
>prefer) are good across the subject range. Most also tend to come from a
>normal home background.
>
children can vary significantly in their abilities in different
subjects - not to mention their potential for future development.
My point is that children cannot be split into narrow
categories each suitable for a particular type of school. Most
schools should be able to get the best out of both the bright and
the dim child.
J W B Greenwood
> Bullshit
> Children develope at different rates. Seperating them at 11
> throws a hell of a lot on the scrap heap. We need continuous
> assessment and more money thrown at education.
>
> Alan Goss
>
>
We don't want money thrown at anything, intelligently spent in an
effective manner is the best way.
--
Penny Mayes
>
>Stuart James Fotheringham wrote:
>
>> I've donated cash to the campaign to keep selection in Kent, because
>> I would vote to keep it -- it worked for me and my friends and
family.
>
>So you're saying "I'm all right Jack" ?
>
>I don't think there's much dispute about it serving those that pass
>the 11+ well - surely the issue is that those who "fail" and go to
>other schools have a vastly reduced chance of reaching their academic
>potential?
>
>
>Surely a system where children can move up (or down) a set once a year
>is going to be fairer than one where the unlucky ones are consigned to
>the academic dustbin at age 11?
I would like to quote a teacher friend (not from Kent) on this subject:
"I know that grammar schools are very nice
(if run well) but they cost too much.
The cost is telling the children who don't
get there that they were not good enough."
Penny Mayes remove cap to reply
No one can approach in imbecility the wise man besotted by his own
wisdom. Ustinov
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In my experience (and thus I suppose opinion) this system served
> children reasonably well... it was more likely to find the more
> academically orientated scholars while ensuring that those whose
> academic development wained (for whatever reason) didn't end up
> struggling for their entire Grammar school life.
Where I lived as a kid, the grammar school was in an up-market private
housing area, and the secondary modern on a council estate. It was quite
obvious where you were meant to go. The whole point of the system was to
ensure that if you were born poor you stayed there. "We know our place"
and all that.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Pellatt
>I would like to quote a teacher friend (not from Kent) on this subject:
>
>"I know that grammar schools are very nice
>(if run well) but they cost too much.
>
>The cost is telling the children who don't
>get there that they were not good enough."
Let me turn that around a bit:
"The cost is convincing the children who don't go to grammar
schools that they have different skills and abilities from
those who do go there. This in no way means that "they're
not good enough". And also trying to convince _everyone_
that academic achievement is absolutely no measure whatsoever
of an individual's worth, either to themselves or to society
as a whole"
Having said that, I strongly disagree with such extreme
streaming by academic ability [1] at such a young age, with
very little chance of moving between "streams". And, if the
young person does move, it's at huge cost to their social
networks, which are highly school-based.
[1] i.e. by physical location
--
Mike Pellatt
Matthew M. Huntbach
> I don't think there's much dispute about it serving those that pass
> the 11+ well - surely the issue is that those who "fail" and go to
> other schools have a vastly reduced chance of reaching their academic
> potential?
The grammar school / secondary modern system was set up at a time when it
was assumed society needed 20% of its people doing "brain work" and 80%
doing "manual work". We no longer live in such a society - why keep an
education system designed for it? The problem in our society today ISN'T the
20% who would go to grammar schools. Those with high academic ability are doing
okay. So it really is idiotic to go on and on about grammar schools as if
the way to improve society's education standards is to concentrate on just
that top 20%. It's the rest who need the work doing on them. No-one has ever
produced any real evidence that having the top 20% creamed off benefitted the
rest. Have you ever heard anyone say "I was really glad I went to a
secondary modern - it was so much better being there and not having all
these really bright kidsaround me distracting me"?
Matthew Huntbach
Martin Frey
>The Sunday Times published the list of the top 250 state schools in England
>and Wales two weeks ago, it was immediately apparent that Kent had much
>better results than the rest of the country. More than 10% of the top
>performing schools were located within this county, no other part of the
>country even came close, and every one of these Kent schools (in the top
>250) is a selection driven grammar/high school.
Were you to look at such a list for the worst performing schools you
find even more Kent schools represented. We've got 17 schools
performing worse than the worst school in Hackney. Remember that
school in Surrey that they want to shut or have run by a private
company? Kent has 32 schools (out of 125) getting worse results, and
10 doing less than half as well. Selection supporters tend not to look
at the Siamese twins of grammar schools - secondary moderns. They have
been a problem for 50 years and nobody has solved it.
>Medway is in the county of Kent -- isn't this like saying Kent and Dover?
Medway became a unitary authority, administratively separate from Kent
in April this year. There will be separate petitions/ballots for each
area. Dover remains under KCC
------------------------------------------------------
From Martin Frey mar...@easynet.co.uk
STEP - Stop The Eleven Plus in Kent and Medway
Jeremy Fieldsend
case, the opportunity for one of my children to go to one of the best
Grammar Schools in the country suits him very well. For our other son
this would be inappropriate and we have opted for a comprehensive.
However, this particular school is so oversubscribed that - guess what -
it has to select! Their criteria is not the 11+ but the fact remains,
that for a significant percentage of their intake, they select.
This raises a point. If there were no Grammar Schools, there would still
be selection - arguably even more. If grammar schools were abolished,
there would still be some schools that - for whatever reason - would be
more popular that others. What will they do to control their intake?
They'll select.
Tom Sacold
> What you say as a rough generality is no doubt true. However
> children can vary significantly in their abilities in different
> subjects - not to mention their potential for future development.
> My point is that children cannot be split into narrow
> categories each suitable for a particular type of school. Most
> schools should be able to get the best out of both the bright and
> the dim child.
>
Who is talking about narrow categories. In my opinion the top 25% of the
ability range ie those who would benefit from a traditional University
education, should be in Grammar Schools.
Tom Sacold
<snip>
>
>Comprehensives, properly run according to the original concepts, give that
>to their pupils within the same school. Thus no pupil will feel that they
>have been singled out for different treatment, better or worse, than their
>peers.
>
Why shouldn't pupils who have ability be given the environment in which it
can maximised?
None of the Comps. in which I have taught actually actively encouraged the
bright pupil. They may well have policy documents that addressed the
problem, but all the special needs resources were directed to the low
ability pupils and those with "social" problems. The bright pupils were
left to get on with it.
In a mixed ability class teachers aim their lessons at the middle range
pupil (despite what you might hear or read). Most of the teachers time will
be taken up with dealing with the low ability pupils, who will ask basic
question after basic question, and the trouble makers ( all classes have at
least one so as not to create a sink group ). The rest of the class, 20 -25
out of 30 will sit there doing their worksheets occasionally asking a
question, but getting only about 25% of my attention! For the couple of
really good ones there are extension worksheets, but these do not substitute
for the attention I should be giving them.
This is the reality of a Comprehensive School.
Rapunzel
> Children develope at different rates.
ah yes that's another thing -= this strict age banding our schools have
is stupid. perhaps there might be less disruptive activity in classes
if a few of the pupils were people in their 20s, 30s, or 40s who
/wanted/ to learn? might not their presence have a restraining effect
on some of the sillier kids? instead of the gang called 4B you'd have
groups of people who come to learn. oh it wouldn't work really i
suppose, just another nutmeg dream
Tom Sacold
Jeremy Fieldsend wrote in message
<1dibobk.svs...@userj363.uk2.uudial.com>...
Or there would be self selection by parents who are able to buy houses in
the catchment area!
dEEJ
>As someone who was educated in North/Mid Kent in the 70s, I passed
>through a 13+ system whereby all children attended a comprehensive
>school for the first two years of post-primary education.
[snipped fairish arguments]
>ie
>academic kids get an academic education, wheras those echildren whose
>skills and abilities lie on other areas - practical subjects such as
>woodwork, metal work, home economics, clothing etc, or art and design -
>end up at schools that can offer those areas. My Grammar school would
>have useless for anybody that struggled with the written word but whose
>hands could talk... similarly, those of us whose bent was turning
>num,bers inside out would have floundered in our pathetic efforts at
>trying to make anything out of wood that didn't fall apart immediately
>it was picked up
[snipped quote from Bill]
Do you not find this slightly patronising to all those kidz that did
have the ability to further themselves in this area but did not have the
prior education provided by the poor teaching they received in previous
years? Not all the folk at my comprehensive (also a '13 & up') - which
I remained at for 5 years - were into building bird boxes or cooking,
some of us weren't given the opportunity to become scholars...
<sniff, sniff>
>So - Grammar schools yes, but 11 is too young to select, and general
>perceptions of a "better" education need to be re-aligned.
It's always 'too young' to select, because I've had to go back to study
now at 25, but I don't think school could wait quite that long for me...
:)
******
*dEEJ*
******
dEEJ
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1998 00:10:27 -0000, Penny Mayes <ma...@peCAPmail.net> wrote:
>
>>I would like to quote a teacher friend (not from Kent) on this subject:
>>
>>"I know that grammar schools are very nice
>>(if run well) but they cost too much.
>>
>>The cost is telling the children who don't
>>get there that they were not good enough."
>
>Let me turn that around a bit:
>
>"The cost is convincing the children who don't go to grammar
>schools that they have different skills and abilities from
>those who do go there. This in no way means that "they're
>not good enough".
which would have absolutely no effect on children. I remember they
split my second to last year of primary school into two groups, for
whatever reason, and I missed the cut. They could've told me it was
because I wore glasses or 'smiled funny' or anything, I wasn't listening
by then, all I knew was that my mates were elsewhere...
<sniff>
>And also trying to convince _everyone_
>that academic achievement is absolutely no measure whatsoever
>of an individual's worth, either to themselves or to society
>as a whole"
a good job etc...
>Having said that, I strongly disagree with such extreme
>streaming by academic ability [1] at such a young age, with
>very little chance of moving between "streams". And, if the
>young person does move, it's at huge cost to their social
>networks, which are highly school-based.
the same school, by subject.
I disagree, kids need to learn that people move on, imagine if you spent
15 or whatever years with the same bunch of people at school, it paints
a rosy picture of the outside world, especially now with the lack of a
stable 'career' afterwards.
******
*dEEJ*
******
Matthew M. Huntbach
> <snip>
> >Comprehensives, properly run according to the original concepts, give that
> >to their pupils within the same school. Thus no pupil will feel that they
> >have been singled out for different treatment, better or worse, than their
> >peers.
> Why shouldn't pupils who have ability be given the environment in which it
> can maximised?
> None of the Comps. in which I have taught actually actively encouraged the
> bright pupil. They may well have policy documents that addressed the
> problem, but all the special needs resources were directed to the low
> ability pupils and those with "social" problems. The bright pupils were
> left to get on with it.
A comprehensive school is one that takes in pupils of all abilities.
There is nothing in that definition that states it takes pupils of all
abilities but ignores some of them.
> In a mixed ability class teachers aim their lessons at the middle range
> pupil (despite what you might hear or read). Most of the teachers time will
> be taken up with dealing with the low ability pupils, who will ask basic
> question after basic question, and the trouble makers ( all classes have at
> least one so as not to create a sink group ). The rest of the class, 20 -25
> out of 30 will sit there doing their worksheets occasionally asking a
> question, but getting only about 25% of my attention! For the couple of
> really good ones there are extension worksheets, but these do not substitute
> for the attention I should be giving them.
A comprehensive school is one that takes pupils of all abilities. There is
nothing in that definition that states it shouldn't have streaming.
Matthew Huntbach
Ian Diddams
>
> Where I lived as a kid, the grammar school was in an up-market private
> housing area, and the secondary modern on a council estate. It was
> quite obvious where you were meant to go. The whole point of the
> system was to ensure that if you were born poor you stayed there. "We
> know our place" and all that.
Thinking about it, I suppose the two comprehensives in Sittingbourne
were based in slightly more 'working class" areas/streets than the
Grammar School (although the distinction may be confused by the fact
that the Grammar School is slap bang in the middle of town, no doubt on
prime development land...) although that class distinction got shot away
when a new, 3rd comp was built in arguably the poshest area of the town
of the 4 schools!
That aside, matthews comments are either a sad endictment of the
socienty we live in, or merely a reflection of less equal and
enlightened times when that distinction while arguably incorrect was no
doubt suited for the class of area and the school it's children were
likely to attend... buildings are notoriously difficult to move around.
--
Didds.
Need a UK mobile phone deal? Full packages and SIM-only deals available
at low cost - mailto:di...@usa.net
Ian Diddams
>
> Do you not find this slightly patronising to all those kidz that did
> have the ability to further themselves in this area but did not have
> the prior education provided by the poor teaching they received in
> previous years?
REasonable point, although I feel patronizing is too stroing a word -
pragmatic to the extent of bluntness would be closer to the truth. IMO.
And the attempt to offset the "day of judgement" until 13 at least gave
those whose prinmary education was crap/insufficient/lacking (like my
brother) some chance to overcome those weaknesses. I would concur
however that a good primary education was probably of better use
generally in this 'selection" process than two years "catch up",
generally speaking.
> Not all the folk at my comprehensive (also a '13 & up') - which
> I remained at for 5 years - were into building bird boxes or cooking,
> some of us weren't given the opportunity to become scholars...
> <sniff, sniff>
Point taken, and I can see how my earlier description/post could be
gratuitous and patronisingly simplistic. No insult intended but of
course there are many children that don;t shine either academically or
artictically/workshoppingly (!); just like there are some flash bastards
who are just bloody brilliant at bloody everything. Gits.
> It's always 'too young' to select, because I've had to go back to
> study now at 25, but I don't think school could wait quite that long
> for me...
Well, I guess we return to the "pragmatic to the extent of bluntness"
approach in this regard!! :-)
If the general eloquence of your posts is anything to go by Deej, you
ain't done bad mate!
Where was "your" 13+ system?
dEEJ
>> Not all the folk at my comprehensive (also a '13 & up') - which
>> I remained at for 5 years - were into building bird boxes or cooking,
>> some of us weren't given the opportunity to become scholars...
>> <sniff, sniff>
>
>Point taken, and I can see how my earlier description/post could be
>gratuitous and patronisingly simplistic.
>No insult intended
None taken
>but of
>course there are many children that don;t shine either academically or
>artictically/workshoppingly (!); just like there are some flash bastards
>who are just bloody brilliant at bloody everything. Gits.
believe to be the largest problem facing English children's futures. It
seems to be seen in schools as the perfect teachers excuse, "John just
couldn't be bothered" etc... Surely this is a problem that could be
addressed ?(not that I have any answers - I was a major purpetrator (sp?
;)
Anyway, my sister's a primary school teacher, I'm gonna talk to her
about it, see what she thinks...
>> It's always 'too young' to select, because I've had to go back to
>> study now at 25, but I don't think school could wait quite that long
>> for me...
>
>Well, I guess we return to the "pragmatic to the extent of bluntness"
>approach in this regard!! :-)
Possibly...
>If the general eloquence of your posts is anything to go by Deej, you
>ain't done bad mate!
I thankyou most gracioustly, my old son.
>Where was "your" 13+ system?
The Cornwallis School, Linton, Maidstone...
Apparently it's reputation has risen since my days. Although I
thorougly enjoyed the 5 years of social freedom (women, women, women)
the academic content there was sadly (then) of no interest to my noddle.
Mind you, I remember the days...
******
*dEEJ*
******
Jeremy Barker
<tom.s...@NoSpam.com> writes
also take into account factors other than a school's perceived academic
standards. And how to you deal with the few percent who are just below
whatever figure you choose? ISTM that generalisations of this kind are
dangerous.
The greater problem is how to improve the educational
standards of the bottom half of the ability range. Our brighter
children compare reasonably well when compared with other countries.
Those lower down the scale do not. It is easier to see the problem than
the solution!
(some newsgroups snipped).
Martin Frey
Having been lightly grilled, if not properly flamed for cross-posting,
and beginning to find it damn hard to keep up with the minor
differences in postings between groups could you please restrict
posting further messages on this subject to
uk.local.kent
only.
Can I thank those who kept their feet off the petrol pedal for their
forebearance and ask if I am the only one to notice that a majority of
the keep out - not your group etc, posters, couldn't actually resist
having a pop at the subject?
I think education belongs to all - not just those who've been given
the chance of a vote, not just uk.education.etc, and not just the
articulate middle classes such as me.
But if you could just post to uk.local.kent we'd probably all be
better off.
Thanks for the responses anyway - except the obscene e-mail: my mother
was a remarkable woman, but what you suggest is impossible even for
her.
Cheers
Martin
--
Martin Frey It is wrong always and everywhere to believe anything on insufficient evidence
Stuart Cresswell
from "Dead Mangled Pigeon" <edg...@dddionecorp.com> contains these words:
> Tom Sacold wrote in message <729r6t$ejh$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>...
> >
> [snip]
> >From my experience from teaching in a variety of comps. you will find that
> >setting produces generally the same group of pupils in each set. Most
> >children who are bright / intelligent / have ability (choose the one you
> >prefer) are good across the subject range. Most also tend to come from a
> >normal home background.
> >
> With respect, sir, doesn't that indicate that there might be something
> lacking in your methods of determining intelligence/ability?
> Some children with Autism are extreme examples of people who appear less
> intelligent in many conventional ways yet exhibit remarkable abilities in
> other areas.
> Surely all children excel in certain areas ("everybody is good at
> something...") and it is the duty of the education community to unearth
> these "hidden" skills and to develop them in ways that can be used to
> provide the child with their benefits?
> The penal system already does this in a very small way by teaching young
> car-thieves how to build and race stock cars, etc.
> Julian
With respect, sir, Tom said "most" and you chose one special group
with very small numbers (what you said about them is perfectly
valid). You also said that "all children excel in certain areas".
Neither of your counter-arguments invalidates Tom's statement that
"most children..."
May I, respectfully of course, suggest that you check your logic -
maybe that is one area in which, though you excel in others, you are
not at your best?
Stuart
John M Chapman
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>
>Comprehensives, properly run according to the original concepts, give that
>to their pupils within the same school. Thus no pupil will feel that they
>have been singled out for different treatment, better or worse, than their
>peers.
>
>
and most educationalists most of the time
BUT dont try fooling the kids!!!
>
--
John M Chapman
Neil Wilson
are not served by any schools in this country. A very great many of them end
up socially inadequate, mentally ill, drug ridden, alcoholic or deep in
debt.
I find it strange that there are special schools/remedial classes for the
educationally subnormal, but those who are educationally supernormal are
left to fend for themselves.
As already mentioned in this debate the educational system is still
following an industrial revolution model. Mass education for mass production
workers. That society has ceased to exist. Education now needs to be tuned
to developing the abilities and flexibility of each and every individual.
Unfortunately society is not prepared to pay for it.
---
Neil Wilson (neil@aldur on the demon.co.uk network)
Aldur Systems Ltd, UK
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote in message
John M Chapman
<j...@jbark.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
> What you say as a rough generality is no doubt true. However
> children can vary significantly in their abilities in different
> subjects - not to mention their potential for future development.
> My point is that children cannot be split into narrow
> categories each suitable for a particular type of school. Most
> schools should be able to get the best out of both the bright and
> the dim child.
I think it would be truer to say that children can vary tremendously in
their response to different subjects. If you accept the concept of a
bright and a dim child then a bright child is likely to able to excel at
any academic subject. The fact that many dont is not a variation of
ability just inclination.
--
John M Chapman
John M Chapman
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> writes
>
>A comprehensive school is one that takes pupils of all abilities. There is
>nothing in that definition that states it shouldn't have streaming.
>
the performance of a school has more to do with its organisation and the
techniques employed than the quality of its intake. This will probably
be brought out nicely when schools have to publish their improvement
rating.
--
John M Chapman
la...@number11.demon.co.uk
James Fotheringham <st...@stoo.demon.co.uk> writes
> More than 10% of the top
>performing schools were located within this county, no other part of the
>country even came close, and every one of these Kent schools (in the top
>250) is a selection driven grammar/high school.
That's all very well for the pupils in those schools, but it ignores the
results of the non-selective schools in the area. Selection is generally
great for helping the already achieving pupils get even better results,
but it also means those not 'creamed off' to go to grammar schools are
left to sink further.
I am certainly not biased because I am in my last (7th) year at one of
the top 10 grammar schools in the country, and while I appreciate all
the advantages that being at my school has given me, the selective
system has harmed many of the people I went to primary school with as
much as, if not more than, it has helped me.
In my humble opinion, the education system provided 'free' by the
government should be one which offers a good education for all, rather
than a brilliant education for more intelligent children and a basic one
for those who don't pass the 11 plus, i.e real comprehensive schools,
with streaming where necessary.
My school does get excellent results,but there would be something
seriously wrong with it if it didn't, as it takes the brightest girls in
the city and beyond, from families who are supportive enough of their
education to enter them for the entrance exam, and predominantly middle
class. Plus, while on paper it may be an excellent school, there are far
too many girls leaving with serious psychological problems, eating
disorders, etc, for my liking, which can't be helped by the academic
hothouse atmosphere.
--
laura
Matthew M. Huntbach
> To be honest not all of them are. Those few with very high academic abilty
> are not served by any schools in this country. A very great many of them end
> up socially inadequate, mentally ill, drug ridden, alcoholic or deep in
> debt.
Er, yes, going to Oxford or Cambridge University tends to do that to you :-).
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <H08a+AAz...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M Chapman
> <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> writes
> >You can fool some of the parents some of the time
> >and most educationalists most of the time
> >BUT dont try fooling the kids!!!
> Exactly, kids are so clever these days they could teach themselves.
That's what I did to a large extent. Good thing public libraries were a
lot better stocked with a lot more intelligent material in those days than
they are now.
Matthew Huntbach
MJ Drew
: In article <72blp5$b2o$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, Tom Sacold
: <tom.s...@NoSpam.com> writes
: ><snip>
: >> What you say as a rough generality is no doubt true. However
: >> children can vary significantly in their abilities in different
: >> subjects - not to mention their potential for future development.
: >> My point is that children cannot be split into narrow
: >> categories each suitable for a particular type of school. Most
: >> schools should be able to get the best out of both the bright and
: >> the dim child.
: >
: >
: >Who is talking about narrow categories. In my opinion the top 25% of the
: >ability range ie those who would benefit from a traditional University
: >education, should be in Grammar Schools.
: >
: It depends on the child, and on the school. Parents may
: also take into account factors other than a school's perceived academic
: standards. And how to you deal with the few percent who are just below
: whatever figure you choose? ISTM that generalisations of this kind are
: dangerous.
: The greater problem is how to improve the educational
: standards of the bottom half of the ability range. Our brighter
: children compare reasonably well when compared with other countries.
: Those lower down the scale do not. It is easier to see the problem than
: the solution!
Ideally we would have different schools with different educationaly
philosophies and Parent/children would chose the school that most catered
for their particular way of learning. However I can't see this happening
for two reasons. a) Very few parents appear to assess their own children
and b) we now have too rigid approach to education where all schools have
to follow the latest whim of Government/Woodhead.
: (some newsgroups snipped).
:
: Jeremy Barker
: Innumerable forms of evaluation haunt our simplest decisions
: Iris Murdoch
--
Mike Drew
Northavon Constituency MPs 1 Lib Dem
S. Glos Councillors: Lab 2, Lib Dem 25, Con4
South Gloucestershire Unitary Council:Lab 31, Lib Dem 30, Con 8, Ind 1
Yate Town Council: Lab 1, Lib Dem 20
Mike Pellatt
>Ideally we would have different schools with different educationaly
>philosophies and Parent/children would chose the school that most catered
>for their particular way of learning. However I can't see this happening
>for two reasons. a) Very few parents appear to assess their own children
>and b) we now have too rigid approach to education where all schools have
>to follow the latest whim of Government/Woodhead.
Who (the latter) was merrily whimming away last night, at a supper
evening with Surrey CC members (and a couple of head teachers, and
the co-opted members of the Education Committee [1]).
I didn't get time to ask my question (he had to go at 21:30) but
it seems he, too, has spotted that any half-decent school can now
get a good Ofsted report by going through the right motions. (Which
was what I was going to assert in my question).
His solution ?? Encourage everyone in the education system
to develop a culture of continuous improvement ??? Nope.
Bring in a new category of schools - "coasting" schools.
Sheesh.
To be fair, he does recognise that the Ofsted system has
its failings. If only he'd say that more often, more publically,
then we might move to "all batting from the same wicket".
[1] Which includes Peter Bruinvels. But that's another
story.
--
Mike Pellatt
Jeremy Barker
<jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> writes
>> children can vary significantly in their abilities in different
>> subjects - not to mention their potential for future development.
>> My point is that children cannot be split into narrow
>> categories each suitable for a particular type of school. Most
>> schools should be able to get the best out of both the bright and
>> the dim child.
>
>their response to different subjects. If you accept the concept of a
>bright and a dim child then a bright child is likely to able to excel at
>any academic subject. The fact that many dont is not a variation of
>ability just inclination.
>
have specific as well as general abilities? But I'm no expert and stand
to be corrected :-)
Jeremy Barker
writes
>Ideally we would have different schools with different educationaly
>philosophies and Parent/children would chose the school that most catered
>for their particular way of learning.
It does happen to some extent in the private sector.
> However I can't see this happening
>for two reasons. a) Very few parents appear to assess their own children
>and b) we now have too rigid approach to education where all schools have
>to follow the latest whim of Government/Woodhead.
>
a) Most parents have some idea of what they want from a school,
even though it may be partly social. IMO far more attention (at any
rate in the public sector) needs to be given to finding out what
parents and children really want out of education. I suppose that most
want their children to do well in exams. and thereafter get a good job.
A useful dialogue should take the question much further. Schools will
not get the best out of children if they and/or their parents do not
understand the full point of it.
b) In general I agree, although some downwards pressure has been
needed to shake up the system and improve standards. We need less
emphasis on exam. results and more on relevant life learning.
The classification of schools into different types - grammar,
secondary, bilateral etc - is beginning to break down and we certainly
should not try to impose a new type (though 'coasting' may appeal to
some teachers!).
Val
> be selection - arguably even more. If grammar schools were abolished,
> there would still be some schools that - for whatever reason - would be
> more popular that others. What will they do to control their intake?
> They'll select.
Having moved to Kent from an area of Scotland I am very bemused by the
system down here. Why does an intake need to be controlled? Why doesn't
every school only take from a particular catchment area? This would negate
any need for selection of any kind. Each school would become the focus of
it's community. I think that the lack of this is what I find strangest of
all. Children are put on buses to schools miles from their homes or
parents drive them. There seems to be very little community spirit around
the schools because there is no *one* community which they serve.
Ann
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:v...@angry.com> wrote:
Snipped.......
>
> Having moved to Kent from an area of Scotland I am very bemused by the
> system down here. Why does an intake need to be controlled? Why doesn't
> every school only take from a particular catchment area? This would negate
> any need for selection of any kind. Each school would become the focus of
> it's community. I think that the lack of this is what I find strangest of
> all. Children are put on buses to schools miles from their homes or
> parents drive them. There seems to be very little community spirit around
> the schools because there is no *one* community which they serve.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
The English lady, newly moved to Edinburgh, asked the local butcher's lad
for a sheep's head and it had to be English. The lad looked puzzled. The
butcher shouted across, "Och laddie, pick one o' yond and tak' the brains
oot."
If a system is made more complicated than need be, it provides more excuses
to answer the question of, "Why have things gone wrong?" Wrangling over the
answers is more interesting than setting up a simple system which will
produce the the desired result 99% of the time.
--
MJ Drew
: > This raises a point. If there were no Grammar Schools, there would still
: > be selection - arguably even more. If grammar schools were abolished,
: > there would still be some schools that - for whatever reason - would be
: > more popular that others. What will they do to control their intake?
: > They'll select.
: Having moved to Kent from an area of Scotland I am very bemused by the
: system down here. Why does an intake need to be controlled? Why doesn't
: every school only take from a particular catchment area? This would negate
: any need for selection of any kind. Each school would become the focus of
: it's community. I think that the lack of this is what I find strangest of
: all. Children are put on buses to schools miles from their homes or
: parents drive them. There seems to be very little community spirit around
: the schools because there is no *one* community which they serve.
I am opposed to selection but we do have to be aware that even with
neighbourhood schools there can be selection by the ability to buy your
home near a "good" school.
: Ann
:
:
Rob
uk.politics.misc :
>Philip J West wrote in message
><910655411.3413.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>If primary education were better then there wouldn't be a need for the 11+
>>and ALL schools would be up the standards expected of grammer schools.
>>
>>Phil
>>
>
>
>Bullshit!
>
>Some children are naturally brighter than their compatriots -- other
>children are less able than others. It's a fact of life that we're all
>intellectually different.
>
>Separating by ability serves not only the more gifted pupils -- but also the
>less well educationally adept pupils -- treating them all the same is a
>travesty to all.
>
Hear hear Stuart.
It is so typical of the small mindedness of the current govt that they
would seek to end Grammar schools. Why should the less able pupils
drag down the more able ?
--------
Somebody Call my Momma, I'm fixen to hurt somebody"
Robin
<jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <ant10104...@brooke.u-net.com>, J W B Greenwood
><bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>
>>
>>Comprehensives, properly run according to the original concepts, give that
>>to their pupils within the same school. Thus no pupil will feel that they
>>have been singled out for different treatment, better or worse, than their
>>peers.
>>
>>
>and most educationalists most of the time
>BUT dont try fooling the kids!!!
>>
>
rag gives him a good kicking for 'talking posh'
--
Robin ( the P***artist formally known as Splee )
Please remove 'spam' on reply.
Robin
<Pa...@wight.demon.co.uk> writes
>X-No-Archive: yes
>>and most educationalists most of the time
>>BUT dont try fooling the kids!!!
>
>
the teachers are!
Robin
<jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <uQrIXBAS...@jbark.demon.co.uk>, Jeremy Barker
><j...@jbark.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>>
>> What you say as a rough generality is no doubt true. However
>> children can vary significantly in their abilities in different
>> subjects - not to mention their potential for future development.
>> My point is that children cannot be split into narrow
>> categories each suitable for a particular type of school. Most
>> schools should be able to get the best out of both the bright and
>> the dim child.
>
>I think it would be truer to say that children can vary tremendously in
>their response to different subjects. If you accept the concept of a
>bright and a dim child then a bright child is likely to able to excel at
>any academic subject. The fact that many dont is not a variation of
>ability just inclination.
>
do have behavioural, health of problems at home that may affect their
attainment.
At my sons school ( GM Comp Cof E( so *they* say)) most of his friends
achieved 9 or 10 A's at GCSE and many went on to gain 3 or 4 A's at
advanced level. It is rated in the top hundred or so state schools and
we were just plain lucky to live just around the corner from it. His
best friend, born on the same day, attended Oundle school and did
slightly less well than my son.
Of course there probably was a hidden selection procedure as the school
is heavily oversubscribed and we never hid the fact that we were not
Christain.
Alex Ingram
mail address "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
and posted at 10:39:24 on Thu, 12 Nov 1998
wrote about Grammar Scools - should they continue: how would you vote
if you had the chance?>> In article <H08a+AAz...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M Chapman
>> <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>> >You can fool some of the parents some of the time
>> >and most educationalists most of the time
>> >BUT dont try fooling the kids!!!
>
>> Exactly, kids are so clever these days they could teach themselves.
>
>lot better stocked with a lot more intelligent material in those days than
>they are now.
>
>Matthew Huntbach
I'm doing that for my computing.
They refused to offer me a 6th year Computing course, so I'm picking up
better C, Pascal and UNIX skills in my spare time.
--
Alex Ingram - e-mail: al...@good1.demon.co.uk I am a Member of:
homepage: members.easyspace.com/alexingram/ *TEAM-AMIGA* AND
ICQ: 7624204 *** KEEP GATES CLEAR *** Madness Mailing List(s)
Why not look at my Madness fan site? * http://www.takeorleave.com *
J W B Greenwood
Since the money for state schools comes from Income Tax consider the
fairness of the following. A person who would have been 'selected' as
'less able' when at school is a metal basher who works full time and
as many hours as he can to better his family's conditions. In the
course of this he pays much more tax than his middle class neighbours.
Perhaps you could say, subsidising them.
If his children cannot reach the 'selective mark' at a certain age, do
you consider they should suffer for that ? Even when it is known that
many people who are slow learners early in their educational life,
through no fault of their own, attain much higher standards of
education later than do the 'grammar school' pupils.
A case of 'pull up the ladder Jack, I'm aboard' ?
--
Val
> you consider they should suffer for that ? Even when it is known that
> many people who are slow learners early in their educational life,
> through no fault of their own, attain much higher standards of
> education later than do the 'grammar school' pupils.
This can be so true! My oldest son was written off at the age of 11 as
being a non achiever and a child who was never likely to achieve. However,
he obtain a 2.1 degree and is now doing a Ph.D at a highly respected
institute. He went to a local comprehensive, I hasten to add not in Kent.
His friend however, was judged a real high flyer at this age, a child
destined for great things, he was sent to a prestigious private school and
received every attention possible. He barely made the grade for uni and
dropped out after one year. Four years down the line he is still on
benefit.
I am quite sure that this case is not a one off. There must be many
children who are written off as 'non academnic' at 11 who, given the
opportunity, could go on and be of real benefit to society, but if you
label them as failures (for this is how the children see it) at this young
age, they will they be able to haul themselves out of the self fullfilling
dead end they feel they are allotted? And how many seemingly bright kids
at 11 never fullfil their early promise? It is an injustice to each set to
pigeon hole them!
PS - I liked the 'sheep joke'!
Ann
John M Chapman
on.co.uk.spam> writes
>>
>>I think it would be truer to say that children can vary tremendously in
>>their response to different subjects. If you accept the concept of a
>>bright and a dim child then a bright child is likely to able to excel at
>>any academic subject. The fact that many dont is not a variation of
>>ability just inclination.
>>
>I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'many don't' Some bright children
>do have behavioural, health of problems at home that may affect their
>attainment.
to his/her potential. My point was however that not attaining for a
bright child is hardly subject dependent - they will do well in subjects
they like or where they like a particular teacher. The idea that a
child is 'bright' in one subject and 'dim' in another is a reflection of
inclination not ability.
--
John M Chapman
carmella smith
went to grammar school after attending both a private school and a state
primary school.
I found the 11 plus (in Lincolnshire at least) to be more of an IQ test
than a test of potential academic ability.
The questions were based largely upon logic, and not ability, for
example, to learn languages, to write essays and other skills crucial to
passing GCSE and A'level exams etc...
As a pupil at a state primary school, I found that many other children
were not interested in studying and bullied others that wanted to get
on, that did their home-work, that answered questions in class etc.
I don't disagree with the comprehensive system, but i do think it is
difficult for certain children to get on well in that environment.
On the other side of the coin, some pupils who attended my grammar
school were not happy there. They left and went on to the local
comprehensive!
I think a whole lot of reorganisation would have to take place in the
system to keep every student happy and to cater for their needs.
In article <Zrct5AA0...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M Chapman
<jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> writes
--
carmella smith
Roger Watts
la...@number11.demon.co.uk writes
'Out of the mouths.....'
--
Roger Watts
Mike Pellatt
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>Since the money for state schools comes from Income Tax consider the
>fairness of the following. A person who would have been 'selected' as
>'less able' when at school is a metal basher who works full time and
>as many hours as he can to better his family's conditions. In the
>course of this he pays much more tax than his middle class neighbours.
^^^^
Eh ?? Surely you mean less ??
>Perhaps you could say, subsidising them.
[ snip rest of case which seems pointless given this rather strange
assertion ]
--
Mike Pellatt
Jeremy Fieldsend
> In article <1dibobk.svs...@userj363.uk2.uudial.com>,
> jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com (Jeremy Fieldsend) wrote:
>
> > I know that's almost a cop-out, but in my own
> > case, the opportunity for one of my children to go to one of the best
> > Grammar Schools in the country suits him very well. For our other son
> > this would be inappropriate and we have opted for a comprehensive.
>
> Hahahaha. Spot the deliberate fallacy.
Beats me. But then you probably went to a Grammar school.
MJ Drew
If the Grammar school creams off the "top" 20% what is left is not
comprehensive!
MJ Drew
: In article <1didjy2.ya...@userc068.uk.uudial.com>,
: jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com (Jeremy Fieldsend) wrote:
:
: > <6...@hack.powernet> wrote:
: >
: > > In article <1dibobk.svs...@userj363.uk2.uudial.com>,
: > > jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com (Jeremy Fieldsend) wrote:
: > >
: > > > I know that's almost a cop-out, but in my own
: > > > case, the opportunity for one of my children to go to one of the best
: > > > Grammar Schools in the country suits him very well. For our other son
: > > > this would be inappropriate and we have opted for a comprehensive.
: > >
: > > Hahahaha. Spot the deliberate fallacy.
: >
: > Beats me. But then you probably went to a Grammar school.
: Here's a clue: Define Comprehensive school; define Grammar school; define
: Secondary Modern.
:
: If an area has Grammar schools, then the so-called "Comprehensive schools"
: are not in actual fact Comprehensive schools at all; they are secondary
: moderns. Discuss.
:
:
This was not always true. When I started secondary school in Bristol
(1962) Bristol still had a selective education but it had Comprehensive
Schools as well as Grammars and Secondary Moderns but the number of
Grammar Places was such that many of the 11 plus passes had to go to a
Comprehensive and in those days quite a significant number of parents
chose Comprehensive over Grammar Schools.
In fact when Bristol scrapped selective education (1963) my School,
Withywood Comprehensive, ceased to be in actuality a Comprehensive School,
as it only then took children from its local neighbourhood. In my
"grammar" class, I was the only local child, the rest came from elsewhere
in the city.
Bristol Comprehensive schools suffered from catchment areas which were too
uniform in social class.
: Round my way (where my own county is rigidly selective but the neighbouring
: counties are Comprehensive), most parents choice for their child (in order)
: are:-
:
: (1) Grammar School
: [(2) Private School]
: (3) Comprehensive school in a neighbouring County
: (4) Local Secondary Mod in this county
:
: But quite a few people just choose (3).
:
:
©or!
MJ Drew wrote in message ...
>Jeremy Fieldsend (jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
>: <6...@hack.powernet> wrote:
>:
>: > In article <1dibobk.svs...@userj363.uk2.uudial.com>,
>: > jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com (Jeremy Fieldsend) wrote:
---8<---[relevant crap torn up and put through my shredder]
>If the Grammar school creams off the "top" 20% what is left is not
>comprehensive!
What is left is 80%. (and sexually frustrated!)
--
Cor!
Jeremy Fieldsend
>
> If an area has Grammar schools, then the so-called "Comprehensive schools"
> are not in actual fact Comprehensive schools at all; they are secondary
> moderns.
[snip]
No. Because many parents (and their children) *choose* not to attend a
Grammar School even though they qualify. That makes the schools they
choose Comprehensive. And in order to maintain their comprehensive
status many schools will not accept pupils that had a Grammar School as
their first choice and then failed to get in.
However, my other point is that these schools in refusing failed Grammar
School entrants are exercising a selection policy of a particularly
nasty type.
Other over subscribed non-grammar schools also select: they have too.
The criteria may not be the 11+ but they still select.
My problem is not with selection but with a system that is inherently
flawed.
MJ Drew
: <6...@hack.powernet> wrote:
:
: >
: > If an area has Grammar schools, then the so-called "Comprehensive schools"
: > are not in actual fact Comprehensive schools at all; they are secondary
: > moderns.
: [snip]
: No. Because many parents (and their children) *choose* not to attend a
: Grammar School even though they qualify. That makes the schools they
: choose Comprehensive. And in order to maintain their comprehensive
: status many schools will not accept pupils that had a Grammar School as
: their first choice and then failed to get in.
:
: However, my other point is that these schools in refusing failed Grammar
: School entrants are exercising a selection policy of a particularly
: nasty type.
Most Schools are LEA schools and have their admissions policy set by the
local authority. It is more complicated if their is selection but I can't
see any local authority policy being what you are describing. The
admissions policy must, by law, be public and have been consulted upon.
The usual policies give priorities to special needs, siblings and
distances.
: Other over subscribed non-grammar schools also select: they have too.
: The criteria may not be the 11+ but they still select.
:
See above.
: My problem is not with selection but with a system that is inherently
: flawed.
--
J W B Greenwood
> In article <ant10104...@brooke.u-net.com>, J W B Greenwood
> <bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>
> >
> >Comprehensives, properly run according to the original concepts, give that
> >to their pupils within the same school. Thus no pupil will feel that they
> >have been singled out for different treatment, better or worse, than their
> >peers.
> >
> >
> and most educationalists most of the time
> BUT dont try fooling the kids!!!
> >
>
Who's suggesting 'fooling the kids' ?
Any change in the current educational path would be explained to them.
Since you are implying they are more perceptive than their parents,
what's the problem. It's usually the parents who have aspirations
which don't equate with their children's. Most children know their
capabilities and would respond to honest appraisal and advice. A
technically minded child would probably be unhappy in a purely
academic school and vice versa.
Being technical shouldn't preclude academic subjects from a good
education or the reverse; it means more of one than the other as
regards schooling. It's time the 'Two Cultures' were blurred, a little
cross transfusion would be beneficial to us all.
--
Pat Barber
it when that came about - Sec of State did not like.
In article <1dimqcz.fh...@userj184.uk.uudial.com>, Jeremy
Fieldsend <jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com> writes
><6...@hack.powernet> wrote:
>
>>
>> If an area has Grammar schools, then the so-called "Comprehensive schools"
>> are not in actual fact Comprehensive schools at all; they are secondary
>> moderns.
>[snip]
>No. Because many parents (and their children) *choose* not to attend a
>Grammar School even though they qualify. That makes the schools they
>choose Comprehensive. And in order to maintain their comprehensive
>status many schools will not accept pupils that had a Grammar School as
>their first choice and then failed to get in.
>
>However, my other point is that these schools in refusing failed Grammar
>School entrants are exercising a selection policy of a particularly
>nasty type.
>
>Other over subscribed non-grammar schools also select: they have too.
>The criteria may not be the 11+ but they still select.
>
>My problem is not with selection but with a system that is inherently
>flawed.
--
Pat Barber
Jonathan Munday
<ia...@spider.com> writes
>
>Not too strange at all - class in the UK is not fundamentally about income.
>
Well there's a man 25 yrs behind the times.
Class is less about income than in America but even the registrar
General has accepted the absurdity of the old SC I - V and is replacing
it with a system much more geared to income. Every day in every way
class gets more and more to do with income in the UK.
--Non Angelus sed Anglus
Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
<me...@boucher1.demon.co.uk> writes
>I would just like to question the effectiveness of the 11 plus exam. I
>went to grammar school after attending both a private school and a state
>primary school.
>
>I found the 11 plus (in Lincolnshire at least) to be more of an IQ test
>than a test of potential academic ability.
>
In the year I sat the 11plus (1970) my primary school was divided into 2
classes. All but 1 in my class passed it and all but 1 in the other
class failed. Whatever its a measure of it must have been pretty easy to
differentiate the sheep from the goats.
Jos Underhill
Either that or a sign that the best teacher was given the supposedly
best students.
Also, I have read of a study that involved selecting a group of
children at random and confidentially telling their teachers that they
had been spotted as bright children with greater potential to improve
than their classmates. At the end of the year these children had
improved far more than their classmates despite the random nature of
their selection. Just shows how much is in the mind of the teacher.
On a personal note, I failed the 11 plus but have since been tested as
having an IQ of 155 by MENSA putting me supposedly in the top 1%. I
have also managed to gain a distinction in an Open University degree
level maths course.
--
Jos
jund...@ANTI-SPAMnildram.co.uk
(remove ANTI-SPAM from address to reply via e-mail)
Roger Watts
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <EH$xPKAuJ...@boucher1.demon.co.uk>, carmella smith
><me...@boucher1.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I would just like to question the effectiveness of the 11 plus exam. I
>>went to grammar school after attending both a private school and a state
>>primary school.
>>
>>I found the 11 plus (in Lincolnshire at least) to be more of an IQ test
>>than a test of potential academic ability.
>>
>
>In the year I sat the 11plus (1970) my primary school was divided into 2
>classes. All but 1 in my class passed it and all but 1 in the other
>class failed. Whatever its a measure of it must have been pretty easy to
>differentiate the sheep from the goats.
given extra coaching both on the content and technique necessary to pass
the 11 plus. The 'rest' never stood a chance!
--
Roger Watts
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:mi...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:47:14 +0000, J W B Greenwood
> <bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>
> >Since the money for state schools comes from Income Tax consider the
> >fairness of the following. A person who would have been 'selected' as
> >'less able' when at school is a metal basher who works full time and
> >as many hours as he can to better his family's conditions. In the
> >course of this he pays much more tax than his middle class neighbours.
> ^^^^
> Eh ?? Surely you mean less ??
>
I certainly mean more. With overtime and bonuses many 'working class'
manual workers can earn £30,000 pa. In consequence, they pay more tax
than the average supervisor, middle manager etc. who consider
themselves 'middle class'.
--
J W B Greenwood
> In article <EH$xPKAuJ...@boucher1.demon.co.uk>, carmella smith
> <me...@boucher1.demon.co.uk> writes
> >I would just like to question the effectiveness of the 11 plus exam. I
> >went to grammar school after attending both a private school and a state
> >primary school.
> >
> >I found the 11 plus (in Lincolnshire at least) to be more of an IQ test
> >than a test of potential academic ability.
> >
>
> In the year I sat the 11plus (1970) my primary school was divided into 2
> classes. All but 1 in my class passed it and all but 1 in the other
> class failed. Whatever its a measure of it must have been pretty easy to
> differentiate the sheep from the goats.
>
Teacher ?
--
Jeremy Fieldsend
>
> Most Schools are LEA schools and have their admissions policy set by the
> local authority. It is more complicated if their is selection but I can't
> see any local authority policy being what you are describing. The
> admissions policy must, by law, be public and have been consulted upon.
>
> The usual policies give priorities to special needs, siblings and
> distances.
The school I have in mind is a Science & Technology school - do they
have different rules?
Jonathan Munday
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
other.
Cor!
<1diomrf.bq...@userj203.uk.uudial.com>...
>MJ Drew <lw...@eis.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
---8<---
[snipped off the irrelevant politcal crap!]
For god's sake, will you lot stop cross-posting to the *whole* of the Kent
local comumity!!!!
If our group wanted to discuss school politics we would *also* join those
relevent groups!
Next time you REPLY, cut & paste the following over the "Newsgroups" list:
uk.gov.local,uk.politics.misc
--
Cor!
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <72edss$qaa$3...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>, Matthew M. Huntbach with wrote
> >That's what I did to a large extent. Good thing public libraries were a
> >lot better stocked with a lot more intelligent material in those days than
> >they are now.
> I'm doing that for my computing.
> They refused to offer me a 6th year Computing course, so I'm picking up
> better C, Pascal and UNIX skills in my spare time.
6th form Computing courses are usually crap. If you want to to a Computer
Science degree at university, you'll find all the best universities strongly
recommend or even insist you take A-level Maths, but say that it's not
necessary, may even be undesirable to take A-level Computing.
I wouldn't have thought studying the subject in public libraries is a good
idea. All the public library computer sections I've ever seen anywhere are
unbelieveably bad. In the few cases where the books are not years out of date,
they seem to have gone out of their way to acquire ones that teach computing
in the sort of way that causes despair to university Computer Science lecturers
like myself - make our job *more* difficult, because we have to work harder
to undo all the bad habits they get you into.
Matthew Huntbach
O Gato Gordo
wrote:
>
>I wouldn't have thought studying the subject in public libraries is a good
>idea. All the public library computer sections I've ever seen anywhere are
>unbelieveably bad. In the few cases where the books are not years out of date,
>they seem to have gone out of their way to acquire ones that teach computing
>in the sort of way that causes despair to university Computer Science lecturers
>like myself - make our job *more* difficult, because we have to work harder
>to undo all the bad habits they get you into.
Such as reading the manual before getting stuck in.
Matthew M. Huntbach
A degree in Computer Science isn't about "How to use system XYZ on machine
ABC". It's about more fundamental issues than that. A manual on a programming
language may tell you all the system commands that are built into the
language. It won't tell you how to program.
Matthew Huntbach
O Gato Gordo
You're right about that. My masters was a joke on that score.
Probably why most of those who graduated with me went into
accountancy.
Which college do you teach at, Matthew, BTW? I have a sneaking
suspicion it might be Kingston?
algoss
Huntbach) wrote:
>O Gato Gordo (loo...@you.kiddo) wrote:
>> On 19 Nov 1998 13:45:58 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
>> wrote:
>
>>>I wouldn't have thought studying the subject in public libraries is a good
>>>idea. All the public library computer sections I've ever seen anywhere are
>>>unbelieveably bad. In the few cases where the books are not years out of date,
>>>they seem to have gone out of their way to acquire ones that teach computing
>>>in the sort of way that causes despair to university Computer Science
>>>lecturers like myself - make our job *more* difficult, because we have to
>>>work harder to undo all the bad habits they get you into.
>
>> Such as reading the manual before getting stuck in.
>
>A degree in Computer Science isn't about "How to use system XYZ on machine
>ABC". It's about more fundamental issues than that. A manual on a programming
>language may tell you all the system commands that are built into the
>language. It won't tell you how to program.
>
Will a college?
Can a college?
Alan Goss
algoss
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn74u79...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
><URL:mailto:mi...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:47:14 +0000, J W B Greenwood
>> <bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Since the money for state schools comes from Income Tax consider the
>> >fairness of the following. A person who would have been 'selected' as
>> >'less able' when at school is a metal basher who works full time and
>> >as many hours as he can to better his family's conditions. In the
>> >course of this he pays much more tax than his middle class neighbours.
>> ^^^^
>> Eh ?? Surely you mean less ??
>>
>
>I certainly mean more. With overtime and bonuses many 'working class'
>manual workers can earn £30,000 pa.
Where? Evidence please.
> In consequence, they pay more tax
>than the average supervisor, middle manager etc. who consider
>themselves 'middle class'.
>
Skilled rates round here for welders etc. £6 to £7.50 per
hour. I've seen less than that offered. Salaried full time
workers get around £14000 pa.
did somebody holiday on fantasy island?
Alan Goss
>
>--
>
>bro...@parkroad.u-net.com
>
Ian Diddams
>
> (Matthew M. Huntbach) wrote:
> >A degree in Computer Science isn't about "How to use system XYZ on
> >machine ABC". It's about more fundamental issues than that. A manual
> >on a programming language may tell you all the system commands that
> >are built into the language. It won't tell you how to program.
> Will a college?
> Can a college?
If it includes a "software engineering" course of study, then yes.
Assuming always that such a course is decently constructed and taught
(like any course naturally), and notwithstanding horses, water and
leading.
Ian Diddams. B.Sc. (Hons) Computer Science and Statistics.
Managing Director
Nikko Management Limited, I.T. Consultancy.
O Gato Gordo
wrote:
>
>The entity calling itself O Gato Gordo wrote:
>>
>> My masters was a joke on that score.
>
What was the most complicated program you had to write?
>> Which college do you teach at, Matthew, BTW? I have a sneaking
>> suspicion it might be Kingston?
>
>You hyace a masters and you Can't you decode email adresses?
> qmw == Queen Mary & Westfield, London
Skipped the networks course.
MJ Drew
Distribution:
Jeremy Fieldsend (jeremy.f...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
Do you mean a City Techonology College? (We have one, in S. Glos, which is
neither in the city or a college. CTC are a special sort of Grant
Maintained school and can set its own admission arrangements.
If it is an LEA school which has been granted a special status then it
does not change its admission arrangements. It just a statement (with a
small amount of extra resources) saying that it tries to excel in these
areas.
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:arf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:24:43 +0000, J W B Greenwood
> <bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrn74u79...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk>, Mike Pellatt
> ><URL:mailto:mi...@mpellatt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:47:14 +0000, J W B Greenwood
> >> <bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since the money for state schools comes from Income Tax consider the
> >> >fairness of the following. A person who would have been 'selected' as
> >> >'less able' when at school is a metal basher who works full time and
> >> >as many hours as he can to better his family's conditions. In the
> >> >course of this he pays much more tax than his middle class neighbours.
> >> ^^^^
> >> Eh ?? Surely you mean less ??
> >>
> >
> >I certainly mean more. With overtime and bonuses many 'working class'
> >manual workers can earn £30,000 pa.
> Where? Evidence please.
> > In consequence, they pay more tax
> >than the average supervisor, middle manager etc. who consider
> >themselves 'middle class'.
> >
> Skilled rates round here for welders etc. £6 to £7.50 per
> hour. I've seen less than that offered.
£6 x 40 = £240 pw.
£7.50 x 40 = £300 pw.
> Salaried full time workers get around £14000 pa.
£14,000 / 52 = £269 pw.
The welders wage is basic, ie before overtime and bonuses, a regular
addition. Not many salaried workers get those.
> did somebody holiday on fantasy island?
No. In the paper today the weekly wage of electricians on the Jubilee Line
now being constructed is £1,000 for 66 hours work.
Payrolls are better indicators of remunerations than adverts. or
statistics:-)
--
--
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
My wife was told when my children started primary school that we shouldn't
have taught the how to read and write. My eldest daughter complained when
the school began to use the ITA method, that the word were spelt wrongly.
This brought a note from school that she was too 'forward' ie cheeky. Mmmm!
> 6th form Computing courses are usually crap. If you want to to a Computer
> Science degree at university, you'll find all the best universities strongly
> recommend or even insist you take A-level Maths, but say that it's not
> necessary, may even be undesirable to take A-level Computing.
>
> I wouldn't have thought studying the subject in public libraries is a good
> idea. All the public library computer sections I've ever seen anywhere are
> unbelieveably bad. In the few cases where the books are not years out of date,
> they seem to have gone out of their way to acquire ones that teach computing
> in the sort of way that causes despair to university Computer Science lecturers
> like myself - make our job *more* difficult, because we have to work harder
> to undo all the bad habits they get you into.
>
Since the students will be around 18 when they meet you, are you suggesting
that they shouldn't try to use computers seriously until then ?
May I be 'cheeky' and suggest that, starting from scratch, you teach them
your way and after a few weeks get them to compare their new knowledge with
their old learning and pass comments on the comparison. Perhaps both
lecturer and student may acquire a better understanding of computing.
--
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:arf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 Nov 1998 16:07:11 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M.
> Huntbach) wrote:
Snipped.....
> >
> >A degree in Computer Science isn't about "How to use system XYZ on machine
> >ABC". It's about more fundamental issues than that. A manual on a programming
> >language may tell you all the system commands that are built into the
> >language. It won't tell you how to program.
> >
> Will a college?
> Can a college?
>
I suggest no, nor should it. The best which can be done is to explain in
general what the average computer is capable of doing and how it can be
done given the operating system and it's programming language. Having got
this knowledge it can be shown how it can be applied to obtain a desired
result. The method will often be different, depending on the actual detail
required in the result. A large database will often be processed in a
different manner to a small one. A query expected to give a large number of
records processed differently to one with an expected small result.
'Tell' is the wrong word, encouraging thought about the various uses of the
programming languages and their individual components/modules/subroutines
etc. should be the goal. Analysis of the job in hand and the required result
is the main key to programming. Programming is the usage of the available
resources in an efficient manner to achieve the desired result.
No one knows what shape future computing will take, but it will still be
used to run a lot of simple operations no matter how big and complicated the
overall task.
--
Steve
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
<snip>
>Payrolls are better indicators of remunerations than adverts. or
>statistics:-)
Getting back to where this came from, if manual workers are being paid
more than middle class professionals, then surely they ought to be
demanding that their kids go to schools where they will get poor
academic results, and thus avoid the temptation to follow an ill paid
vocation? Let the middle class parents have their grammar schools, to
reduce the competition for those juicy warehouse jobs?
How much do packers and supermarket check out staff earn?
--
Steve
Lose the Zs to reply
J W B Greenwood
I'm talking about engineers, tradesmen, etc.; warehouse jobs, packers and
supermarket checkout staff are often part-timers or people who couldn't be
bothered to learn anything after leaving school.
A better education allied to tradesmen's skills will fit them better for the
climate of changing jobs and methods of doing them. If you can't read or
write particularly well then you can't communicate, if you can't communicate
whatever you know remains yours. Your boss will have a hard time finding out
how you good you are at your job, You'll have a hard job finding out how to
be better at your job.
Only an idiot would opt for a bad education after working for only a few
months.
--
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:end...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:48:29 +0000, J W B Greenwood
> <bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> Skilled rates round here for welders etc. ?6 to ?7.50 per
> >> hour. I've seen less than that offered.
> >
> >?7.50 x 40 = ?300 pw.
> >
> >> Salaried full time workers get around ?14000 pa.
> >
> >?14,000 / 52 = ?269 pw.
>
> ?14000/48 = ?291. Hourly workers often don't get holiday pay.
>
> >
> >The welders wage is basic, ie before overtime and bonuses, a regular
> >addition. Not many salaried workers get those.
>
> >> did somebody holiday on fantasy island?
> >
> >No. In the paper today the weekly wage of electricians on the Jubilee Line
>
> Reputedly the best paid tradesmen in Britain and indicative of nothing
> at all apart from the fact that they are as far from your average
> electrician as it's possible to get.
>
Well, if you've seen all their wage packets, what can I say...........
I didn't say they were typical, but if you follow the finance pages, you'll
find manufacturers and contractors complaining about lack of skilled
workers. They complain that this allowing them to push up wages, these are
tradesmen using market forces, the thing the moaners wanted when they got
the government to ruin the trade unions. The manufacturers and contractors
are being beaten with their own stick. Serves them right. Collective
bargaining is a more stable system.
--
Mike Pellatt
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> wrote:
>No. In the paper today the weekly wage of electricians on the Jubilee Line
>now being constructed is £1,000 for 66 hours work.
I thought it was zero at the moment as they're on strike. The ones
who aren't sabotaging it, that is.
And, as somenone else commented, such electricians will be highly
skilled.
--
Mike Pellatt
Steve
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>I'm talking about engineers, tradesmen, etc.; warehouse jobs, packers and
>supermarket checkout staff are often part-timers or people who couldn't be
>bothered to learn anything after leaving school.
Ah well, if you are going to limit your definition of working class to
people with trades, I shall limit my definition of middle class to
doctors, lawyers and stockbrokers....
>Only an idiot would opt for a bad education after working for only a few
>months.
I quite agree.
Keith
>It is a pity this brilliant grammar school education left these snobs
>thinking the word is spelt *scool* though isn't it?
>
>Or am I being catty? 8->
Sarcastic, not catty - there's a subtle difference!