NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people are always whining about social mobility and complain about the comprehensive system failing the poor. They advocate a return to eleven-plus selection as they claim that it would improve social mobility. It is this argument that I will criticise and I believe that people who support selection for this reason are Marxists. I believe the real reason they support selection is because they hate the middle class and want to make sure that some of them will not stay middle class.

Social mobility is about greater equality of educational outcomes from the perspective of different social groups. However equality of opportunity does not always produce equality of outcomes. Therefore equality of opportunity does not always produce social mobility. This brings me onto the subject of Comprehensive schools. Now I am not defending the current school system. I accept that schools in this country are far from up to standard and I know that some comprehensive schools are very bad indeed. However I will argue that grammar schools are little better than comprehensives with exception of the “hothousing environment” that they create.

Firstly I want to compare Grammar schools with Comprehensive schools. I am putting private schools aside, as they educate only about 8% of children. Now I know that private schools distort equality of opportunity. However, this article is about social mobility into the “middle class”, with access to Oxbridge and other top universities being a separate issue. Besides, the middle class comprises about 60% of the population. Only 8% of children attend private schools and this article will concern the other 52% whose children attend state schools.

Many people make the mistake in believing that Grammar schools provide the same quality of education as private schools do. The truth of the matter is that most grammar schools provide a quality of teaching that is little better than that at an average comprehensive. They have similar levels of funding to comprehensive schools. Also, grammar schools are not market-driven like private schools. Private schools get good results due to focus on examination technique and lots of individual tuition. No selective schools achieve a high proportion of ‘A’ grades at A-level in the same league as the leading independent schools. The bottom line is that selection is not the reason that private schools get good results out of mediocre pupils.

Comprehensive Schools are bad when the teaching and discipline are bad. Also I do admit that grammar schools would suffer fewer discipline problems than comprehensive schools. This is the one area where grammar schools could offer a better education. However, a whole system of grammar schools and secondary moderns can be assessed on the basis of average pupil performance. When an area like Kent that has this system was compared to Cheshire, a fully comprehensive area, pupils in Cheshire had a higher average score. Pupil discipline still remained a problem at secondary modern schools, and so it was self-defeating to suggest that selection improved overall standards.

Comprehensive schools provide “equal” opportunity. Also, hard-working kids can succeed in comprehensive schools where the discipline and teaching are reasonable. Although in practice I admit that the discipline in most comprehensive schools leaves much to be desired. The links given below are for articles that suggest that grammar schools only help the “poor” and that grammar schools do not raise overall standards. Quotes from these articles are shown.

Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6539721.stm

"The paradox is that, for the minority of poor children who do gain a place in a grammar school, the advantage this bestows appears to be greater than for more affluent children,"

Link http://conservativehome.blogs.com/to...action_to.html

"Areas with grammar schools do no better than those without"

The only difference between Grammar schools and Comprehensive schools is the peer-group ‘environment’. Pupils at grammar schools will be amongst other people who are mostly of above average intelligence. Pupils from “poor” backgrounds will likely benefit from this environment as they will not come from homes that value education. This is opposed to the “lad subculture” that affects only working-class kids at comprehensives. For this reason they will likely be better motivated than at comprehensives.

Pupils need to be better self-motivated if they are to succeed at a comprehensive school. This is why those from more aspirational family backgrounds will more likely succeed at comprehensives without needing the hothouse environment of a grammar school. Therefore grammar schools benefit only those who are otherwise not motivated. This is why it is only “poor” children that do better at grammar schools than at comprehensives.

Even if the selective system did produce higher overall achievement, it’s not the real reason that some people support selection. There are some ignorant people that simply have a bad image of all comprehensive schools as dirty, disorderly, and overrun with violence, drugs and gangs. These people haven’t really thought about the issue and have little experience. They just hate modern comprehensive schools.

They may also argue that comprehensive schools fail to “stretch” the brightest. What they fail to acknowledge is that steaming and fast-track classes do exist in most comprehensives in order to cater for different abilities. What they also misunderstand is that identifying the “very brightest” is not really the role of schooling. This seems reasonable as most do not reach their full potential at secondary school level. Rather the role of schooling is to provide a “foundation” of knowledge, which can be built upon in later life.

There is a second more dangerous type of person who supports selection. They are the ones who use “social mobility” as their grounds for supporting selection. This is the argument that this article intends to criticise. Their arguments are not about catering for the most able or about raising overall standards. Rather they want to help children from “disadvantaged” backgrounds. They want to engineer social mobility by putting “bright” working-class kids into a hothouse grammar school environment. I will argue that this would come at everybody else’s expense.

They want to make everybody sit an eleven-plus test just in order to please their own collectivist agenda. They will put everyone through the stress of an eleven-plus test, and all people will be punished by knowing that their children’s paths in life could be determined without redemption by one test at a very young age. This is so that a few kids can be given the special advantage of going to a grammar school when they would otherwise not succeed in a comprehensive school. These pro-selection people do not care about hurting people in order to satisfy their own agenda. The truth is that they hate the middle class and in fact anybody else who will work hard without needing to be nannied or put into a hothouse environment.

Their claim is that abolishing selection and grammar schools reduced social mobility. This implies that working class kids needed grammar schools in order to succeed. Comprehensive schools provide a level playing field and selection advocates are implying that working-class kids cannot succeed on this level playing field. They are implying that they need to be put into a special environment with academic hothousing and a good social environment. They are implying that working-class kids need special treatment whereas middle-class kids can succeed in comprehensive schools without special treatment.

At the moment hard-working middle-class people can work hard to get their children into a good comprehensive school. Parents can hardly be blamed for making the financial sacrifice of moving to an area with a good local school. Government-imposed selection would put an end to this school choice, and would artificially push some children out of the middle class. The bottom line is that pro-selection people want to prevent hard-working and caring parents from doing the best for their children.

Selection advocates hate our supposedly “unfair” society. They hate a society where proper parental nurturing of children pays off. They hate a society where middle-class values pay off. They hate a society where self-reliance and individual motivation pay off. This is why they complain about low social mobility, while refusing to accept what is the natural order of things in all free societies. Children will more likely succeed if they have dedicated parents who value education. It is also often the case that their parents will happen to have “middle-class” occupations as a result of their values and hard work.

Pro-selection advocates want to destroy the middle-class for what it is. They want to attack the freedoms and securities of the middle class. By securities I mean being secure in the knowledge that your children will likely be successful if they are properly brought up and motivated. The aim of selection is to destroy this class stability. The middle-classes would be punished by knowing that whether their children can stay middle class depends on their performance at a single examination.

The “social mobility” agenda is about equality of outcomes. That is equality of outcomes from a group perspective in that equal proportions of people from different social groups are academically successful. Pro-selection advocates want equal outcomes and are against equality of opportunity when it does not result in equal outcomes. Comprehensive schools provide equal opportunities, but this does not result on equal outcomes. This is because middle-class parents motivate and instil proper vales into their children, whereas working-class parents have little aspirations for their children.

Many middle-class kids succeed in good and even mediocre comprehensive schools. However they were not born with success given to them on a plate. They worked hard for it. Also, I had some folks in my sixth form who had made it despite coming from some of the worst schools in the country. They were from immigrant families. There are many indigenous white and black working class kids in the country who fail despite being not as poor and going to schools that are mediocre but not the worst in the country. Why do some people call the comprehensive system “social engineering”? How can a system that puts all kids into the same sort of school to succeed or fail by their own merits be social engineering?

Putting some kids into a hothouse environment when they would otherwise fail could in fact be considered to be social engineering. This is exactly what pro-selection advocates are supporting. They want the government to create privileges for some in order to favour certain social groups rather than treating everyone equally. They want a system where the government controls the number of grammar school places and therefore controls the number of the next generation that can stay in or join the middle class. This is how pro-selection people intend to engineer downward social mobility as well as upward social mobility.

This kind of social engineering involves putting unmotivated working-class kids into the hothouse environment of a grammar school when they would not succeed in a comprehensive school. Government imposed selection at the age of eleven would punish everybody by making them go though the stresses of the selection mechanism. Such stresses involve knowing that your child could be condemned to the scrap heap on the basis of this single method of testing that is imposed by the government.

Working-class people are not poor. They just do not motive their kids. People defined as “below the poverty line” in Britain typically own colour TVs, microwaves, DVD players and can afford at least one annual holiday to Spain. How they differ from middle-class people is in terms of their values and aspirations. Why should the hard-working middle classes be punished because a lazy underclass is contributing to low social mobility? The middle classes nowadays are already heavily burdened by taxation that is needed to pay for benefits that go to the so-called “poor”. The “social ladder” has not been “whipped away”. It’s just that people are too lazy to climb it.

Pro-selection people are jealous of middle-class kids who succeed at comprehensive schools. But keep in mind that most middle-class kids earn their success through hard work, often spending many hours a day studying for examinations. It’s not their fault working-class kids don’t succeed at comprehensives. Everybody has the opportunity to work hard in a comprehensive school. Oh but now I hear you argue “but everybody would have the equal opportunity to attend a grammar school…”. This however, misses the point. The selection system could rather be considered as “equally” unfair, as it is a very crude method of distributing opportunities.

In a free society opportunities are given to individuals and not to groups. Opportunity involves individuals and families taking advantage of programs through their own choice. Government-imposed selection of young children is not “opportunity”. Pro-selection people treat people as members of a group and not as individuals. They want equal proportions of middle-class kids and working-class kids to succeed, and are not concerned if just as many kids are failing in school, as long as they are not disproportionably working-class.

The irony is this. Most people who support selection for social mobility reasons either brand themselves as “right-wingers” or “conservatives”, or belong to a right-wing political party such as UKIP or the BNP. Or are these people really genuine conservative thinkers? Maybe they jumped on the “right wing” bandwagon in order to present themselves with a macho appeal. These are people who in fact disguise themselves as right-wingers but who in reality are Marxists whose motive is to punish the middle class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://uk.geocities.com/wenduss/secondchances/mainpages/frontpage/frontpage.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't achieve equality by dragging those at the top down. Society is always so stuck up about academic achievement, and has reached the point where we're not allowed to say that some children are less intellegent than others.

I don't see why we need to have this attitude - no one ever came to my rescue when I was picked last for the football team by creating a 'comprehensive' sports system. Why should it be any different for academic work?

Comprehensive schooling is too slow for the brightest and too quick for the less academically minded. In short, it tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. By having a selection procedure, with schooling focused on the particular talents of the children, we can ensure that everyone gets the education that is relevant to them, and stop this nonsense that we should try and push everyone to university, regardless of their individual skills.

Signed,

An old grammar school boy.

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/sterlingtimes/vpost?id=1997141&goto=nextoldest
http://www.politic.co.uk/education/7827-eleven-plus-selection-social-engineering.html

Why must you plagiarise? Or, if you are the same person that spammed other fora with this exact same piece, why must you be a one trick pony? Couldn't you have invented something else to write when you failed to get biters in other fora?

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/sterlingtimes/vpost?id=1997141&goto=nextoldest
http://www.politic.co.uk/education/7827-eleven-plus-selection-social-engineering.html

Why must you plagiarise? Or, if you are the same person that spammed other fora with this exact same piece, why must you be a one trick pony? Couldn't you have invented something else to write when you failed to get biters in other fora?

Good call.

If plagiarism, it deserves contempt.
I'm not sure that posting the same piece to two different fora is so wrong, but it's sure helpful to know. It suggests a person with an axe to grind, a one-trick pony, not a prospective community member.

We could filter trolls out of the noobs by looking for multi-fora posts as you just did. If they troll there, they will do it here.

In a sense grammar schools are against my normal equality leanings, but my experiences at one have given me the opinion that they are beneficial. The sports analogy is a good one, Philosophy, no-one would suggest making a comprehensive football team. In most schools, children are separated up into classes based on achievement in certain subjects, regardless of if its a grammar/secondary or comprehensive school. Learning with others of similar ability is far more efficient and enjoyable than with a huge range in which the teacher is trying to teach at several different speeds for all the different pupils.

Is there such a divide in the US and other European countries? or are all public schools of the comprehensive variety?

I went to a grammer school because I acheived it like many people. Different people have different learning needs, some like my brother have short attention spans and like to find a quick solution, aka copy while others like myself want to go deeper learn more. Its just the way it is.

My personal experience in a public school in the US (which varies from county to county) which had an administration almost entirely staffed with socialists. Only angry demonstrations by some parents could make the slightest impact in their 'every child should be treated in exactly the same way' policy. It was the most inefficient method of teaching students and nobody benefited.

I think the theory was that being in a classroom with smarter students would motivate the slow kids to do much better to compete, while the smart kids would be taught that they need to make sacrifices and help out those less capable students.

The reality was that the dumb students would get totally lost (no matter how slow the teacher went) and get very frustrated seeing the other students complete their assignments with ease. This destroyed their self-confidence, frustrated them to no end, and basically instilled in them that schooling didnt matter because they were not going to understand it anyway, so shouldnt even bother trying (which just made them fall even farther behind, creating a never-ending downward spiral).

The intelligent children were taught contempt for the school and deep resentment of the slower students. Schooling was worthless because you could learn far more on your own. They also were ill prepared for university because they never learned basic academic skills - being able to ace exams never having studied and with a massive hangover in secondary schooling might have a slight application to university, but they were ill prepared for any classes of substance.

Mediocre children were short changed as well because the teachers, in an effort to keep as many as possible from falling behind, taught at a pace well below average.

Truancy was a major problem with both high and low end children, many of whom dropped out as soon as they turned 16. The stupid children were not learning and were frustrated at their incomprehension while next to someone who thought it years below their level - which fosters total ignorance, an antipathy for education, and resentment of better students. The intelligent students were dropping out because the school was a contemptible institution attempting to 'teach' things they learned years ago so their time was far better spent elsewhere.

Rather than fostering a spirit of community and bridging divides between students, it actually had the opposite effect of entrenching class divides and instilling great resentment for others. All while leaving students woefully undereducated despite spending years of their time, and a lot of tax dollars, in what amounts to little better than institutionalized babysitting.

The only ones who could possibly have benefited from this setup are below-average but not truly stupid students, because the classes were pitched at their level. Even then, I would argue that the social dynamic of the school greatly impinged upon their optimal learning potential.

There is a reason why tiered public schooling has become popular in many communities in the US, specifically the wealthy ones where the household focus on education is intense.

Comprehensive schooling is too slow for the brightest and too quick for the less academically minded. In short, it tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. By having a selection procedure, with schooling focused on the particular talents of the children, we can ensure that everyone gets the education that is relevant to them, and stop this nonsense that we should try and push everyone to university, regardless of their individual skills.

That's why some LEAs have streaming, fast-track classes, summer catch-up classes, summer vocational classes, and extra curricular classes for those with an interest in learning more about a subject.

That's why some LEAs have streaming, fast-track classes, summer catch-up classes, summer vocational classes, and extra curricular classes for those with an interest in learning more about a subject.

So what is the substantive difference between these fast track classes and streaming within the schools and the streaming of pupils according to results from the 11 plus exam?

/conservative circlejerk

I went to a grammer school because I acheived it like many people. Different people have different learning needs, some like my brother have short attention spans and like to find a quick solution, aka copy while others like myself want to go deeper learn more. Its just the way it is.

May God have mercy on us all. :)

That's why some LEAs have streaming, fast-track classes, summer catch-up classes, summer vocational classes, and extra curricular classes for those with an interest in learning more about a subject.

So people have to do extra classes because the school won't teach them at a suitably quick/advanced level? Great progress there.

/conservative circlejerk

/Lack of argument.

You don't achieve equality by dragging those at the top down. Society is always so stuck up about academic achievement, and has reached the point where we're not allowed to say that some children are less intellegent than others.

I don't see why we need to have this attitude - no one ever came to my rescue when I was picked last for the football team by creating a 'comprehensive' sports system. Why should it be any different for academic work?

Academic ability is decided at least as much by environment as anything else, including teaching styles used, attention from the teacher, and parental involvement. While some children frequently learn differently from other children, I seriously doubt that the levels of raw intellectual processing power differ all that much - it's simply that much of the "slower" childrens' abilities go unused.

Unfortunately, creating a school environment that fosters academic achievement in every students is essentially prohibitively expensive. It could, theoretically, be done, but rarely is it possible to do so on a large scale.

You don't achieve equality by dragging those at the top down. Society is always so stuck up about academic achievement, and has reached the point where we're not allowed to say that some children are less intellegent than others.

I don't see why we need to have this attitude - no one ever came to my rescue when I was picked last for the football team by creating a 'comprehensive' sports system. Why should it be any different for academic work?

Academic ability is decided at least as much by environment as anything else, including teaching styles used, attention from the teacher, and parental involvement. While some children frequently learn differently from other children, I seriously doubt that the levels of raw intellectual processing power differ all that much - it's simply that much of the "slower" childrens' abilities go unused.

Unfortunately, creating a school environment that fosters academic achievement in every students is essentially prohibitively expensive. It could, theoretically, be done, but rarely is it possible to do so on a large scale.

Academic ability is decided at least as much by environment as anything else, including teaching styles used, attention from the teacher, and parental involvement. While some children frequently learn differently from other children, I seriously doubt that the levels of raw intellectual processing power differ all that much - it's simply that much of the "slower" childrens' abilities go unused.

I think it's the parents more than anything. The kids who didn't give a shit about their classes and screwed around during school weren't stupid, they just had parents who were probably the same way and just let them do whatever. That lack of responsibility for their children's education plays a huge role in why some kids fail horribly while others succeed and move on to bigger and better things.

I think it's the parents more than anything. The kids who didn't give a shit about their classes and screwed around during school weren't stupid, they just had parents who were probably the same way and just let them do whatever. That lack of responsibility for their children's education plays a huge role in why some kids fail horribly while others succeed and move on to bigger and better things.

And much of the development that determines one's performance in school occurs before one enters school.

And much of the development that determines one's performance in school occurs before one enters school.

Yup. Learning is something that has to be cultivated before they're placed in that environment; I've done so well academically because my parents made sure to teach me properly and instill a desire to learn. If that's not the case, these kids aren't going to do well.

Some people are always whining about social mobility and complain about the comprehensive system failing the poor. The advocate a return to eleven-plus selection as they claim that it would improve social mobility. It is this argument that I will criticise and I believe that people who support selection for this reason are Marxists. I believe the real reason they support selection is because they hate the middle class and want to make sure that some of them will not stay middle class...

...These are people who in fact disguise themselves as right-wingers but who in reality are Marxists whose motive is to punish the middle class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://uk.geocities.com/wenduss/secondchances/mainpages/frontpage/frontpage.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever case you're ever trying to argue. It never helps your case to begin and end with ad hominem attacks.

I'm sorry if my article offends those of you who went to grammar schools. I know that it is an emotional issue for you. It's just too bad if you can't see the other side's point of view.

You don't achieve equality by dragging those at the top down. Society is always so stuck up about academic achievement, and has reached the point where we're not allowed to say that some children are less intellegent than others.

We're also finding new and exciting ways to celebrate mediocrity.

You may not achieve equality by dragging down those at the top, but it's a great way to win votes amongst the ignorant and stupid.

I went to a grammar school from y7 all the way through 6th form.

I also had alot of friends going to comprehensives.

The worst thing i can remmember happening is one of my classmates coming into registration after smoking dope ( this was in y13). On the comprehensive side, I've heared stories of people getting stabbed, death threats, bullying, racism and loads more horrid stuff.

I'm a firm believer than grammar school pupils only get higher results because they want to learn, and behave in class as a consequence. Whereas comprehensive school pupils are FORCED to attned, even if they don't want to- so make trouble.

The 11 plus just filters those who wanted to learn so much that they payed attention in primrary school, from those who's parents made them do it.

Education should be optional! forced attendance may push up literacy levels and stuff, but at the expense of the quality of teaching for most students, as their experience is corrupted by troublemakers.

The 11 plus just filters those who wanted to learn so much that they payed attention in primrary school, from those who's parents made them do it.



I'd disagree with that. Plenty of people make it through the 11 plus because their parents forced them to work.

I went to a grammar school from y7 all the way through 6th form.

I also had alot of friends going to comprehensives.

The worst thing i can remmember happening is one of my classmates coming into registration after smoking dope ( this was in y13). On the comprehensive side, I've heared stories of people getting stabbed, death threats, bullying, racism and loads more horrid stuff.
As a student who has just finished seven years of comprehensive education, I can give you my assurance I have never encountered anything of the sort - except the dope.

I'm a firm believer than grammar school pupils only get higher results because they want to learn, and behave in class as a consequence. Whereas comprehensive school pupils are FORCED to attned, even if they don't want to- so make trouble.

The 11 plus just filters those who wanted to learn so much that they payed attention in primrary school, from those who's parents made them do it.

Education should be optional! forced attendance may push up literacy levels and stuff, but at the expense of the quality of teaching for most students, as their experience is corrupted by troublemakers.
Streaming is better at ensuring that the brightest aren't let down - as in grammar schools - but is far more flexible and responsive to the needs of students. I can't really say that I believe the 'comprehensives let down able students' is really true when that is the case. There's always going to be a minority who want to cause trouble, but I have no reason to believe they do because they go to a comprehensive school, and that they have to be a problem for those that don't. The only time I had that kind of problem was in GCSE English, which, surprise surprise, wasn't streamed.

I'd disagree with that. Plenty of people make it through the 11 plus because their parents forced them to work.
I know some. Hell, my parents occasionally say they wished they had "made" me do the 11+. Says it all, really.

You don't achieve equality by dragging those at the top down. Society is always so stuck up about academic achievement, and has reached the point where we're not allowed to say that some children are less intellegent than others.

I don't see why we need to have this attitude - no one ever came to my rescue when I was picked last for the football team by creating a 'comprehensive' sports system. Why should it be any different for academic work?

Comprehensive schooling is too slow for the brightest and too quick for the less academically minded. In short, it tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. By having a selection procedure, with schooling focused on the particular talents of the children, we can ensure that everyone gets the education that is relevant to them, and stop this nonsense that we should try and push everyone to university, regardless of their individual skills.

Signed,

An old grammar school boy.

I find that I mostly agree with you. Of course we can admit that not all children have the same level of intelgence, just as we can admit that not all children are the same physicaly.

I don't agree that there is a push to get every child into university, I belive the point is that each child be given an equal chance to try though.

A child's learning really must be taylored to the that child, and this should include other sorts of teaching not just academic. We do owe our kids the chance to achive, to give them the skills to better them selves.

On a more personal note, I am dyslexic and have been all of my life, now while it was far to late for the education system to do much about it(I was diagnosed just prior to my schooling being finished) I do know that there are ways and methoeds that I have used and continue to use to push stuff into my head and make sure it stays there.

I can therefore only assume that even the seemingly less intelegent children can be taught, even if it means re-evaluating the methodes that we use.

Lastly in this country(UK) we have tried both the grammer school system and the comprehensive school system. It does seem clear to me that the comprahensive system is failing, while looking at people my fathers age who went to grammer school, they seem much better educated and suited to making a life for themselves.

I find that I mostly agree with you. Of course we can admit that not all children have the same level of intelgence, just as we can admit that not all children are the same physicaly.

Not to mention, not all children are equally motivated, or equally diligent.

I don't agree that there is a push to get every child into university, I belive the point is that each child be given an equal chance to try though.

Politicians promise that over in the US already - even if it will take government funding, and a complete lowering of academic standards to make it happen.

A child's learning really must be taylored to the that child, and this should include other sorts of teaching not just academic. We do owe our kids the chance to achive, to give them the skills to better them selves.
Agreed.

On a more personal note, I am dyslexic and have been all of my life, now while it was far to late for the education system to do much about it(I was diagnosed just prior to my schooling being finished) I do know that there are ways and methoeds that I have used and continue to use to push stuff into my head and make sure it stays there.

I can therefore only assume that even the seemingly less intelegent children can be taught, even if it means re-evaluating the methodes that we use.
Here where I live, if you have any sort of problem learning, the school system is required to find out what your problem is, and construct an Individual Education Plan to address it.

It doesn't guarantee that the problem will be solved - the student still has to make the effort - but the school system is at least attempting to address the problem.

Lastly in this country(UK) we have tried both the grammer school system and the comprehensive school system. It does seem clear to me that the comprahensive system is failing, while looking at people my fathers age who went to grammer school, they seem much better educated and suited to making a life for themselves.

Stand still laddie!

Here where I live, if you have any sort of problem learning, the school system is required to find out what your problem is, and construct an Individual Education Plan to address it.

It doesn't guarantee that the problem will be solved - the student still has to make the effort - but the school system is at least attempting to address the problem.

Yeah that is exactly what I am talking about. Also parents must take an active interest in their childrens schooling. Both of my boys also suffer from dyslexicia, and myself and my wife pushed their primary school(ages 5-11) to aknowldge this and get them statemented. Local authorities are loath to do this, as a statment(of learnign difficulties) means that they have to pay for extra resources for that child. In addition we have got both of them into a very good secondary school(11-16), and my oldest boy is doing very very well, including taking his maths GCSE a year before he has to.

You'll only learn if you want to learn, when i was in y6 I remember a girl who was forced by her parents to do the 11+. She did not want to and didn't try hard enough, I remember her spending whole lunch-times reading though the same booklet. You can be forced to do something by pushy parents, but wether you do it well or not is a different matter. You - won't - do - something - well - if - you - don't - want - to( !)


The whole educational system would be much better off if there was a choice. Want do do an academic subject? go to a school for academic subjects. Want to do something vocational? go to a school which gives you that choice. Don't want to do anything? then don't! when you want to learn then you will. If you never want to learn get an unskilled job, a much better alternative than dragging everyone down in class and wasting school resources.

The fact is that not everyone is the same. To treat people equally comprehensives / catagorising in terms of test-taking ability are not the answer, just a different method of eventually reaching the same conclusion: childeren must chose for themselves.

You'll only learn if you want to learn, when i was in y6 I remember a girl who was forced by her parents to do the 11+. She did not want to and didn't try hard enough, I remember her spending whole lunch-times reading though the same booklet. You can be forced to do something by pushy parents, but wether you do it well or not is a different matter. You - won't - do - something - well - if - you - don't - want - to( !)



You won't do something as well as you could if forced

You can do something well enough to pass if forced

You'll only learn if you want to learn, when i was in y6 I remember a girl who was forced by her parents to do the 11+. She did not want to and didn't try hard enough, I remember her spending whole lunch-times reading though the same booklet. You can be forced to do something by pushy parents, but wether you do it well or not is a different matter. You - won't - do - something - well - if - you - don't - want - to( !)


The whole educational system would be much better off if there was a choice. Want do do an academic subject? go to a school for academic subjects. Want to do something vocational? go to a school which gives you that choice. Don't want to do anything? then don't! when you want to learn then you will. If you never want to learn get an unskilled job, a much better alternative than dragging everyone down in class and wasting school resources.

The fact is that not everyone is the same. To treat people equally comprehensives / catagorising in terms of test-taking ability are not the answer, just a different method of eventually reaching the same conclusion: childeren must chose for themselves.


You are correct, except in two things.

Parents should not push their children but make sure that they understand the importance of a good education.

Children can't choose for themselves, that is the parents job.

No grammar schools up north.

Not really sure whether that's a good thing or a bad one.

I certainly would have had the ability to get into a grammar school, but I think that learning to work with people from different classes is actually more important than learning French at a slightly faster rate.

Still bored off my arse at sixth-form, so I'm not really sure what good a grammar school would have been anyway.

No grammar schools up north.

Not really sure whether that's a good thing or a bad one.

I certainly would have had the ability to get into a grammar school, but I think that learning to work with people from different classes is actually more important than learning French at a slightly faster rate.

Still bored off my arse at sixth-form, so I'm not really sure what good a grammar school would have been anyway.

My grammar school had a plenty of people from different class backgrounds. Maybe it's just my area

You don't achieve equality by dragging those at the top down. Society is always so stuck up about academic achievement, and has reached the point where we're not allowed to say that some children are less intellegent than others.

I don't see why we need to have this attitude - no one ever came to my rescue when I was picked last for the football team by creating a 'comprehensive' sports system. Why should it be any different for academic work?

Comprehensive schooling is too slow for the brightest and too quick for the less academically minded. In short, it tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no one. By having a selection procedure, with schooling focused on the particular talents of the children, we can ensure that everyone gets the education that is relevant to them, and stop this nonsense that we should try and push everyone to university, regardless of their individual skills.

Signed,

An old grammar school boy.

Seconded by another ex-grammar school boy.

Anyway, £10 says the OP failed his 11+.

My grammar school had a plenty of people from different class backgrounds. Maybe it's just my area

Not at all. The social and economic backgrounds of students at my grammar school are as diverse, if not more so, than local comprehensive shcools.

I think it's the parents more than anything. The kids who didn't give a shit about their classes and screwed around during school weren't stupid, they just had parents who were probably the same way and just let them do whatever. That lack of responsibility for their children's education plays a huge role in why some kids fail horribly while others succeed and move on to bigger and better things.

Spot on. This is the reason that "social mobility" is low in places like the UK. It's because parents do not motivate their kids.

Britain has become a middle-class vs working-class issue. Instead of building a nation we have turned into a spite game. There are many issues that have the hidden agenda of spiting people from a different social class. For example, an issue that is often raised lately is about social mobility (or what could be called socialist mobility).

Some people from an LSE study wanted to bring back selection and grammar schools so that "bright" working-class kids can have better opportunities at succeeding academically. However they already have equal opportunities to succeed at non-selective schools and many middle-class kids succeed at non-selective schools because they are better motivated at home.

Those who want to bring back selection just want to spite and hate on the middle-classes whose kids succeed at non-selective schools. The whole social(ist) mobility agenda is a spite game. Those on both sides of the debate are trying to make Britain look like a caste society. This is so that they can either justify attacking the middle classes or so that they can make the working classes look like an inferior species.

Although we don’t have perfect social mobility we are by no means a caste society. Why are people unable to accept the idea of a meritocratic society where people are judged on personal achievement rather than on social background? Also, chavs are not working-class they are under-class. Calling chavs working-class puts law-abiding “working-class” folks with manual jobs into the same group as the chavs. How insulting must that be to law-abiding folks?