UK spending power 'in heavy fall'

WTF?_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I found the 11+ I did (first for day school, then common entrance) no pressure at all. It was something we all just did.

'Me too'.

I wouldn't say that there was no pressure as the school gave everyone extra lessons in the evening for about a month before and it was impressed upon us that we needed to do well - but it wasn't the psyche-destroying trauma that some would have believe shouldn't be visited upon schoolkids.

Of course, in a world where competitive behaviour is frowned upon to the extent where kids aren't allowed to have sports day races it's hardly surprising that people overreact to the notion of the 11+.


I grew up in a council house with my Father working doing manual labour in a factory and my mother staying at home to look after the family. I had a decent primary, secondary (grammar) and university and post-graduate education all funded by the state.

Beyond primary school, a 'quality' education isn't universally available these days unless your parents have a bit of money behind them.

If you win the postcode lottery you might be lucky enough to get into a 'good' secondary but to go to university without cash backing from the Bank of Mum and Dad is a very tricky proposition nowadays. If I was a kid growing up under similar circumstances now, I doubt I would be able to get access to the level of secondary eduction (a grammar school) that I did .. nor afford to go on to university even if I did well out of secondary school.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

All comprehensives do is hold back the more able kids in the name of some dogmatic and misplaced idea about 'fairness'. It was much fairer when any kid could have access to the 'better' schools by demonstrating academic ability rather than a set of parents with the money to buy a house in a certain area or to pay for a private school.

!!!!!!?

This is just not true. What comprehensives do is encourage everyone to do there best. The "able" are expected to excel in comprehensives. Indeed, they are all tracked these days to ensure they are doing just that. They are tracked to see that they are not under performing and to see if they are being challenged. The first sign of a dip in their performance and their parents are contacted.

Grammar schools were never fair. Access was always easier for those whose parents could afford tutors and private prep schools. Indeed, todays grammar schools are almost exclusively filled with kids from private primary schools. Todays Grammars are just FREE private schools for rich people, there are very few kids in them who went to state primary. The few kids who get in from state primary have tution for years for the 11+. Very young kids spend hours of their young lives practicing pointless tests with tutors - it's really not healthy.

I do accept your point about the post code lottery. However, I do think children should be able to go to their local school. I think it's really important for kids to have local friends. Schools which appear to be underperforming (in terms of academic qualifications) should have access to more money.

moanymoany

I took my 11+ in 1960 - believe me we knew very well that our whole future depended on it. The middle class kids were 'hothoused', we all knew that in our area there were only grammar places for 10% of us. I can still remember the night before the second part.......:eek:

Fortunately, there were new schools in other areas that took an additional 5% - which included me. We were called the 'border liners'!

m00m00

I'm one of the people who would have been written off under the old system.

at the age of 12 I was referred to a child psychologist, because I wasn't doing ANY work in school at all, it turned out that I was just finding it so easy it was boring me. A child centric approach allowed the school to pretty much let me do my own thing, and I ended up with 4 grade A levels by age 16, and 1 or 2 qualifications since.

WTF?_2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

!!!!!!?

Grammar schools were never fair. Access was always easier for those whose parents could afford tutors and private prep schools. Indeed, todays grammar schools are almost exclusively filled with kids from private primary schools. Todays Grammars are just FREE private schools for rich people, there are very few kids in them who went to state primary. The few kids who get in from state primary have tution for years for the 11+. Very young kids spend hours of their young lives practicing pointless tests with tutors - it's really not healthy.

Yes - Today's grammars. That's because they have been removed from the state system.

However, like about 95% of the kids at my grammar when I went to school I was there as part of the state system.

How did you get into grammar school back then? By proving you had the ability in the 11+.

How do you get a grammar education these days? By having well off parents.

neverdespairgirl

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

In the London media bubble, Comps are associated with tough, Inner City locations, normally London. In reality is that they are not all Grange Hill.

I went to a school in a very nice (dull) leafy suburb in London - Dulwich.


Literally next to the school (a private, academic one) was a boys' state school. ANd it was an absolute pit. As I recall, 5% of the boys there got 5 GCSEs A to C.

neverdespairgirl

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I wouldn't say that there was no pressure as the school gave everyone extra lessons in the evening for about a month before and it was impressed upon us that we needed to do well

I just don't remember that much about it, and we didn't have extra lessons.

I am not particularly bright, but I was ahead of myself as a child. Not a genuis, just an early developer. So I did 11+ when I was 9, and it just wasn't a big deal.

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Beyond primary school, a 'quality' education isn't universally available these days unless your parents have a bit of money behind them.

There are fantastic comps. OH went to one, in Oxfordshire. But there are also absolutely dire hell holes, sadly.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Generali wrote: »

The poverty of ambition in many comprehensive schools is one of the most terrible legacies of C20th Socialism in the UK. I sometimes wonder if the failure to educate working class kids before putting them onto welfare for the rest of their lives is some kind of sick policy. It is certainly what is being done to huge areas of the country and it's Socialism that has done it.

Now Generali - much as I like you - when was the last time you set foot in a High School or Primary School?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Yes - Today's grammars. That's because they have been removed from the state system.

However, like about 95% of the kids at my grammar when I went to school I was there as part of the state system.

How did you get into grammar school back then? By proving you had the ability in the 11+.

How do you get a grammar education these days? By having well off parents.

There are still Grammar Schools in some areas and they are part of the state system - they are paid for by the tax payer! Bucks, Kent & Wirral are 3 areas I know off.
Indeed, Grammar schools were always filled with middle class kids. See post 30 and as I also went to a Grammar school and this was my experience too. Now be honest - was your own High School full of working class kids?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Generali wrote: »

The current state education system for the most part (although not entirely) seems to be geared to fail the children of the poor. Whether that is a deliberate matter of policy or a side effect of imposing socialism on a bunch of kids that really don't deserve such a fate is ultimately immaterial.

No no no - this is not true. The current state education system is the best it has ever been. Schools have never had it so good. What do you mean by fail exactly?