UK spending power 'in heavy fall'

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

chrisandanne wrote: »

I think the closing of the grammar schools was one of the worst decisions ever made for the children of the lower/middle income families. A x

Unbelievable! Can I ask you when you were last in a school also?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Yep - pure political dogma winning out over common sense.

What is so wrong with todays High Schools?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

The comprehensive school system is a disastrously bad way of handling education. Forcing all kids into a single secondary level just because of some misguided notion of 'fairness' is self defeating. Parents with the means to do so will cheat it anyway with private education. Far better to have a state system that encourages the development of students across the differing range of abilities to the best of their ability (ie. grammar for the more academically capable) and makes the possibility available to all based upon a fair system of academic selection.

On what criteria is it disastrous? Why shouldn't all kids go to the same High School? It is unfair to separate kids at 11 on the basis of some random test. It is better for all kids to go to the same school. There are many many middle class and wealthy people with kids in state High Schools. State schools do manage to meet the needs of the academically able. Nearly all schools "set" kids in Maths, Science and English from age 7 these days. All able children are tracked to ensure they are excelling. Even the most able kids are not able in every single area - so on what criteria are you picking your academic elite at 11?

WTF?_2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

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.

I wonder what the house prices are like in their catchment areas.....

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?

Yes. Many of the brighter kids from my primary went there but it drew in pupils from a wide catchment area. Just about everyone who was there, was there because they passed the 11+. Entrance was about academic ability, not parental cash.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

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'm sorry if this happens at all (no sports day racers) it is rare! The reality is that most state schools today are actually highly competitive environments. This is what actually happens in today's school. From the moment children arrive at school they are assessed in reading, writing and numeracy at age 4. This is called a Baseline assessment. In every class in the infant department (age to 7) children are separated by ability and arranged by groups on to separate tables where the teacher organises work to match the different children's abilities. This is done in all schools. After age 7 most schools also set in at least maths (this means that children's ability are assessed in each subject and they are put into the relevant class). Setting is the norm from age 7 and continues into High School. Of course this can become competitive, but most schools will try to minimise its impact on children as so much of education is to do with confidence. So the reality is that school's these days are actually highly competitive environments.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I wonder what the house prices are like in their catchment areas.....



Yes. Many of the brighter kids from my primary went there but it drew in pupils from a wide catchment area. Just about everyone who was there, was there because they passed the 11+. Entrance was about academic ability, not parental cash.

Sorry !!!!!!? as you well know parental cash can effect academic ability, then as now. It is a FACT that Grammar Schools were full of middle class kids and secondary moderns were full of working class kids.

WTF?_2

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

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?

Glad to hear that things have improved in the last two years then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/aug/21/schools.topstories3

One in three businesses is having to send staff for remedial "catch-up" lessons in basic literacy and numeracy skills that they have failed to acquire at school, a damning report reveals today.The employers' organisation CBI says the government must act urgently to improve poor standards of maths and English among Britain's school leavers. The evidence emerges days before GCSE results are expected to show that more than half of all 16-year-olds have failed to achieve good grades in both key subjects.

Still, A-level grades continue to improve so I guess it's all an illusion that the general standard of academic ability seems to be so appalling....

stonethrower

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

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?

I nearly choked on mu tea when I read this. The education system in this country has been going downhill for years. The exams are getting easier so results get better makes teachers and politicians look good.

neverdespairgirl

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

On what criteria is it disastrous? Why shouldn't all kids go to the same High School?

I persoanlly think that very large schools aren't a good thing. And to have a huge spread of ability means that you do have to have large schools, with a big range of subjects taught.

I greatly enjoyed my secondary school. It wouldn't have suited everyone, but it was great for me. It was a very academic, high-acheiving school, and I loved it. There were also only 100 girls per year, so the whole school was 700, which is a good number. You get to know everyone in your year, for example, quite quickly.

Nothing wrong with having schools which are more or less focused on academics.

neverdespairgirl

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I wonder what the house prices are like in their catchment areas.....

In the bits of Kent I know about, it's not an 11+ - everyone goes to the same secondary to start with, and the grammars kick in at 13.