Thatcher poll: worst or best

ukcarper

michael1983l wrote: »

Well I failed my 11+ and was taught all 3 sciences, maybe you just went to a bad school?

It is not harder to progress if you develop later, like I said earlier I have gone on to earn a higher wage than all of my friends that went to grammar. I also am an Electronic Engineer. Just because I developed later does not mean that I wish those that develop earlier to be disadvantaged too just out of spite.

You probably went to a comprehenshive not secondary modern.

The school taught 3 sciences but as I changed streams I only studied biology. It's nothing to do with spite just that it was not the great panacea it is claimed to be.

michael1983l

ukcarper wrote: »

You probably went to a comprehenshive not secondary modern.

The school taught 3 sciences but as I changed streams I only studied biology. It's nothing to do with spite just that it was not the great panacea it is claimed to be.

I think I know which school I went to thank you very much. The region I live in does not have comprehensive schools for a start as it is one of the few areas that has state run Grammar Schools still. I.e. you either go to a Grammar school or a secondary school.

MS1950

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I went to a school that was purpose built as one of the original comprehensives. It was in in good location and had an above average wealth catchment are that surrounded it. We were streamed and during the course of the first year people were juggled between streams/forms. The first stream was definitely grammar standard and many in the second stream were good too. Most academic classes were restricted to the top 3 streams. The less able in the bottom 4 streams. We still had O level and CSE which needed differentiated teaching practices.

Sounds very similar to my old school - also a purpose built comprehensive (in a 'New Town')

ukcarper

michael1983l wrote: »

I think I know which school I went to thank you very much. The region I live in does not have comprehensive schools for a start as it is one of the few areas that has state run Grammar Schools still. I.e. you either go to a Grammar school or a secondary school.

Were all students able to take GCSEs/O levels or did the majority take worthless other exames were the majority encouraged to leave a 15 without any qaulifcations.

michael1983l

ukcarper wrote: »

Were all students able to take GCSEs/O levels or did the majority take worthless other exames were the majority encouraged to leave a 15 without any qaulifcations.

No child was encouraged to leave school early and everybody was given the chance to take GCSE's as it was in my time. I took 10 GCSE's. Some of the kids in the bottom sets at school took 1 or 2 but that was out of choice.

ukcarper

michael1983l wrote: »

No child was encouraged to leave school early and everybody was given the chance to take GCSE's as it was in my time. I took 10 GCSE's. Some of the kids in the bottom sets at school took 1 or 2 but that was out of choice.

No because a modern secondary/comprehensive is a totally different thing to a secondary school when Grammar schools were universal and you benefited indirectly from the end of grammar schools.

michael1983l

ukcarper wrote: »

No because a modern secondary/comprehensive is a totally different thing to a secondary school when Grammer schools were universal and you benefited indirectly from the end of grammer schools.

The school is still a secondary school to this day. It is not a comprehensive and it is not a secondary modern. The local government is and always has been Tory and has never changed to all this modern BS. Hence the reason the area I live in has some of the best schools in the country.

ukcarper

michael1983l wrote: »

The school is still a secondary school to this day. It is not a comprehensive and it is not a secondary modern. The local government is and always has been Tory and has never changed to all this modern BS. Hence the reason the area I live in has some of the best schools in the country.

When Grammar schools were universal a large number of secondary schools did not allowed students to take O levels and access to A levels was almost non existent.

I was lucky mine allowed access to 0 levels but less than 30% were given the opertunity and A levels were out of the question.

michael1983l

ukcarper wrote: »

When Grammar schools were universal a large number of secondary schools did not allowed students to take O levels and access to A levels was almost non existent.

I was lucky mine allowed access to 0 levels but less than 30% were given the opertunity and A levels were out of the question.

That would not really be a problem now as it is only GCSE's or Scottish Equivelant. There is no choice of exam only choice of Exam board.

ukcarper

michael1983l wrote: »

That would not really be a problem now as it is only GCSE's or Scottish Equivelant. There is no choice of exam only choice of Exam board.

I think it is hard for younger people or people who went to grammar schools to known how much the secondary modern schools of the time failed a large proportion of the the children who went to them. If comprehensives were not introduced I doubt that GCSEs would have been introduced.