Education

[reohn2]

Listened to this on Ted talks:- https://youtu.be/wX78iKhInsc it's worth the 20minutes especially the Finnish example..
What struck me was,is poor education a mistake or is it deliberate?

[Mike Sales]

Listened to this on Ted talks:- https://youtu.be/wX78iKhInsc it's worth the 20minutes especially the Finnish example..
What struck me was,is poor education a mistake or is it deliberate?

I seem to remember that black schoolchildren in Serf Effrika protested against being taught only in Afrikaans, rather than English.

[pete75]

Listened to this on Ted talks:- https://youtu.be/wX78iKhInsc it's worth the 20minutes especially the Finnish example..
What struck me was,is poor education a mistake or is it deliberate?

It's in the interests of Conservatives to have a poor state educational system. If it was excellent they would be unable to buy their children an advantage by paying for private education.

[Freddie]

It's in the interests of Conservatives to have a poor state educational system. If it was excellent they would be unable to buy their children an advantage by paying for private education.

...and yet it was Labour that actively destroyed one of the best education systems in the world by doing away with grammar schools, which admitted those that passed the eleven plus irrespective of means.

Secondly, a private/public school education costs £30,000+ a year. How many Conservative voters do you think have the means to send one child, let alone two or three, to such schools. How many people do you think can afford £30,000 a year on fees, this without taking into account all the extras throughout the school year?

Most people who are conservative (small c) or vote Conservative don't have that kind of money to spare.

[softlips]

It's in the interests of Conservatives to have a poor state educational system. If it was excellent they would be unable to buy their children an advantage by paying for private education.

Labour ended the Grammar school system. Which not only was seen as one of the best education systems in the world it was also excellent at facilitating social mobility.

[Freddie]

Absolutely, there was far more social mobility for capable working class children at grammar schools than there is in the current state system. Just look at any high ranking position where people who came from humble means are old enough to have gone to grammar schools and grammar school graduates abound.

[reohn2]

.........Most people who are conservative (small c) or vote Conservative don't have that kind of money to spare.

Though many parents or grandparents will have the means to pay a private tutor to train their children how the pass the necessary exams to further their 'education'
It seems to me we're teaching children fo pass exams so schools can climb league tables,so students leave with paper qualifications to the next step in their training program which maybe be small or larger increments according to the papers they hold and from which school in the league they were obtained from.
This IFAICS is the basis of the post code school syndrome.
The final step is a good university made into a business,again through league tables.
This isn't education,it's specific and narrow training to pass certain criteria to earn money and the better the school(s) and uni the more the mular earning potential of the 'product'.

The private school system is a similar system for the well off,the present PM and many MPs are the product of that system.

[reohn2]

It's in the interests of Conservatives to have a poor state educational system. If it was excellent they would be unable to buy their children an advantage by paying for private education.

Labour ended the Grammar school system. Which not only was seen as one of the best education systems in the world it was also excellent at facilitating social mobility.

Many children develope at different rates and at different times,qualifying for grammar school demands a certain level at a certain age,so the pupil can be taught by a better class of teacher,the cream tapeaching the cream,who were left in no doubt they wrre the cream.

[reohn2]

It's in the interests of Conservatives to have a poor state educational system. If it was excellent they would be unable to buy their children an advantage by paying for private education.

Labour ended the Grammar school system. Which not only was seen as one of the best education systems in the world it was also excellent at facilitating social mobility.

Many children develope at different rates and at different times,qualifying for grammar school demands a certain level at a certain age,so the pupil can be taught by a better class of teacher,the cream tapeaching the cream,who were left in no doubt they wrre the cream seperated from the rest because they were better.

[reohn2]

Did anyone watch the video?

[Freddie]

Though many parents or grandparents will have the means to pay a private tutor to train their children how the pass the necessary exams to further their 'education'

I agree with that, actually. I'm far more interested in potential, than ability to swot or the drive of the parents/grandparents to buy tutors and such (a largely middle middle, and occasional lower middle class activity, as far as the few remaining grammar schools are concerned). Swotters are usually children who are less likely to go on and be the top tier of intelligent people, from which new invention and understanding comes, because a lot of those kind of people are difficult and rather less conscientious people (given what we know about genii).

A system where grammar schools were everywhere, as they were up to the early 1960s, would make this kind of thing unnecessary.

Furthermore, Oxford, Cambridge and a number of other Russell Group universities would interview students and if they liked their interview (they felt the interviewee's innate ability was worth taking a chance on), they could ask that they only get E grades in their exams, so the less conscientious (or, perhaps more likely, less challenged or more bored by tests for their own sake) high intelligence students, some of which go on to become the top tier inventors and scientists of tomorrow, would have an ability to get in rather than just the more conscientious and rule following (but often times rather less 'expansive', intellectually speaking) children.

This has been done away with by the grade obsessive, so the kind of child that is precocious in their intellect, but not particularly motivated to get A grades in tests or doesn't have the backing of highly driven family members, is far less likely to go on to better universities than was the case in the past.

Many children develope at different rates and at different times,qualifying for grammar school demands a certain level at a certain age...

I agree with this also, so why not have a further exam at 13? Perhaps also a sixth form as part of the grammar school where very late developers could go to swot for two years in preparation for university?

The problem with the left is that in pursuit of the perfect, which is unattainable, they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think a better example of this exists than the decimation of the grammar schools.

[pete75]

It's in the interests of Conservatives to have a poor state educational system. If it was excellent they would be unable to buy their children an advantage by paying for private education.

...and yet it was Labour that actively destroyed one of the best education systems in the world by doing away with grammar schools, which admitted those that passed the eleven plus irrespective of means.

Secondly, a private/public school education costs £30,000+ a year. How many Conservative voters do you think have the means to send one child, let alone two or three, to such schools. How many people do you think can afford £30,000 a year on fees, this without taking into account all the extras throughout the school year?

Most people who are conservative (small c) or vote Conservative don't have that kind of money to spare.

Margaret Thatcher, as education secretary, created more comprehensive schools than anyone before or since. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think she was a Conservative.
All our friends who are Conservative supporters send or sent their children to private schools. £30,000 is way over the top, for example our two nearest , Stamford and Oakham charge around £17,000 per annum.

The Conservative party is there to represent the interests of the wealthy. Nothing wrong with that as the wealthy are as entitled to representation as anyone else. I was talking about what is in the interests of the people the Conservative party represents not all the saps they persuade to vote for them.
Where I live, in Lincolnshire, there are still Grammar and Secondary Modern Schools. The county is about average in the league table s for 11-18 education. Other counties which are all comprehensive are much higher than Lincs in the tables.

[Freddie]

Margaret Thatcher, as education secretary, created more comprehensive schools than anyone before or since. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think she was a Conservative.

Creation of one thing and destruction of another are two different things. Also, Margaret Thatcher was pretty revolutionary and not particularly conservative. She may have been a Conservative, but I doubt her credentials as a conservative (small c).

She shared much in common with the left, in that she was enamoured with the new (not a particularly conservative trait). That doesn't mean I'm trying to say she was of the left, but that she is a very singular example and certainly had something of a revolutionary spirit, which is hardly what one would associated with conservatives (small c).

Where I live, in Lincolnshire, there are still Grammar and Secondary Modern Schools. The county is about average in the league table s for 11-18 education. Other counties which are all comprehensive are much higher than Lincs in the tables.

The averages say nothing of the few remaining grammar schools in Lincolnshire. I imagine if you compared solely the grammars in Lincs to the comprehensives in other counties then the results would come out rather differently and in favour of the grammars.

[reohn2]

The problem is not the left,as the previous New Labour government wasn't 'the left' at all,just not quite a right wing as the previous Thatcher government.
The problem AFAICS is the class system which is firmly rooted in UK society,a system that definitely and demonstrably is based on money which buys 'education' in,where if you can fool enough of the people enough of the time you'll rise to the top,which I accept is a generalisation but not totally.
Yes people from humble backgrounds beat the system but they start from a much lower rung on the ladder and need to be dedicated and have a fine mind and a strong will to succed,such people get to the top despite their humble beginnings not because of it

[reohn2]

The averages say nothing of the few remaining grammar schools in Lincolnshire. I imagine if you compared solely the grammars in Lincs to the comprehensives in other counties then the results would come out rather differently and in favour of the grammars.

When you get the pick of the crop you get the best,that goes for teachers as much as it does for pupils.

When you pass the 11+ you're left in no doubt you're privileged and on a higher level,teachers are also left in no doubt of the same.I had a couple of friends who went to Grammar school,they had much smaller class sizes than us in Sec Mod school and were driven by parents and teachers alike.