147 replies to this topic

[Aquarelle]

And isn't the true purpose of state schooling to equip the majority of people to do a menial job and become docile consumers. Where does this myth about schools being there to help every child develop to their full potential come from? Because it just ain't true, despite the best efforts of many dedicated teachers.

Oh Tom! Oh Tom! How right you are - and how worng!

I am not suggesting that state education is merely a way of stopping child prostitution and child labour - but look at what happens in countries where there is little or no state education. And then there is this thing about "Assume a virture if you have it not." At least while the slogan is there some people will try to live up to it. And if you have to end up doing a job which has no real satisfaction then perhpas something you learnt in school may take you along another path to some sort of fulfillment outside the job. And as for being docile consumers - well I agree and I disagree. Docile no, but consumers we must be. If money doesn't circulate no one will eat.

Perhaps I should run off and hide before Tom shoots me down!!!

[anacrusis]

Perhaps I should run off and hide before Tom shoots me down!!!

Society also needs its internal dissenters and its dreamers

Oh, my goodness yes.
Trouble is, those are the ones who don't fit into the education system at all - some will quietly coast through, doing their own thing despite the system, others will make a huge fuss and noise about everything and become deeply unpopular, and others drop out, "failures" as far as the system is concerned .
Then again, the system which teaches our teachers doesn't encourage the inspirational and those willing to think out of the box either .

[Cyrilla]

Society also needs its internal dissenters and its dreamers.

Trouble is, those are the ones who don't fit into the education system at all - some will quietly coast through, doing their own thing despite the system, others will make a huge fuss and noise about everything and become deeply unpopular, and others drop out, "failures" as far as the system is concerned .
Then again, the system which teaches our teachers doesn't encourage the inspirational and those willing to think out of the box either .

[Aquarelle]

Where it goes wrong is where the state gets too involved in what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is assessed - or when education gets too single-mindedly focussed on preparation for work (the 'needs' of business) both of which have happened in the UK over the last 30 years.

Society also needs its internal dissenters and its dreamers

Thanks Tom for not shooting me!! And how right you are in what you say about the state getting too involved in content. I'm off to see "The White ribbon" tonight - don't know much about the film except that according to something someone said on television it's about education in Germany just before the war - which is what decided me to go and have a look.

[Arundodonuts]

I'm off to see "The White ribbon" tonight - don't know much about the film except that according to something someone said on television it's about education in Germany just before the war - which is what decided me to go and have a look.

Ooh, do tell when you've seen it. My mum and uncle were at school in Germany at that time and were always quite insistent that it was scholarships introduced at that time which gave them a decent education previously denied the working classes.

Meanwhile, my father was deputy head at the local ex-grammar school. There was no "instant lowering of standards" there when it turned comprehensive. Why on earth should there have been?

There shouldn't have been. But I can only comment on my experience.

This is just the kind of comment which would have dismayed and upset my father when he was teaching. I went there myself for the sixth form, and left with 5 excellent A levels and 2 S levels, as were. It is true that the grammar school, as was, was obliged to take children from a more working class area, which in turn dismayed the local snobs

Now that's interesting, in that it's precisely because of the existence of grammar schools that I, a working class boy from a Yorkshire pit village, and many of my peers, were able to access a high standard of education (note this was while it was a grammar - class wasn't one of the entry criteria).

[BerkshireMum]

Now that's interesting, in that it's precisely because of the existence of grammar schools that I, a working class boy from a Yorkshire pit village, and many of my peers, were able to access a high standard of education (note this was while it was a grammar - class wasn't one of the entry criteria).

Oooh - which was your school? I went to Wath, which turned comprehensive the year I started there. Not that I was truly working class, as because of getting into grammar school my parents had been able to become teachers - their fathers were a miner and a bus driver.

My brother, who's 9 years my senior, has often said something very similar to you; and also that had it not been for State Scholarships working class students would never have been able to go to university. The wheel appears to be turning full circle now, as if tuition fees are raised to £10,000 pa working class kids will be back in the position of being unable to afford university. (Yes, I know there will be grants for the poorest, but under the present system many working class families earn too much to benefit to any significant extent - it's mostly for one parent families.)

[Arundodonuts]

Oooh - which was your school? I went to Wath, which turned comprehensive the year I started there. Not that I was truly working class, as because of getting into grammar school my parents had been able to become teachers - their fathers were a miner and a bus driver.

I was on the Yorkshire/Notts border, so although the tax man was a tyke from Doncaster, the education service was Notts. North Border. So I went to the Winifred Portland in Worksop. I think it was bulldozed some years ago.

My brother, who's 9 years my senior, has often said something very similar to you; and also that had it not been for State Scholarships working class students would never have been able to go to university. The wheel appears to be turning full circle now, as if tuition fees are raised to £10,000 pa working class kids will be back in the position of being unable to afford university. (Yes, I know there will be grants for the poorest, but under the present system many working class families earn too much to benefit to any significant extent - it's mostly for one parent families.)

Don't get me started on student loans. I received an almost full grant and wouldn't have been able to go on to further education without it. Of course it wasn't possible to get a student loan in those days. However, I'm sure it simply isn't part of the psysche of many working class people to go massively into debt to be a student and that must be having an impact.

If a country wants educated people, it should pay to educate them. From general taxation. We pay plenty back later on.

[ChrisC]

It's interesting that you saw a marked difference, pushpull. Do you think that things would be in a better state if the comprehensive system had not been introduced?

(Sorry, I'm reading Educational Studies at university... )

I think some things would be better, for example the proportion of state school pupils going to certain universities would be higher, and social mobility would not have stalled. The problem was not the grammar schools, but the rest of the system. There should have been more flexibility to transfer to selective education after 11, and there should have been more investment in the non-grammar part of the system. I also think that the massive expansion of universities was a bad idea, leading to graduates being saddled with massive debts and devaluation of the degree as a qualification.

Chris
(another ex-grammar school pupil)

[Arundodonuts]

It's interesting that you saw a marked difference, pushpull. Do you think that things would be in a better state if the comprehensive system had not been introduced?

(Sorry, I'm reading Educational Studies at university... )

I think some things would be better, for example the proportion of state school pupils going to certain universities would be higher, and social mobility would not have stalled. The problem was not the grammar schools, but the rest of the system. There should have been more flexibility to transfer to selective education after 11, and there should have been more investment in the non-grammar part of the system. I also think that the massive expansion of universities was a bad idea, leading to graduates being saddled with massive debts and devaluation of the degree as a qualification.

Chris
(another ex-grammar school pupil)

Chris beat me to it Celeste. I agree with him. I don't think the Grammar School system was perfect, but as Chris suggests, I do think it helped social mobility. Yes, I agree there should have been more flexibility to transfer (though some did exist - my sister transferred from Secondary Modern to Grammar in her 2nd year).

[Babybird2]

That "50% of school leavers should go to uni" thing really gets to me

[Arundodonuts]

Don't get me wrong I do believe everyone should reach their full potential but that means EVERYONE.

Full potential? Arguably, there is no such thing. A person's potential is not 'fixed' - one could continue to improve and improve and improve. I think this is one problem faced by schools... Yes, you *can* push pupils, but just how hard can you push them in the available time? If you've got someone studying GCSE Physics who is a bit shaky when it comes to Maths, it's going to take them longer to pick up some concepts than someone who is a whizz at Maths. So, should the less-able pupil be left to 'get on with it' while the able pupil gets a lot of attention from the teacher and is pushed harder - even though they'd probably get a top grade anyway? I mean, streaming is probably the answer here, but that means more teachers, more space, more resources... more money.

Yes I agree. But then spending more money means higher taxation and that scares off the voters (so no chance of any change this year then?). Also, given the differing learning rates of different pupils, it's possibly slightly absurd that everyone is expected to reach the same sort of standard at particular times in their education. Would it be too complex to allow pupils to accelerate some subjects they are good at and extend the time taken on the shaky ones?

[Maizie]

That "50% of schoo leavers should go to uni" thing really gets to me

Me too! I've got absolutely no problem with people who are capable of university going to university (and the taxes I pay being used to fund it), but could someone please tell me exactly what all of these graduates are supposed to do when they are finished? We hear every year of the number of graduates who aren't getting jobs, or who aren't getting 'graduate jobs'...well, if 50% of people have degress, then an awful lot wider range of jobs are going to be jobs-for-graduates even if it's not a 'graduate job'!