Conservatives plan on state-education... Watch

taheki
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#81
Report 8 years ago
#81
I have 2 Biology teachers at my college.. one of them got 3 As at A Level and went to Oxford.. the other got BCU and went to Birmingham, leaving with a 2:2. The latter is an absolutely incredible teacher, while the former certainly isn't. You can't judge people purely on grades.
0
quote
reply
Cesare Borgia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#82
Report 8 years ago
#82
(Original post by chidona)
No, they are not.
They foster social mobility and allow the very best students to excel academically, regardless of non-relevant variables (income, ethnic group etc.)

They are an incredibly important mechanism in the construction of an equitable society, if we take a definition of 'equity' which appears to be harmonious amongst Western Europe and the UK.
Yes.
0
quote
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 8 years ago
#83
(Original post by chidona)
I'll get back to you in a fortnight with the hardcore evidence, if you so wish BUT, you must provide me with the evidence that an education system with grammar schools, private schools and non-grammar state schools is less bad in terms of equity and efficiency objectives than any of the education plans set out by the three main parties (i.e., the feasible alternatives). Indeed, I must say I do find it hypocritical that whilst I have provided at least some evidence (that is indeed true if on a small scale), you have nary provided anything to suggest the contrary. Indeed, your claim that grammar schools have been 'discarded' is both fallacious and betrays an aggressive ignorance.

From some preliminary reading, it appears that grammar schools are actually both effective (in terms of social mobility) and equitable (in terms of the distribution of education). But, as I said, I'll get back to you in a fortnight with a hefty body of evidence supporting my cause.
You are obviously unfamilar with logic. I am avocating the status quo, you want to change it, therefore, its up to you to come up with the evidence why changes are needed. I do not need to provide any evidence to maintain the status quo.

The fact that you do not have any evidence at present indicates your views are subjective and not objective. Why would anyone take them seriously?
0
quote
reply
15_step
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 8 years ago
#84
Why is everyone who is against grammar schools claiming that one's future is decided at 11 under that system? At the grammar I went to, there was entry in year 7, year 9, and at the beginning of year 12.
0
quote
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#85
Report 8 years ago
#85
(Original post by paddyman4)
Labour should never have got rid of Grammar schools. Labour were the ones that made sure only the rich could get a good education, and then pretended that they care about the poor.

Also to those saying that a good degree does not equal a good teacher: that's true. But a pass at uni suggests that the person coasted through. You can't get kids enthusiastic about a subject that you have no passion for. And in Science subjects, it's not good enough to know the A Level syllabus. A teacher should be able to answer kids questions about topics beyond that, especially when they realise that what they are learning is just a simple but wrong way of thinking about something. Without a solid knowledge of the subject, teachers will not be able to answer curious students and so will not be able to satisfy their curiosity, get them interested in the exciting aspects of a subject (of which none are in the school syllabus), or encourage their thirst for knowledge.

The Tories are just trying to cut out the people who coasted through and then decided to go into teaching, purely because it's a secure job that you don't need a good degree for, making it pretty unique in the graduate job market.

You are factually incorrect. The Conservatives closed down more grammar schools than Labour. The Conservatives seem to be ignorant of their own history and they are not the only ones.
0
quote
reply
Apagg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#86
Report 8 years ago
#86
(Original post by Maker)
Grammar schools have been tried and discarded because they were too expensive and didn't work.

If grammar schools did enable social mobility, then the secondary moderns must conversely stop social mobility. I don't think that would construct an equitable society.

The concept of grammar and secondary modern schools makes the assumption that people at the age of 10 or 11 can be neatly divided into academic and vocational and should be taught that way. If that is true, perhaps you could provide some evidence that back up your assertion.
I'm afraid that simply doesn't follow.
0
quote
reply
Amit92
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#87
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#87
The point is...that every individual deserves quality state-education...none of these crappy state-schools with <30% past-rates in 5GCSES A*-C including Maths or them Acadamies!
0
quote
reply
The Referee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#88
Report 8 years ago
#88
(Original post by ArtGoblin)
They're looking at it the wrong way. State schools will never be able to reach Eton standards because there isn't the money for it. 'Poor boys' are being disadvantaged not only by underperforming schools but by the private schools that have been praised for 'academic excellence'. Academic attainment can never be a true measure of ability unless everyone gets the same education.
This would include doing the same exams...I'd love to see the results if everyone had to sit the qualification exams that the vast majority of private students do. :yep:

It's not only private schools that are praised for academic excellence, ANY outstanding school gets the praise it deserves.

To be quite honest, you could give every school in the country the same syllabus for any given subject and give the same funding per person...you still wouldn't get 'equality' in the results. Discipline, expectation and personal philosophy with respect to the importance of education will be more than enough to ensure that the perceived inequality remains. Even if you outlawed private tuition, you can't prevent parents teaching their children or children working together to learn from each other (thus balancing strengths and weaknesses!).
0
quote
reply
paddyman4
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#89
Report 8 years ago
#89
(Original post by Maker)
You are factually incorrect. The Conservatives closed down more grammar schools than Labour. The Conservatives seem to be ignorant of their own history and they are not the only ones.
I never said anything about the Tories closing Grammar schools. Dave doesn't even want Grammar schools. I only said that Labour's war against them ("there will be no selection under a Labour Government" ) was wrong and is detrimental to the poor and to social mobility, contrary to their supposed ideology. So please point out the fact that I presented that was incorrect.

The only reason that closure of Grammar schools has been popular is that there are more parents with kids who won't or didn't make the cut than there are parents whose kids will or have. But Grammar schools undoubtedly are best for everyone. Education is not a 'one size fits all', and the bright kids need different teaching to the others. Putting them all in one class is not good for either.
0
quote
reply
Revolution is my Name
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#90
Report 8 years ago
#90
(Original post by Amit92)
Along with teachers having to have a 2:1 at degree level.
I really can't see why that would benefit students. For instance, my Physics teacher is a very intelligent bloke, and very good at Physics; however, is he a good teacher? No, he's ******* appalling - he's **** at explaining stuff, he's **** at motivating people, he's **** at keeping a class under control, he's **** at planning good lessons etc. I've had much better teachers who were worse at the subject, and probably did a lot worse than this individual at degree level, and yet more than made up for it by being better teachers.
0
quote
reply
Wildebeest
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#91
Report 8 years ago
#91
(Original post by Amit92)
I am really in favour of plans by the Tories to improve state-education and implement more grammer schools.
I'm ambivalent towards the suggestion of grammar schools becoming more widespread, and this is quite a good example of the Conservatives producing an interesting or potentially beneficial policy that is unspecific and poorly developed. As in, this could very easily mean that we will have a reincarnation of a kind of Tripartite System, with students being split at age eleven. Segregation according to ability in this manner has already proven to have significant downsides and I would imagine that with the widening participation measures in the present day, such a system would merely redistribute success and failure. If the Tories want to build on some of the successes seen in the Home Counties, however (that is, by both maintaining some excellent grammar schools and simultaneously pushing standard comprehensives to improve performance), then I can't fault that.

As for the party's plans to 'improve state education', isn't that what everyone seems to propose to little visible effect?

Along with teachers having to have a 2:1 at degree level...none of this 2:2/PASS or under-qualified crap.
Not keen on this one. A post for a teacher in a either a failing or an excelling secondary school isn't there for an individual of outstanding academic ability: it needs to be a fair amount of this combined with applicable skills for communicating and managing the course. I can see why people look down on 2:2s (they aren't reassuring for entry to competitive postgraduate courses or graduate recruitment schemes), but in realistic terms, A Level and GCSE material is basic for someone returning to it from an undergraduate degree and the challenge lies in finding an interesting, motivational and effective method of achieving the results. Even if that teacher 'only' achieved a 2:2 classification.
0
quote
reply
Amit92
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#92
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#92
(Original post by Wildebeest)
I'm ambivalent towards the suggestion of grammar schools becoming more widespread, and this is quite a good example of the Conservatives producing an interesting or potentially beneficial policy that is unspecific and poorly developed. As in, this could very easily mean that we will have a reincarnation of a kind of Tripartite System, with students being split at age eleven. Segregation according to ability in this manner has already proven to have significant downsides and I would imagine that with the widening participation measures in the present day, such a system would merely redistribute success and failure. If the Tories want to build on some of the successes seen in the Home Counties, however (that is, by both maintaining some excellent grammar schools and simultaneously pushing standard comprehensives to improve performance), then I can't fault that.

As for the party's plans to 'improve state education', isn't that what everyone seems to propose to little visible effect?



Not keen on this one. A post for a teacher in a either a failing or an excelling secondary school isn't there for an individual of outstanding academic ability: it needs to be a fair amount of this combined with applicable skills for communicating and managing the course. I can see why people look down on 2:2s (they aren't reassuring for entry to competitive postgraduate courses or graduate recruitment schemes), but in realistic terms, A Level and GCSE material is basic for someone returning to it from an undergraduate degree and the challenge lies in finding an interesting, motivational and effective method of achieving the results. Even if that teacher 'only' achieved a 2:2 classification.
I see, I guess the 2:2 classification isn't that important aslong as the teacher is good at what she does. I will be surely sending my children to Manchester/Oldham Grammer School
0
quote
reply
chidona
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#93
Report 8 years ago
#93
(Original post by Maker)
You are obviously unfamilar with logic. I am avocating the status quo, you want to change it, therefore, its up to you to come up with the evidence why changes are needed. I do not need to provide any evidence to maintain the status quo.
I'm challenging your assertion that the status quo consists of grammar schools having been discarded. Thus, by your very own 'logic' you also have a burden to bear in terms of proof. A proof that will you find incredibly elusive seeing as I'm living proof that they haven't been discarded and that they DO have the capacity to work.

In addition, why should I take you seriously when your very attitude is reminiscent of someone who covers their own inadequacies and weak position with a high handed and condescending attitude rather than a person who appears to be genuinely interested in a debate?

(Answer: I shouldn't, and I don't. So, suck it.)
0
quote
reply
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#94
Report 8 years ago
#94
(Original post by chidona)
I'm challenging your assertion that the status quo consists of grammar schools having been discarded. Thus, by your very own 'logic' you also have a burden to bear in terms of proof. A proof that will you find incredibly elusive seeing as I'm living proof that they haven't been discarded and that they DO have the capacity to work.

In addition, why should I take you seriously when your very attitude is reminiscent of someone who covers their own inadequacies and weak position with a high handed and condescending attitude rather than a person who appears to be genuinely interested in a debate?

(Answer: I shouldn't, and I don't. So, suck it.)
If you are an example of the grammar system, I'm glad there are so few of them. You seem to be under the impression your subjective views have any pertinence to anyone else. It is obvious that there are very few state supported grammar schools, a fact that seems to have passed you by. Perhaps, you would like to travel away from from your little corner of England and look in other parts of the country and play spot the state supported grammar school.
0
quote
reply
JmsG
Badges: 0
#95
Report 8 years ago
#95
(Original post by ForGreatJustice)
So what you would to do is tax rich people more so their children can go to worse schools.

I really cannot see how that helps anyone.
Thier children will still go to good schools and probably still attain the same grades as most of thier drive comes from thier parents and also at a good school they will push the pupil to attain the best that they can get.

I just see private school education as a waste of money, which could be better used across the board to improve standards rather than the standards of a select few whose grades could be achieved with a significantly smaller amount of funding.
0
quote
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#96
Report 8 years ago
#96
As far as I am aware OP, the Tories do not plan to implement a more widespread grammar school system.

What is necessary if a greater social and educational equality is to be achieved however, is the abolition of private fee-paying schools.
0
quote
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#97
Report 8 years ago
#97
(Original post by Amit92)
I am really in favour of plans by the Tories to improve state-education and implement more grammer schools. Along with teachers having to have a 2:1 at degree level...none of this 2:2/PASS or under-qualified crap.

Thanks
The Tories under Cameron do not support grammar schools.
This is one reason why grass root Tories dislike Cameron.
0
quote
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#98
Report 8 years ago
#98
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
As far as I am aware OP, the Tories do not plan to implement a more widespread grammar school system.

What is necessary if a greater social and educational equality is to be achieved however, is the abolition of private fee-paying schools.
Why deny those the right to purchase better education?
What gives you the right to dictate to them that they must suffer in state education?
0
quote
reply
*R*a*c*h*
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#99
Report 8 years ago
#99
(Original post by Bojo)
what a load of rubbish! grammar schools get far less funding than comps. etc.
the worse the school performs, the more cash the government give them to try and improve. therefore grammar schools tend to get the least funding out of any of the state schools.
Today maybe - and it is still very dependant on the region - out of the state schools in my area, the ones who perform the best, find it easier to get more money from the govt not the other way round.

What I was referring to is back 30, 40 years ago when it wasn't so much Grammar vs Comps, but grammars vs secondary moderns and the secondary moderns were the ones who lacked facilities and had 2nd rate facilities.

If we had more grammar schools, I'm worried it would lead to a greater divide between types of kids in schools. At the moment, Comps are mixed ability but if there were an influx of grammar schools, that could lead to kids who are judged more intelligent (at age 11 which is stupid) all going to the grammars.

This would lead to other schools, the 'comps' in this case filled with just under privileged and low-achieving (academically at least) students. At age 11, like in the day of the secondary-modern and like still today in some schools they wouldn't be pushed to develop their full potential, just to pass. Thus, kids who may develop academically more around the age of 14 or even 16 won't be able to catch up with grammar schools who have the A* or nothing attitude.
0
quote
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#100
Report 8 years ago
#100
(Original post by Teaddict)
Why deny those the right to purchase better education?
What gives you the right to dictate to them that they must suffer in state education?
Suffer? Excuse me? State schools are hardly akin to concentration camps you know. :rolleyes:
The private education system is a huge barrier to social equality and cohesion, and as such, I find it abhorrent. If private schools were abolished it would force the overall quality of state schools to be increased, and would ensure that all children benefit from equal opportunities.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (65)
26.75%
No (178)
73.25%

Watched Threads

View All