Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Prescott back stabs Blair.

171 replies

RudolphsAuntMabel · 18/12/2005 09:26

Hurrah for John Prescott!! (never thought I'd say that!).

Has told the telegraph that he will fight Tory Blair on the school reforms - the ones that will allow state schools to be selective - 2 tier class system.

I for one agree with John. I was lucky enough to go to a great state High School where the girls in my form were from all different backgrounds and I firmly believe that's a good thing. If you give state schools the option to be selective with the pupils they take and more control over their own finances in the way Tony wants a lot are going to take children from more prosperous back grounds so kids like I was will miss out on a fantastic education just because their parents aren't wealthy.

I love John Prescott!!

OP posts:
Original poster
RudolphsAuntMabel · 20/12/2005 11:36

fox - personnally I couldn't care less that Prescott failed his 11+. Didn't do him any harm did it? Like you say it's that they don't practice what they preach do they? Stamp on grammar schools as they are academically streamed yet send their own kids to private? Hmmmmm TBH there are a few mner's like that too.

OP posts:
Original poster
RudolphsAuntMabel · 20/12/2005 11:40

This thread looks like to may turn into something completel different to why it was started.
Which was - the worry that giving state schools more freedom to choose pupils will lead to their being able to choose children from wealthier backgrounds therefore excluding children from less affluent families which just shouldn't happen. Academical streaming yes (it'd be stupid not to) but financial streaming? Hell no. Major class divide alert.

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 20/12/2005 11:41

I'm not against private schools (each to their own) - what I can't stand is hypocrisy. It's ok to stand up and preach about how we should all be happy sending our kids to our local school (be it one where very few children get 5 GCSEs) meanwhile making sure that their own children get into the best school (whether it be private, grammar or state).

flashingnose · 20/12/2005 11:47

Many moons ago in our area, there were grammer schools (for the academics), technical colleges (for more vocational/practical minded pupils) and secondary moderns (which concentrated on business skills). The schools made recommendations for each pupil, as did the parents and then the pupils sat the 11+. There was movement between the schools at 13 and 16 and also for certain subjects.

I don't really understand what was so bad with that system.

flashingnose · 20/12/2005 11:47

Eek - grammar!

Original poster
RudolphsAuntMabel · 20/12/2005 11:52

Fox, my garden backs on to a school that is appalling! It's pass rates are on average 20% lower than 3 others within 10 mins drive, and they have absolutely no control over the pupils there. They act and behave like little thugs, vandalising fences etc yet the school doesn't seem able to do anything (even caught some in my neighbours garden last week after they'd climbed over a 12ft fence). My DS's will NOT be going there unless it's improved massively over the next 9 years or so!

I'm not completely anti private but in my area that is something reserved for the very wealthy. Wages in our area are far below the nat. average so for most people here private isn't an option even if they wanted it.

I feel very strongly that all parents should have the choice of a good school that is free! And as I've said IMO if people want to pay to go private then the 'better' teachers and better facilities are going to go there instead of lovely parents making donations every so often to the fab state school that could really do with a new science block.

OP posts:
Mistletoo · 20/12/2005 11:52

"The boxing lessons certainly weren't wasted."

pmsl

and a standing ovation for Normsnockers lenghty post - excellent!

Original poster
RudolphsAuntMabel · 20/12/2005 11:54

flashingnose - at my school if we chose to do computer studies we were trooped to the secondary modern round the corner as I think we had 2 or 3 pc's and they had a huge computer block (and still have).

OP posts:
Original poster
RudolphsAuntMabel · 20/12/2005 11:55

I found JP's right hook to that bloke hilarious!! (sadly)

OP posts:
flashingnose · 20/12/2005 12:26

RAM - did you think that was good or bad (trooping round the corner)?

SenoraPartridgeinaPearTree · 20/12/2005 12:39

flashingnose - what is wrong with that system is that it only caters for children who fit into those categories. what about children who are very bright and good at english, but completely let down by their maths? what about bright children who want to study some practical/vocational stuff too? etc.

DinosaurInAManger · 20/12/2005 12:44

And children who blossom academically at a later age.

Normsnockers · 20/12/2005 12:55

Message withdrawn

Normsnockers · 20/12/2005 13:05

Message withdrawn

Caligyulea · 20/12/2005 13:05

But if only 20% of kids have grammar school places, what happens to kid number 21% who just didn't get enough coaching?

My big beef with it is that there is an arbitrary cut off point which in our area happens to be 20% (in other areas it may be bigger or smaller) so that borderline children are forced to compete against each other for a decent education (and therefore in many cases, a decent life). There's something quite morally oprobrious about that imo. I know life's all about competition blah blah blah, but some of the point of civilising society is so that we don't have to compete against each other for the basics like food, shelter and yes, education.

Normsnockers · 20/12/2005 13:17

Message withdrawn

Normsnockers · 20/12/2005 13:18

Message withdrawn

aelita · 20/12/2005 13:38

Normsknockers, agree with all your posts,

Mistletoo · 20/12/2005 13:52

A big fat ditto

Normsnockers · 20/12/2005 14:00

Message withdrawn

homemama · 20/12/2005 14:01

Why can't the two tier system start at 14? By then kids would be more mature and more aware of where their strenghts and weaknesses lay.

I know this system would be too expensive because it would mean funding three systems but the current system is so dire that something radical does need to be done.

The two breakaway 14+schools would need adequate funding. The more practical based one needs to offer real qualifications with real support and input from industry. These kids need to gain a qualification in something they are interested in which is also something needed by employers and society. They need to feel valued, not left to develop bad attitudes and behaviour which often stems from frustration and boredom.
They want to get out of academia and do something useful and interesting. Why then do we make them stay until they are 16 and disillussioned?

The government say that the way to sustain the economy is to have this huge % of kids (can't remember the exact figure) going to uni. Surely it should be to have a huge % of kids becoming adults with qualifications and experience to do an honest day's work.

I'm fed up with this p.c crap which says that we cannot suggest that all children do not have the same academic potential. That we cannot stream. That we are all equal. That inclusion is the way forward because we all need to drink from the same cup. It's all bllcks! Not all children are capable (or interested in) getting a degree. We are not all equal. We all deserve equal respect and consideration but we are not equal nor does one route such as a degree make any given person 'better' than the next. We should stream because otherwise teaching logistics are a nightmare and nobody reaches their potential. And finally, inclusion is crap unless it is properly resourced and funded.
And, some children's needs mean that inclusion in mainstream is never going to be right for them and they need their own education system which again needs proper funding.

Sorry to rant.

aelita · 20/12/2005 14:05

Here's a question - I keep hearing these arguments that giving state schools freedom to select pupils means they will do so merely on a child's affluence, which doesnt' seem logical. Is there any hard evidence to back this up?

batters · 20/12/2005 14:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SenoraPartridgeinaPearTree · 20/12/2005 14:20

those were just two examples, and you didn't address the child who is really good at english but rubbish at maths - do they go to the gramar and struggle in maths class or go to the sec modern and take lessons below their ability in english?

also nothing in your argument precludes really good streaming in comprehensive schools.

homemama · 20/12/2005 14:45

Senora, the child who is really good at English but bad at maths should still be at liberty to make their choice.
If they want to stay in an academic setting then they should. They would likely be in a higher set for English than maths but why is that a problem? I'm not suggesting that streaming shouldn't continue within that framework. They could then choose (or not) to study English at uni if they wished having only taken maths to GCSE level. They may also feel that they would rather a vocational qualification and so opt for that route.

Likewise, a child who chose the vocational route may decide at 16 that they want to take their study further and move on to a voc. degree at uni. This option should be fine too and provision for it built into the system. Why should any of them have their choices limited?