Prescott back stabs Blair.

[RudolphsAuntMabel]

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!!

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Oh fgs the reason that secondary moderns are considered inferior to grammar, and that they offer a worse education than grammar, is because the funding they receive per child is well below the funding grammar schools receive.

Let's have the debate the way the world is, not the way the world should be.

And I still don't understand how you get round the fact that some children are very bright academically in certain subjects but still want to do practical vocational subjects as well. Enoch Powell once asked why plumbers shouldn't be taught Latin. And I'd like to ask why A level pupils shouldn't be taught woodwork. Why on earth does it have to be one or the other? But in the secondary modern versus grammar model, that's how it is. (Except that most secondary moderns don't teach anything as useful as woodwork or plumbing)

I agree, Normsnockers. The problem with the old system was that the sec moderns were seen as 'where you went if you failed the 11+' rather than as a viable and equal alternative. They were shockingly underfunded and little scope for development.

Any new system must include options which lead to 'education' and career. I've put education in inverted commas because we need to begin seeing this in a broader sense, as a lifelong thing. Not just something that ends at 21 with a degree and not much else.

And in the old days, masses of poor children who passed the 11+ didn't take up their places because their parents simply couldn't afford the uniforms, text books, school trips etc., which attending grammar entailed. The idea that it was a way out of poverty for a majority would be nice, but it just isn't true - it was a great way out for a minority.

Senora, my DH was very good at Maths, not so good at English and failed the 11+ (his school would have supported an appeal but his parents decided not to). He was top of his year in Maths and came out with better O Level results than I achieved at a Grammar school. He was not in the top set for English. Because of his results, he had the option of taking A Levels at the local Grammar school.

Caligyulea, As I said, if the system didn't split until 14 then they could decide for themselves whether they wanted to pursue the academic side or the more practical side.

If they stayed in the academic setting there is no reason why they shouldn't take a course in woodwork too. When I chose my o'level subjects we had to choose one option from a column of non-academic, non-exam subjects including domestic science, music, woodwork etc.

Why can't many of the options be interchangable?

i'm curious, caligula, since you live in a grammar school area, will you put your children up for them or go comprehensive?

Don't know till I get there BK. DS is only 6, so will see whether he's academic or not round about 10 I guess.

Having said that, the only local comp is very academic, so comp may not be an option for a child who fails the 11+. The alternative is sink secondary moderns. Not an educational choice many people are keen on.

Funding is a different debate - totally agree that every child deserves the same spent on their education, no matter which school they go to. But given that resources are limited, I cannot see the point in having a mediocre plumbing training facility in every school in the land when you could have a fantastic state of the art one in the local technical college which all children had access to if they so desired.

i'm inclined to think that a way out for a minority would be better than what we have today.

Flashingose, so why not let those that want to, go and receive proper training there at 14? Why force them to stay on until they're 16 studying subjects they don't enjoy just for them to get a handful of low grade GCSEs when they could have been enthused by the chance of training and a worthwhile career?

Oh and re the funding. I happen to think it's one of the most important things that we fund. I also think that to sustain this country's long term wealth, we need a radical shake up of the education system as the current system is, along with other factors, contributing to an underclass of uneducated, demotivated and demoralised young people.

I for one, would be more than happy to pay higher taxes to fund a new system.

"And in the old days, masses of poor children who passed the 11+ didn't take up their places because their parents simply couldn't afford the uniforms, text books, school trips etc., which attending grammar entailed."

that certainly wasn't the case where I lived (took the 11+ in 1960/61 - I've forgotten!) Lived on a council estate in Manchester.

We'll never achieve Utopia. Whatever school you went to (don't know if the same system is still in place) half way through senior school you had to choose subjects to specialise in for O Level or CSE (as it was then) from several groups - for instance i wanted to do Art and Geography but they were in the same group so couldn't - I could bleat about that fact but lines have to be drawn somewhere

It may not have been the case where you lived, Mistle, but overall nationally, it is the case.

I find it rather depressing that we're still talking about an education system which will only be designed to meet the needs of a minority of the population while just containing the rest. The one glimmer of sympathy I have for this government, is that in its own cackhanded pile-of-shite way, up to now it really has been committed to decent education for a majority rather than a minority. But this bill flies in the face of that principle.

I wonder if the rest of the world has such agonising about its education system?

I can't help but seriously question the sense in making all children have the same basic education, regardless of their needs.

Around 10% of the kids in the school I work in have serious literacy issues. I teach several children of 11 who have reading ages of 6 and 7. What possible use is there in them gaining a superficial understanding of science, possibly getting G or F grades at GCSE. Wouldn't it be better if we could employ a primary teacher who could work with them one on one and teach them to read??

Basic life skills and vocational work, would prepare these children far bettwe for life, and keep them interested in learning far better than the nonsense of the NC

MB, in your experience, do you think that a split at 14 would work?
You must come across kids who at 14 could go either way. Surely pushing them further down the academic route is a waste of time and money when they could be enjoying themselves far more whilst learning a life long skill.
I'm not sure if secondary school teachers feel that GCSEs are the ultimate goal so shout me down if you disagree.

I see children who are being positivly hindered in their learning by being forced down this route which is not for everyone. Just think how you would feel as an adult if you were forced to do something you are crap at. I'd have a fit if I had to study French again, god forbid.

We do place kids in colleges for vocational stuff but often too late IMHO, and we do it when their behaviour is very poor.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

In addition there is also very little mixing between different ability groups within you 'bog standard' comp. Bright kids tend to mix with the bright kids, middle ability with middling kids etc. The kids who comefrom dysfuntional homes seldom pal up with the local doctor's kid.

this is not to say that some mixing doesn't occur, but the comp isn't the great social mixing pot that people would like

When are we going to stop being so flaming arrogant as to sugest that only the academic has merit? We try to get round the elitism of this by pretending that we are all equally able (which is cobblers). Instead wouldn't it be more honest and socialy able to value all ability in whatever field, vocational, academic of emotional?

That way we can stop preteding that a couple of grade Gs at GCSE is going to do anything for a kid, and insead get them an education that suits their needs and interests!

Agree, agree, agree

with Norm and mb!

But that's the problem MB - since the closure of technical schools, our education system just hasn't valued non-academic subjects. And I don't see anything in this bill that's going to redress that.

I'd also like to see proper job experience as part of an education course. One week is OK, but if you're not enjoying being in the classroom, a one or two day per week release scheme would be a hell of a lot more valuable and would give you the motivation you needed to work at the subjects you chose in the classroom too. But that does pre-suppose the commitment of industry and business to training up their next generation of workers, and I wonder how many companies would be far-sighted enough to engage in that.