Too right. Nothing he said was unreasonable; it's just that people are conditioned to rally against educational excellence if cash changes hands.
I went to comp too - bring back grammar schools!
When private education brings about a divisive society based purely on that education - that is not good for the country in general. It is why, imo, the gap between the rich and poor will continue to exist; there simply aren't enough from the majority background in positions of 'power'/influence. Could also explain why everything seems to revolve around London as though the rest of the country becomes an afterthought.
When private education brings about a divisive society based purely on that education - that is not good for the country in general. .
How else would you prefer society to be divided? Shoe size? The whole point about education is that if it is open to everyone then everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
How else would you prefer society to be divided? Shoe size? The whole point about education is that if it is open to everyone then everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
Why should society be divided at all? We are all cogs in the same machine so it makes no sense whatsoever to disregard people on low income and assume they are intellectually challenged because of that.
Private education is not open to everyone - it is only open to those who can afford it and let's face it, it's down to parental income rather than inherent academic ability.
Well, it wasn't the worst episode ive ever seen. Delingpole got his anti turbine rant in, and Warsi was much more restrained than normal! I wouldn't have missed Joly and Williams if they hadn't been there.
Why should society be divided at all? We are all cogs in the same machine so it makes no sense whatsoever to disregard people on low income and assume they are intellectually challenged because of that.
Private education is not open to everyone - it is only open to those who can afford it and let's face it, it's down to parental income rather than inherent academic ability.
Which is why Grammar schools should never have been phased out. They were a meritocracy: if you were academically able and passed the 11+ it didn't matter what background you came from.
The problem is politicians on the left didn't like them, even though many had personally benefited. They're always trying to redesign the omelette without breaking any eggs - it's never gonna happen.
The problem with a lot of well intentioned left wing schemes is the results are almost always the polar opposite of what they thought would happen. In this case social mobility has stalled.
Which is why Grammar schools should never have been phased out. They were a meritocracy: if you were academically able and passed the 11+ it didn't matter what background you came from.
Therein lies the rub. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and a kind of triage. You spend more on educating pupils who pass a test at that point and obviously they are going to do better. You then justify that test by comparing the results of that increase in expenditure and use that to justify it. At least in a comprehensive you might have a chance at improvement with the 11+ you fail and that's it for the rest of your life.
Why should society be divided at all? We are all cogs in the same machine so it makes no sense whatsoever to disregard people on low income and assume they are intellectually challenged because of that.
Private education is not open to everyone.
We are talking about grammar schools, which are indeed open to everyone based on merit. The main reason social mobility has halted in Britain is that the egalitarian approach to education keeps the working classes glued to their places, and allows the middle classes to grab all the prizes. Which is why the Labour Party is now overwhelmingly a party of semi-educated public sector officials, bitterly opposed to any kind of educational reform.
You then justify that test by comparing the results of that increase in expenditure and use that to justify it. At least in a comprehensive you might have a chance at improvement with the 11+ you fail and that's it for the rest of your life.
Rubbish, there have always been dozens of ways to remedy a poor educational start. My father left school at 14 just after the war to do an apprenticeship and went to University in the early 60s and got his degree in his early 30s. There are many, many more ways to do that now.
Rubbish, there have always been dozens of ways to remedy a poor educational start. My father left school at 14 just after the war to do an apprenticeship and went to University in the early 60s and got his degree in his early 30s. There are many, many more ways to do that now.
Whereas someone who had passed their 11+ would have had more investment into them and perhaps gone on to further education sooner. You father might have been looking at a degree in his early 20s. A decade of his life spent due to a decision made in order to save money.
So yes there are ways to remedy a poor educational start and the most obvious one is not to get into that situation in the first place.
Why are there always so many journalists on QT? If I wanted their opinions, I'd buy their rag-sheet. It's giving the press a double voice in the political debate.
Therein lies the rub. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and a kind of triage. You spend more on educating pupils who pass a test at that point and obviously they are going to do better. You then justify that test by comparing the results of that increase in expenditure and use that to justify it. At least in a comprehensive you might have a chance at improvement with the 11+ you fail and that's it for the rest of your life.
Well, we now have 40 years of evidence to assess if comprehensive education has helped the less able/well off.
I think it's safe to say that your might is more likely to be a probably won't.
Which is why Grammar schools should never have been phased out. They were a meritocracy: if you were academically able and passed the 11+ it didn't matter what background you came from.
As long as you could afford the uniform. It worked for me.
Therein lies the rub. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and a kind of triage. You spend more on educating pupils who pass a test at that point and obviously they are going to do better. You then justify that test by comparing the results of that increase in expenditure and use that to justify it. At least in a comprehensive you might have a chance at improvement with the 11+ you fail and that's it for the rest of your life.
I don't understand the link between "investment/money" and grammar schools.
IMO what should have happened is Grammar schools should never have been phased out but at the same time it should have been made clear that investment/money per pupil in a Grammar school would be less.
Basically, you got the best academic teaching but didn't get much else because the school wasn't having to deal with anything other than the academic side of things.
I disagree with her political loyalties so much...
... but OH MY GOD I'm so attracted to Baroness Warsi it almost hurts. Where do I get me a woman like that?
Seriously. She rocks my world. I would die to be that Tory b***h's b***h.
Not sure how to read your ****s but I must admit I have always been attracted to Warsi, but not sure why.
However I am also usually very impressed with her comments, except when she has to argue some silly party line. Unlike any other Muslim guest on QT she does not automatically support the Muslim side but instead often speaks basic common sense.
Comments
When private education brings about a divisive society based purely on that education - that is not good for the country in general. It is why, imo, the gap between the rich and poor will continue to exist; there simply aren't enough from the majority background in positions of 'power'/influence. Could also explain why everything seems to revolve around London as though the rest of the country becomes an afterthought.
How else would you prefer society to be divided? Shoe size? The whole point about education is that if it is open to everyone then everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
Unfortunately...it wasn't :yawn:
Why should society be divided at all? We are all cogs in the same machine so it makes no sense whatsoever to disregard people on low income and assume they are intellectually challenged because of that.
Private education is not open to everyone - it is only open to those who can afford it and let's face it, it's down to parental income rather than inherent academic ability.
It was extraordinarily bad wasn't it - I found myself muttering 'yes, yes, get on with it' or my mind just wandered off onto something else.
Which is why Grammar schools should never have been phased out. They were a meritocracy: if you were academically able and passed the 11+ it didn't matter what background you came from.
The problem is politicians on the left didn't like them, even though many had personally benefited. They're always trying to redesign the omelette without breaking any eggs - it's never gonna happen.
The problem with a lot of well intentioned left wing schemes is the results are almost always the polar opposite of what they thought would happen. In this case social mobility has stalled.
Therein lies the rub. It's a self fulfilling prophecy and a kind of triage. You spend more on educating pupils who pass a test at that point and obviously they are going to do better. You then justify that test by comparing the results of that increase in expenditure and use that to justify it. At least in a comprehensive you might have a chance at improvement with the 11+ you fail and that's it for the rest of your life.
We are talking about grammar schools, which are indeed open to everyone based on merit. The main reason social mobility has halted in Britain is that the egalitarian approach to education keeps the working classes glued to their places, and allows the middle classes to grab all the prizes. Which is why the Labour Party is now overwhelmingly a party of semi-educated public sector officials, bitterly opposed to any kind of educational reform.
Rubbish, there have always been dozens of ways to remedy a poor educational start. My father left school at 14 just after the war to do an apprenticeship and went to University in the early 60s and got his degree in his early 30s. There are many, many more ways to do that now.
Whereas someone who had passed their 11+ would have had more investment into them and perhaps gone on to further education sooner. You father might have been looking at a degree in his early 20s. A decade of his life spent due to a decision made in order to save money.
So yes there are ways to remedy a poor educational start and the most obvious one is not to get into that situation in the first place.
Well, we now have 40 years of evidence to assess if comprehensive education has helped the less able/well off.
I think it's safe to say that your might is more likely to be a probably won't.
As long as you could afford the uniform. It worked for me.
I don't understand the link between "investment/money" and grammar schools.
IMO what should have happened is Grammar schools should never have been phased out but at the same time it should have been made clear that investment/money per pupil in a Grammar school would be less.
Basically, you got the best academic teaching but didn't get much else because the school wasn't having to deal with anything other than the academic side of things.
Might have made all the difference.
Agreed. Equally irritating was the big laugh it got.
Not sure how to read your ****s but I must admit I have always been attracted to Warsi, but not sure why.
However I am also usually very impressed with her comments, except when she has to argue some silly party line. Unlike any other Muslim guest on QT she does not automatically support the Muslim side but instead often speaks basic common sense.