I'm firmly opposed to similar initiatives of various sorts (mostly these occur at the state and county level in the U.S., with the exception of various sorts of proposals for Federal vouchers, which in general I also oppose. Most of them essentially pirate monies from public school to benefit those families who can afford transporation, etc. to the detriment of the general quality of public schools, especially in poorer areas where school funding comes from taxes.
Brexit
- Thread starter Alessandra Kelley
- Start date
I'm firmly opposed to similar initiatives of various sorts (mostly these occur at the state and county level in the U.S., with the exception of various sorts of proposals for Federal vouchers, which in general I also oppose. Most of them essentially pirate monies from public school to benefit those families who can afford transporation, etc. to the detriment of the general quality of public schools, especially in poorer areas where school funding comes from taxes.
kborsden
Has a few recurring issues
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,973
- Reaction score
- 1,312
There's certainly a backlash from several parties on similar grounds. May has also said that grammar schools would be expected to offer support and assistance to schools in deprived areas. I haven't made my mind up yet... but this article has given me a lot of pause for thought.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...hool-in-england-will-be-given-opportunity-to/
That's what's always confused me about the UK schools:
Public schools are not for the public. They are only for kids whose families pay to get in.
Reading British novels as a youngster and teen I often didn't understand the social implications of the schooling - how it affected the characters - because this seemed so backwards to me (still does).
I guess, in the olden days, it was "public" schools (campuses and buildings etc out in the towns) as opposed to private tutoring at home? Maybe that's where the terminology came from?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,965
- Reaction score
- 433
- Location
- Godalming, England
- Website
- www.will-once.com
It's very complicated!
The UK "public schools" were originally run as charities providing education for the poor. This differentiated them from private education, which was how the rich educated their kids. In 1868, seven of these public schools (including Eton, Winchester and Charterhouse where my son is a boarder) were granted independence. This meant that they could charge for admission for the first time. They were still called "public schools" because anyone could go there (if they could afford it). Admission was not dependent on where you lived or your religion. The rich started to send their kids there.
A group of these public schools got together in a headmaster's conference which has since expanded to include around 200 schools.All of these schools are fee paying and independent of the state sector, but they are also called "public schools" because of their charitable roots.
This doesn't include all fee-paying schools. There are a number of independent private sector schools which aren't "public schools".
More about the history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
Meanwhile, the state started to provide more and more schools until we got a position of a universal state education system.
So we have:
Annoyingly, the public schools are also sometimes called independent schools or private schools. And that's before we get to academies and free schools, which I know very little about.
The grammar school debate is a tricky one. Theresa May's argument is that grammar schools give equality of opportunity to everyone. The most gifted kids will rise to the top regardless of their background. They will get into the grammar schools, which then gets them into good universities, which then gets them into the best paid jobs such as High Court Judge and Prime Minister. The counter argument is that not all of our kids are going to become High Court Judges and Prime Ministers. They deserve a good education too. The grammar school system can create a two tier education system where the best facilities and the best teachers end up in the grammar schools. Great if you pass the exam, not great if you don't.
Personally, I do believe in streaming kids by ability but not to the extent that they are sent to a wholly different school from their peers.
But I think Theresa May is aiming this policy at Brexit voters. Older, more traditional. It's not me.
The UK "public schools" were originally run as charities providing education for the poor. This differentiated them from private education, which was how the rich educated their kids. In 1868, seven of these public schools (including Eton, Winchester and Charterhouse where my son is a boarder) were granted independence. This meant that they could charge for admission for the first time. They were still called "public schools" because anyone could go there (if they could afford it). Admission was not dependent on where you lived or your religion. The rich started to send their kids there.
A group of these public schools got together in a headmaster's conference which has since expanded to include around 200 schools.All of these schools are fee paying and independent of the state sector, but they are also called "public schools" because of their charitable roots.
This doesn't include all fee-paying schools. There are a number of independent private sector schools which aren't "public schools".
More about the history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)
Meanwhile, the state started to provide more and more schools until we got a position of a universal state education system.
So we have:
- State schools - run by the public sector, no fees.
- Public schools - older ex-charitable schools, now fee paying
- Independent schools - also fee paying, but not old enough to call themselves public schools
Annoyingly, the public schools are also sometimes called independent schools or private schools. And that's before we get to academies and free schools, which I know very little about.
The grammar school debate is a tricky one. Theresa May's argument is that grammar schools give equality of opportunity to everyone. The most gifted kids will rise to the top regardless of their background. They will get into the grammar schools, which then gets them into good universities, which then gets them into the best paid jobs such as High Court Judge and Prime Minister. The counter argument is that not all of our kids are going to become High Court Judges and Prime Ministers. They deserve a good education too. The grammar school system can create a two tier education system where the best facilities and the best teachers end up in the grammar schools. Great if you pass the exam, not great if you don't.
Personally, I do believe in streaming kids by ability but not to the extent that they are sent to a wholly different school from their peers.
But I think Theresa May is aiming this policy at Brexit voters. Older, more traditional. It's not me.
Comprehensive schools are a lot different to the secondary modern schools of my childhood. They do offer education across the whole range of abilities and the higher qualifications too, and can be good.
I've mostly met people who are opposed to new grammar schools opening up. Odd how experiences vary. Where I live (south west Sheffield, in the UK) we have a number of very good comprehensive schools, which have an intake which encompasses children from a wide range of social groups. I wish the intake were more varied, to be honest: it still seems very white, middle-class, on the whole, and I am not a fan of such polarisation.
The comprehensive system doesn't dumb down at all, as it includes all abilities and allows pupils to work at a level which suits them, and to take the qualifications they have the best chance of getting.
When you split children into grammar school and not-grammar-school you don't end up with the alternative to grammar school being a true comprehensive school, as the majority of the higher-achieving pupils (as defined by a test at 11) will go to the grammar school. And when you take those more able students out of the mix, the comprehensive school then has an intake which is not going to do so well. The school has to provide best value for money: the risk is it will begin to cut funding to the higher exams, it will not employ so many highly-qualified, successful teachers; standards drop. I am cynical; but I have lived through this divide, and it was not a positive way for us to school our children.
I agree with you about streaming pupils by ability. But within the same school, not at different schools. If you have a school with all abilities represented, the pupils there have a real chance of moving up the various streams until they find a point where they can work at their best--as my youngest did. If they're split between two different schools there's a ceiling in place at the not-grammar-school which the pupils can't get through.
My youngest son has very severe dyslexia. He would not have got into a grammar school at 11, as he could barely read and write then. He started in the lower streams for English and maths, worked like you wouldn't believe in his first five years at secondary school, moved slowly up the streams, and got good grades at GCSE. He has just started doing his A levels: he's taking maths, physics and chemistry. There's no way he'd have managed that if his school didn't offer qualifications across all levels.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,965
- Reaction score
- 433
- Location
- Godalming, England
- Website
- www.will-once.com
I'm far from an expert, but I'll offer some random thoughts. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can correct the bits I get wrong.
The old state system was secondary modern/ grammar school. Every kid took a test at age 11 (the "eleven plus") and that determined whether they went to the grammar school or the secondary modern. The grammar school was more academic and focused on O and A levels in traditional subjects. The secondary modern also had O and A levels, plus some more vocational subjects like woodwork and home economics. This was good news for you if you were bright, but many thought that the secondary modern was the "loser's school".
Then along came the comprehensive school. This replaced the grammar/ secondary modern with a single school for kids of all abilities. In theory all kids learned together. Some argued that this would help the less able kids as they would learn from the brighter kids. Others claimed that the brighter kids would be held back as the teacher would have to go at the pace of the slowest. In reality, most comprehensive schools offered some form of streaming by ability. This meant that the brighter kids would be placed into a top set for each subject and would be taught in relation to their abilities. It's a bit like having a grammar school inside a comprehensive school.
As with the grammar/ secondary schools, the core subjects are still the O and A level subjects of Maths, sciences, English etc plus a religious education component. The comprehensive schools also offer vocational and cultural subjects.
A development of the comprehensive school was the idea of parental choice. This was introduced by the "Baker act" of 1988 as part of Margaret Thatcher's drive to introduce free market economics. The theory here was that parents should be able to choose which school their kids went to. This would make schools more competitive as they fought for the brightest pupils. It also introduced more diversification in schools. Some focused more on a particular type of education - sports, academic, arts, etc. The National Curriculum makes sure that they don't go too far from a prescribed set of subjects.
Sitting alongside all of this is the independent sector - schools like Eton, Winchester and Charterhouse. I know Charterhouse best because I live next to it and my son is a pupil there. There is a perception that these schools are only for the brightest kids, but that's not exactly true. Although there are minimum entrance requirements, they are for anyone who can pay. The theory seems to be that you are paying for the best teachers and the best facilities. Whatever abilities your child has when they go to an independent school, the school ought to get the best out of them by the time they leave.
The best advice I can give is that every school is different. There are some great schools of each type and some awful schools. Each schools also has a distinctive look and feel which will make them more suited to one child than to another. A case in point - arguably the "best" school in my local area is Guildford Royal Grammar School. This used to be a grammar school but has since gone independent (ie fee paying). It usually gets the best exam results of all the schools nearby.
But we weren't impressed when we went to visit it. It seemed to be an exam factory which only cared for its exam results. Kids were not allowed to take exams in particular subjects unless they had a good chance of a top grade. The whole ethos seemed to be exam, exam, exam. That turned us off. We want our son to have a more rounded education. So we shopped around and settled on Charterhouse. Eye wateringly expensive, but a good rounded education.
As a parent, I'd recommend choosing a school on whether it would suit your child. The school's status is of much less importance.
Does that help?
Some private schools are way more academically demanding than others. Winchester and Westminster have their own entrance exams and money will not get your child in if they fail the exam. Other schools e.g. Bedales other a much better option for the less academic child.
This was my experience of grammar school. They were also very focused on getting pupils to a top university. If you didn't want to go to university at all, they didn't give a shit about you and there was basically zero careers advice for anyone wanting that path. Also, a good friend of mine was a potential Oxbridge candidate, but he wanted to study chemistry, and decided that Nottingham was a much better choice for that subject - the school put huge pressure on him to change his mind (he didn't).
Some. Thanks for trying.
Still confusing to me, who didn't grow up with the system and doesn't hear about it in daily life.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,206
- Reaction score
- 3,271
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
Very interesting angle on Brexit in today's Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/07/eu-citizenship-stripped-brexit-theresa-may
One of the arguments made in Brexit was the matter of citizenship. The writer, David Shariatmadari, is pointing out that membership in the EU doesn't only confer certain rights and responsibilities upon its member states, it also gives European citizenship to the citizens of those states. Thus Brexit was a vote to take away the benefits of that citizenship from each person in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/07/eu-citizenship-stripped-brexit-theresa-may
One of the arguments made in Brexit was the matter of citizenship. The writer, David Shariatmadari, is pointing out that membership in the EU doesn't only confer certain rights and responsibilities upon its member states, it also gives European citizenship to the citizens of those states. Thus Brexit was a vote to take away the benefits of that citizenship from each person in the UK.
It all just continues to go to show how the referendum was such a political side show. Put together not on grounds on asking an intelligible and actionable question of an informed electorate, but trying to placate a certain section of the voter base on the understanding that nothing would change.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,206
- Reaction score
- 3,271
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
There's all kinds of weird arrogance going on in the UK government relative to Europe (nothing new there), but this may be the weirdest.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ntre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ntre-of-european-decision-making-until-brexit
As a proud and defiant Remainer (now called 'unpatriotic remoaners' by the xenophobic Leave fringe), I think Brexit is a total and utter disaster for the UK, as the fallen pound has shown. As all the experts said would happen.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,206
- Reaction score
- 3,271
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
The High Court has ruled that the PM cannot trigger article 50 on her own. Parliament must vote to leave the EU before that can happen.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules
If this holds up on appeal, the inter and intraparty fights are going to erupt all over again.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules
If this holds up on appeal, the inter and intraparty fights are going to erupt all over again.
If this happens, a lot of citizens are going to be pissed that their vote was overruled by the parliament. I do think staying is what's best for the UK, but there's going to be a lot of political fallout.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 1
Hear, hear.
Young advocates of this bizarre notion of 'togetherness' were seen with signs entitled 'Death to Old People' the day after the referendum, ironically, protesting against democracy.
The deck was stacked against Brexit and yet it still won. Obama, Japan's Prime Minister, sports personalities like David Beckham - the media spoon-fed us all kinds of 'experts' who said staying in was for the greater good.
The fact is there were a multitude of reasons why people chose to leave (not being asked to join in the first place is a pretty good one!) rather than it simply being attributable to narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, or whatever else buzzword is in vogue.
And the more of these speed bumps that occur only help confirm that the EU has more in common with a dictatorship than a democracy.
Last edited:
This.
The referendum was advisory but it is strong advice and Remainer MPs need to think long and hard about their approach to this. The will of the people was expressed and it takes a great deal of arrogance to stand against it, no matter how wrong you think that decision is.
I wonder how it can be considered strong advice when it was so close? Really it should be seen as an indication that the population of the UK is strongly divided on the issue. What's more, I'm sure if various groups were polled, what they wanted from a Brexit or Bremain would be enormously diverse. The idiocy of using a binary choice advisory referendum to try and untangle the various issues involved with "being in the EU" cannot be overstated.
I can hardly see how a legal decision restating the sovereignty of parliament is viewed as a bad thing, though. I'm hoping that it will be used as an opportunity for parliamentary debate to solidify what exactly the UK wants from a Brexit and how those goals might be implemented.
Saying Brexit means Brexit is not good enough.
EDIT: or as a friend of mind has said "Why are Brexiters worried that looking at the details of Brexit will mean no Brexit?"
I can hardly see how a legal decision restating the sovereignty of parliament is viewed as a bad thing, though. I'm hoping that it will be used as an opportunity for parliamentary debate to solidify what exactly the UK wants from a Brexit and how those goals might be implemented.
Saying Brexit means Brexit is not good enough.
EDIT: or as a friend of mind has said "Why are Brexiters worried that looking at the details of Brexit will mean no Brexit?"
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
- Messages
- 5,359
- Reaction score
- 1,664
- Location
- Berkshire, UK
- Website
- soundcloud.com
There was a referendum in 1975 over whether to be part of the EC. So yeah, the country chose to be in Europe.
The EU didn't make this High Court decision. This was reinforcing the sovereignty of Parliament.
When Brexit happens, there will be legislation to enforce it. This decision means that future Prime Ministers can't decide on a whim to tear up that legislation and re-enter the EU. The Leave campaign should be happy about it, rather than bleating that now, shockingly, the nuances of how Brexit happens - not whether it will or not - will be subject to democratic debate and oversight.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 5,425
- Reaction score
- 1,911
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.badfoodie.com
There are already a lot of citizens pissed that a simple majority vote has invalidated their wishes.
I know, democracy and all that, but sometimes black and white isn't that simple.
And it should serve as a great example of why you should never ask the public to vote on anything important.
I don't blame them for being angry. Democracy doesn't have to mean a simple majority can do whatever they want at the expense of the minority.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 1
We agreed to stay in 1975. We joined in '73 without being asked. Peace in Europe was the main motivator but how different things were. It was a union of 6-8 countries with similar living standards. What the electorate did not know is that they were voting for a political union whose agenda has become more obvious and destructive for member states as the years have gone on.
It's an attempt by those (and there are many) who have vested interests in the EU (a place where you can retire for high wages and impunity) to tweak Brexit to the point it doesn't have any Brexit characteristics. Theresa May has already said there will be no Australian style points system for immigration - something many voted for. She herself was 'soft' remainer. People have good reason to be skeptical.
For me there's no hard or soft brexit - recently invented verbiage to deliberately muddy the waters. It's free access to the single market and full control of our boarders for our constant enriching of France and Germany or no dice and WTO.
Had remain won I don't doubt brexiteers would be having an almighty moan, though I feel a more justified one because, as Daniel Hannan put it, if the choice was to join the European Union we'd probably be having a good laugh and keep our sovereignty. People just don't like change. If Le Pen gets in next year and successfully leads Frexit the EU will be close to collapse.