|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 16:35:04 GMT
Yes the grammar schools were far better than the comprehensives. The thing is to be upper class there has to be a point where you prove yourself, like the knight in glorious shining armour. It was a working class dogsbody who invented the lithium battery, but was never recognised. The Nobel Prize went to the one who copied him, as in what they call prior art. It's not always the case, but happens more than it should.
Harold Wilson Wilson won a scholarship to attend Royds Hall Grammar School, his local grammar school (now a comprehensive school) in Huddersfield in Yorkshire. His father, working as an industrial chemist, was made redundant in December 1930, and it took him nearly two years to find work; he moved to Spital in Cheshire, on the Wirral, to do so. Wilson continued his education in the Sixth Form at the Wirral Grammar School for Boys, where he became Head Boy.
Starmer and Labour are double standard hypocrites trying to scrap Grammar Schools, it gave Wilson a chance he probably would never have had, and probably never would have became a Labour leader .... Labour and their hypocrisy is just jaw dropping.
Let's not forget there are more people going to University today than ever before, Most of them would have gone through the Comprehensive system. And like her or not Theresa May was comprehensive educated and she managed to become the leader of the Tory party as Prime Minister. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 16:37:40 GMT
I remember years ago I read a book that had quite an effect on me, I still remember it quite well. It was a biography about a poor kid from a large family who's father was a miner. In spite of his very humble background he went on to become a giant among politicians, yes he was a socialist, and one of the most gifted orators and principled politicians of the 20th century. His name, Nye Bevan. I'm not a socialist, but I have every respect for Nye Bevan and I'm sure anyone who read one of his biographies, I believe there's more than one, would agree. I cannot say I have read any biographies of the guy but I do respect him. In his day of course the Labour party, though it contained many middle class intellectuals, was also still very much a party of and for the working class. Not so today. The party today holds the working class in contempt - or at least large elements of it do. Today it is a party pretty much of and for affluent middle class liberals, invested in the existing economic consensus both financially and ideologically. People such as myself, who were once seen as the backbone of the party, are now seen as ideological, even class, enemies. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jan 14, 2023 16:41:24 GMT
Harold Wilson Wilson won a scholarship to attend Royds Hall Grammar School, his local grammar school (now a comprehensive school) in Huddersfield in Yorkshire. His father, working as an industrial chemist, was made redundant in December 1930, and it took him nearly two years to find work; he moved to Spital in Cheshire, on the Wirral, to do so. Wilson continued his education in the Sixth Form at the Wirral Grammar School for Boys, where he became Head Boy.
Starmer and Labour are double standard hypocrites trying to scrap Grammar Schools, it gave Wilson a chance he probably would never have had, and probably never would have became a Labour leader .... Labour and their hypocrisy is just jaw dropping.
Let's not forget there are more people going to University today than ever before, Most of them would have gone through the Comprehensive system. And like her or not Theresa May was comprehensive educated and she managed to become the leader of the Tory party as Prime Minister. What's that got to do with Labour wanting to abolish Grammar Schools? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 16:44:31 GMT
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s. The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . I was about to post a 'like' for you post until I read about your claim about Grammar schools 'liberating the more intelligent working class students. The 11+ was just about the most diabolical way of deciding who would go to grammar schools and who would not. A system introduced by well meaning educated morons who might have been hard pressed to design a more useless system. There was a 13 plus that allowed some pupils access to Grammar education. A system that allowed the more intelligent pupils access to excellence. The secondary schools were more vocationally centred but did produce pupils who went in to sixth form college . You probably are ignorant of this but the Grammar schools themselves adopted a stream system . The difference was that the stream system stated at a higher level than the Secondary . It was the morons who initiated the comprehensive system to take over from the Grammar / secondary system that designed the useless system. I notice a sense of judgement in your tone . You should know I don’t give a fuck whether you post a like or not. Why you mentioned it I don’t know. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 14, 2023 16:46:23 GMT
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s. The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . I was about to post a 'like' for you post until I read about your claim about Grammar schools 'liberating the more intelligent working class students. The 11+ was just about the most diabolical way of deciding who would go to grammar schools and who would not. A system introduced by well meaning educated morons who might have been hard pressed to design a more useless system. It was my experience. There was a grammar school in Amersham and a comprehensive in Chesham. You might find these two places familiar as they became famous after a by-election. Anyhow I had a look at both of them with the view to going to one or the other and realised almost immediately the standards expected at the comprehensive were far lower. The grammar school has class. The comprehensive was a kind of Grange Hill type of place if you know what i mean. The grammar school was mostly interesting in getting people to Oxford and Cambridge. You'd never make it in the comprehensive. You'd be working at Greggs.
I do actually agree with you about the 11+. They called it verbal reasoning. This term itself is an oxymoron. I think it was social engineering. Mind you it begs the question on how do you measure intelligence and what exactly are you measuring anyway. Roger Penrose, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, said when he was at school his class graded him as poor at maths until that was the tutor found out he could do it, but it took him longer then most, but having done it, the work was good. Tests are a very blunt instrument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2023 16:50:14 GMT
The BBC should reflect the whole of society including the working class, and it should be fully inclusive and provide air time and programming for all minorities, groups and sections of society, in other words the BBC should be a true image of our society.
In the past, our BBC pushed the boundries and was innovative, with programmes for deaf children and adults, specialised programming for farmers, it gave us the Open University, and it gave us not just entertainment, but information and education.
I think its time to end political tampering with the BBC, governments should not be able to influence our state broadcaster, instead the ultimate decision makers ought to be a cross-party organisation which does not reflect the ruling or governing party, but instead gives equal voice across the Left and Right, and across the nations and regions of the UK.
Prime Ministers and Tory or Labour culture ministers should be kept at a good distance without influence, other than advisory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 16:52:51 GMT
I was about to post a 'like' for you post until I read about your claim about Grammar schools 'liberating the more intelligent working class students. The 11+ was just about the most diabolical way of deciding who would go to grammar schools and who would not. A system introduced by well meaning educated morons who might have been hard pressed to design a more useless system. It was my experience. There was a grammar school in Amersham and a comprehensive in Chesham. You might find these two places familiar as they became famous after a by-election. Anyhow I had a look at both of them with the view to going to one or the other and realised almost immediately the standards expected at the comprehensive were far lower. The grammar school has class. The comprehensive was a kind of Grange Hill type of place if you know what i mean. The grammar school was mostly interesting in getting people to Oxford and Cambridge. You'd never make it in the comprehensive. You'd be working at Greggs.
I do actually agree with you about the 11+. They called it verbal reasoning. This term itself is an oxymoron. I think it was social engineering. Mind you it begs the question on how do you measure intelligence and what exactly are you measuring anyway. Roger Penrose, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, said when he was at school his class graded him as poor at maths until that was the tutor found out he could do it, but it took him longer then most, but having done it, the work was good. Tests are a very blunt instrument.
Then your school itself was shit , not the system . Our grammar school streamed the pupils after the first year, The two A classes were educated to the highest level The B classes were educated according to the pupils abilities. Plenty of my friends in the B streams became Engineers, lawyers, Architects etc . |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 16:52:56 GMT
That doesn’t mean that there was not the potential within the lower classes. The upper class has the luxury and indulgence to be educated. The lower classes did not . This is why I am a supporter of the Grammar school system as it was in the 60s.The system liberated the more intelligent working class pupils . Comprehensive schools were the political crime of the century. Comprehensive schools were the liberation of the 'working class'  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 16:54:31 GMT
Comprehensive schools were the political crime of the century. Comprehensive schools were the liberation of the 'working class' I nearly gave you a ‘ like’ for that post but didn’t when I realised that you were a knob😉 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 16:54:41 GMT
Let's not forget there are more people going to University today than ever before, Most of them would have gone through the Comprehensive system. And like her or not Theresa May was comprehensive educated and she managed to become the leader of the Tory party as Prime Minister. What's that got to do with Labour wanting to abolish Grammar Schools? The need to open education up for all via the comprehensive system. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 14, 2023 16:55:54 GMT
What's that got to do with Labour wanting to abolish Grammar Schools? The need to open education up for all via the comprehensive system. Comprehensives have been around since 1967 so good luck with that .😉 |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 16:58:04 GMT
Comprehensive schools were the liberation of the 'working class' I nearly gave you a ‘ like’ for that post but didn’t when I realised that you were a knob😉 Thanks anyway Selection for Grammar schools was their weakest point. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 14, 2023 16:58:43 GMT
I remember years ago I read a book that had quite an effect on me, I still remember it quite well. It was a biography about a poor kid from a large family who's father was a miner. In spite of his very humble background he went on to become a giant among politicians, yes he was a socialist, and one of the most gifted orators and principled politicians of the 20th century. His name, Nye Bevan. I'm not a socialist, but I have every respect for Nye Bevan and I'm sure anyone who read one of his biographies, I believe there's more than one, would agree. I cannot say I have read any biographies of the guy but I do respect him. In his day of course the Labour party, though it contained many middle class intellectuals, was also still very much a party of and for the working class. Not so today. The party today holds the working class in contempt - or at least large elements of it do. Today it is a party pretty much of and for affluent middle class liberals, invested in the existing economic consensus both financially and ideologically. People such as myself, who were once seen as the backbone of the party, are now seen as ideological, even class, enemies. Bevan and others were necessary at the time, but the country has inevitably moved on. Kids no longer go down the pit at 15, the docks are gone, millions of people no longer clock on at the factory gate each morning, work has changed, the economy has changed. Blair took the party to the centre because he saw that a left wing socialist Labour party had no future in the 21st century, and he was right. The problem was, the ground Labour were and still are trying to move into is occupied by the Conservative party. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 14, 2023 17:00:22 GMT
Comprehensive schools were the liberation of the 'working class' I nearly gave you a ‘ like’ for that post but didn’t when I realised that you were a knob😉 LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 14, 2023 17:01:19 GMT
The need to open education up for all via the comprehensive system. Comprehensives have been around since 1967 so good luck with that .😉 Education increased dramatically after the two tier education nonsense introduced i.e. 'Grant Maintained' by Thatcher was dumped. |
|
