|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 7, 2023 17:09:21 GMT
because of the massive long-term financial debts that Labour left for someone else to sort out Ok, so lets deal with this one The NHS Trusts and Hospitals which had or which used PFI to build new infastructure / new hospitals were ring-fenced, the PFI bill did not go directly to the NHS or the government, the contracts are / were held by individual trusts. MOST hospitals and MOST NHS Trusts did not, and do not have PFI contracts, this excuse is a total Red Herring, the appaling state of our NHS is throughout the NHS, from top to bottom, in Trusts which have never had PFI Contracts, in the Ambulance Services, in GP Practice, in Dentistry, everywhere. Some trusts are now spending more of PFI repayments than they spend on drugs - the whole point of PFI was to move infrastructure spending 'off-book' so that it didnt show as Government borrowing. So we ended up with incredibly bad financial deals that will cost the taxpayer dear for decades simply to allow more money to be spent on day to day services that would otherwise have been unaffordable. That is not the action of a prudent Chancellor. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 7, 2023 17:12:51 GMT
Why did this Comprehensive system work so well ? when did the comprehensive system work well? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 7, 2023 17:24:08 GMT
Thatcher left the majority of state schools falling apart due to her Selective 'Grant Maintained' system of funding. The overwhelming majority of children go to state schools, so seeing state schools being properly funded IS certainly looking after the poor .... LOL And this requires a answer, not your usual cop out..
Grammar Schools were introduced to give those less well off children with ability, who's parents couldn't afford to pay for private education the chance to have funded private education .... and guess what
Labour the party for the poor
the Blair government
In 1998, the Blair government passed the 'School Standards and Framework Act' which forbade the establishment of new all-selective schools, and made provisions for local ballots to be held on the future of grammar schools
Labour have always wanted to abolish Grammar schools, robbing less well off children the advantage of free private education, while Blair and the rest of double standard Labour hypocrites have the luxury of affording paid for private education, then have the fuckin cheek to claim the fees back off the tax payers.
Don't talk to me about 'Labour the party of the poor' .... are they fuck.
If you want a debate you shouldn't start with an insinuated lie, it doesn't bode well for your debating skills. There are many excellent reasons why the 11+ and the 13+ had to go. Bellow are some of the reasons. 1. The 11+ system (Including the 13+ system) limited the number of pupils that could go to grammar schools. 2. That meant that many students were denied the high level education offered at grammar schools. 3. Many Grammar school students were not able to attain a Grammar School education. (while many who could have were denied the opportunity.) 4. The old grammar schools made no allowance for late developing students. The Comprehensive System deals with students of all abilities, giving more students more time to improve their education. comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths-comprehensive-schools-dumb-down-education-and-bright-kids-miss-out/#:~:text=The%20Education%20Policy%20Institute%20showed%20that%20pupils%20attending,research%20has%20found%20no%20results%20boost%20at%20all. There is a widely held view that mixed-ability comprehensive schools ‘fail’ bright children, but there is not much evidence to back this up. Here are some reasons why this is nonsense. Results for ‘bright’ pupils in comprehensive schools are on a par with those attending grammar schools Some studies show a tiny results advantage for pupils attending grammar schools. The Education Policy Institute showed that pupils attending grammar schools in fully selective areas achieved on average 0.1 of a grade higher in each of eight GCSEs. This is a tiny difference, but other research has found no results boost at all. A large scale study led by Prof. Stephen Gorard of Durham University looked at the results of more than half a million pupils in England, and found that grammars are no better or worse than non-selective state schools in terms of their pupils’ progress or attainment. This study, unlike most others, adjusted for background factors that influence results such as affluence, prior attainment etc. Prof Gorard said, ‘The apparent success of grammar schools is due to pupils coming from more advantaged social backgrounds, and already having higher academic attainment at age 11.” So it is clearly a myth that ‘bright’ children do better in grammar schools than comprehensives. Comprehensive schools do not have ‘one size fits all’ classes, they differentiate between pupils |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 17:28:19 GMT
And this requires a answer, not your usual cop out..
Grammar Schools were introduced to give those less well off children with ability, who's parents couldn't afford to pay for private education the chance to have funded private education .... and guess what
Labour the party for the poor
the Blair government
In 1998, the Blair government passed the 'School Standards and Framework Act' which forbade the establishment of new all-selective schools, and made provisions for local ballots to be held on the future of grammar schools
Labour have always wanted to abolish Grammar schools, robbing less well off children the advantage of free private education, while Blair and the rest of double standard Labour hypocrites have the luxury of affording paid for private education, then have the fuckin cheek to claim the fees back off the tax payers.
Don't talk to me about 'Labour the party of the poor' .... are they fuck.
If you want a debate you shouldn't start with an insinuated lie, it doesn't bode well for your debating skills. There are many excellent reasons why the 11+ and the 13+ had to go. Bellow are some of the reasons. 1. The 11+ system (Including the 13+ system) limited the number of pupils that could go to grammar schools. 2. That meant that many students were denied the high level education offered at grammar schools. 3. Many Grammar school students were not able to attain a Grammar School education. (while many who could have were denied the opportunity.) 4. The old grammar schools made no allowance for late developing students. The Comprehensive System deals with students of all abilities, giving more students more time to improve their education. comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths-comprehensive-schools-dumb-down-education-and-bright-kids-miss-out/#:~:text=The%20Education%20Policy%20Institute%20showed%20that%20pupils%20attending,research%20has%20found%20no%20results%20boost%20at%20all. Christ, and it's took you two hours to come up with that ^^
''late developers", Grammar schools don't take in OAPs FFS
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 7, 2023 17:51:23 GMT
The secondary system was more vocational based . It wasn’t a dead end .
Also a CSE level1 was the equivalent of a GCE Cgrade .
So It was quite possible for secondary school pupils to go in to 6th form college and acquire A levels …and they often did .
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 18:03:21 GMT
The secondary system was more vocational based . It wasn’t a dead end . Also a CSE level1 was the equivalent of a GCE Cgrade . So It was quite possible for secondary school pupils to go in to 6th form college and acquire A levels …and they often did . Education is very important, but I wasn't academically a high achiever, but then you get the 'street wise' which was me.
I'm being honest now, those mates who went to Grammar School did well job wise, and the one who is a solicitor works for ME.
I'm not blowing my own trumpet but I've got far more money than they have, but together thankfully because of their brains and my money we're thriving, and a lot of it is thanks for the chance they had because of a Grammar education, I was never worthy of that sort of education, and my parents couldn't afford private education for us, I'm fortunate enough I can for my children, even if they don't make Grammar material.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 7, 2023 18:55:18 GMT
If you want a debate you shouldn't start with an insinuated lie, it doesn't bode well for your debating skills. There are many excellent reasons why the 11+ and the 13+ had to go. Bellow are some of the reasons. 1. The 11+ system (Including the 13+ system) limited the number of pupils that could go to grammar schools. 2. That meant that many students were denied the high level education offered at grammar schools. 3. Many Grammar school students were not able to attain a Grammar School education. (while many who could have were denied the opportunity.) 4. The old grammar schools made no allowance for late developing students. The Comprehensive System deals with students of all abilities, giving more students more time to improve their education. comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths-comprehensive-schools-dumb-down-education-and-bright-kids-miss-out/#:~:text=The%20Education%20Policy%20Institute%20showed%20that%20pupils%20attending,research%20has%20found%20no%20results%20boost%20at%20all. Christ, and it's took you two hours to come up with that ^^
''late developers", Grammar schools don't take in OAPs FFS
So you mention just one of the weaknesses and ignore the rest LOL. I have a busy life, so don't be making up silly insults just because you don't like facing up to reality. The information is there before you, if you choose to ignore them then you will continue to post nonsense posts. And I will continue having a chuckle at your posts LOL |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 7, 2023 19:14:43 GMT
The secondary system was more vocational based . It wasn’t a dead end . Also a CSE level1 was the equivalent of a GCE Cgrade . So It was quite possible for secondary school pupils to go in to 6th form college and acquire A levels …and they often did . A comprehensive school is a secondary school for pupils aged 11–16 or 11–18, that does not select its intake on the basis of academic achievement or aptitude, in contrast to a selective school system where admission is restricted on the basis of selection criteria, usually academic performance. It has a vocational as well as an academic responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 7, 2023 19:31:30 GMT
The secondary system was more vocational based . It wasn’t a dead end . Also a CSE level1 was the equivalent of a GCE Cgrade . So It was quite possible for secondary school pupils to go in to 6th form college and acquire A levels …and they often did . Education is very important, but I wasn't academically a high achiever, but then you get the 'street wise' which was me.
I'm being honest now, those mates who went to Grammar School did well job wise, and the one who is a solicitor works for ME.
I'm not blowing my own trumpet but I've got far more money than they have, but together thankfully because of their brains and my money we're thriving, and a lot of it is thanks for the chance they had because of a Grammar education, I was never worthy of that sort of education, and my parents couldn't afford private education for us, I'm fortunate enough I can for my children, even if they don't make Grammar material.
You are in good company, Richard Branson, private school education, left without any academic achievements, but a very successful businessman. I personally know of one other who willingly acknowledges his lack of education. He is extremely seriously rich, he seems to make his way as you do, determination while hiring people to do the things he can't do. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 7, 2023 19:41:25 GMT
Education is very important, but I wasn't academically a high achiever, but then you get the 'street wise' which was me.
I'm being honest now, those mates who went to Grammar School did well job wise, and the one who is a solicitor works for ME.
I'm not blowing my own trumpet but I've got far more money than they have, but together thankfully because of their brains and my money we're thriving, and a lot of it is thanks for the chance they had because of a Grammar education, I was never worthy of that sort of education, and my parents couldn't afford private education for us, I'm fortunate enough I can for my children, even if they don't make Grammar material.
You are in good company, Richard Branson, private school education, left without any academic achievements, but a very successful businessman. I personally know of one other who willingly acknowledges his lack of education. He is extremely seriously rich, he seems to make his way as you do, determination while hiring people to do the things he can't do. Well at least we do agree on some things. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 7, 2023 19:44:21 GMT
You are in good company, Richard Branson, private school education, left without any academic achievements, but a very successful businessman. I personally know of one other who willingly acknowledges his lack of education. He is extremely seriously rich, he seems to make his way as you do, determination while hiring people to do the things he can't do. Well at least we do agree on some things. Surprising what a couple of hit records can do for the artists managers. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 7, 2023 19:52:12 GMT
The secondary system was more vocational based . It wasn’t a dead end . Also a CSE level1 was the equivalent of a GCE Cgrade . So It was quite possible for secondary school pupils to go in to 6th form college and acquire A levels …and they often did . A comprehensive school is a secondary school for pupils aged 11–16 or 11–18, that does not select its intake on the basis of academic achievement or aptitude, in contrast to a selective school system where admission is restricted on the basis of selection criteria, usually academic performance. It has a vocational as well as an academic responsibility. We all knew that already . |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 7, 2023 21:27:43 GMT
And this requires a answer, not your usual cop out..
Grammar Schools were introduced to give those less well off children with ability, who's parents couldn't afford to pay for private education the chance to have funded private education .... and guess what
Labour the party for the poor
the Blair government
In 1998, the Blair government passed the 'School Standards and Framework Act' which forbade the establishment of new all-selective schools, and made provisions for local ballots to be held on the future of grammar schools
Labour have always wanted to abolish Grammar schools, robbing less well off children the advantage of free private education, while Blair and the rest of double standard Labour hypocrites have the luxury of affording paid for private education, then have the fuckin cheek to claim the fees back off the tax payers.
Don't talk to me about 'Labour the party of the poor' .... are they fuck.
If you want a debate you shouldn't start with an insinuated lie, it doesn't bode well for your debating skills. There are many excellent reasons why the 11+ and the 13+ had to go. Bellow are some of the reasons. 1. The 11+ system (Including the 13+ system) limited the number of pupils that could go to grammar schools. 2. That meant that many students were denied the high level education offered at grammar schools. 3. Many Grammar school students were not able to attain a Grammar School education. (while many who could have were denied the opportunity.) 4. The old grammar schools made no allowance for late developing students. The Comprehensive System deals with students of all abilities, giving more students more time to improve their education. comprehensivefuture.org.uk/grammar-school-myths-comprehensive-schools-dumb-down-education-and-bright-kids-miss-out/#:~:text=The%20Education%20Policy%20Institute%20showed%20that%20pupils%20attending,research%20has%20found%20no%20results%20boost%20at%20all. There is a widely held view that mixed-ability comprehensive schools ‘fail’ bright children, but there is not much evidence to back this up. Here are some reasons why this is nonsense. Results for ‘bright’ pupils in comprehensive schools are on a par with those attending grammar schools Some studies show a tiny results advantage for pupils attending grammar schools. The Education Policy Institute showed that pupils attending grammar schools in fully selective areas achieved on average 0.1 of a grade higher in each of eight GCSEs. This is a tiny difference, but other research has found no results boost at all. A large scale study led by Prof. Stephen Gorard of Durham University looked at the results of more than half a million pupils in England, and found that grammars are no better or worse than non-selective state schools in terms of their pupils’ progress or attainment. This study, unlike most others, adjusted for background factors that influence results such as affluence, prior attainment etc. Prof Gorard said, ‘The apparent success of grammar schools is due to pupils coming from more advantaged social backgrounds, and already having higher academic attainment at age 11.” So it is clearly a myth that ‘bright’ children do better in grammar schools than comprehensives. Comprehensive schools do not have ‘one size fits all’ classes, they differentiate between pupils
Can I just ask that if you are going to C&P from other websites you give a citation.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 8, 2023 14:31:38 GMT
A comprehensive school is a secondary school for pupils aged 11–16 or 11–18, that does not select its intake on the basis of academic achievement or aptitude, in contrast to a selective school system where admission is restricted on the basis of selection criteria, usually academic performance. It has a vocational as well as an academic responsibility. We all knew that already . OK, Its just that your post read as if the "secondary system" became something in the past that disappeared when replaced by comprehensive system. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 8, 2023 15:48:26 GMT
We all knew that already . OK, Its just that your post read as if the "secondary system" became something in the past that disappeared when replaced by comprehensive system. It did . |
|
