|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 31, 2024 17:20:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 31, 2024 17:20:59 GMT
We develop tech, other countries then make it. We invented the jet engine and did the groundwork for supersonic flight (Miles M.52) Labour cancelled the project and gave all the data to the Yanks. We invented the maglev train. Japan made it. We invented the tilting train. Italy made it. We invented fuel synthesis, the Canadians are making it. We lead the world in scientific developments but are self flagelating. It's time to stand tall, stand proud and make the tech we invent. Vinny These are areas in which we once LED the world These days.... I seriously doubt we lead the world in anything except left wing lawyers and letting people invade us.... |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 31, 2024 17:21:28 GMT
My remarks concerned industrial policy or the lack of one rather than social policy. But as far as education policy is concerned, the Labour government performed the initial wrecking of the educational system by forcing US-style comprehensive schools on all local authorities in the 1960s. This decline of secondary education into mediocrity was done for purely ideological reasons, a job which the Blairites completed by mandating a US-style tertiary system in which anyone who desired a 'college education' could get one if they can pay for it, or find somebody else who will. The Tories have proved just as guilty by not repealing these disastrous changes when they've had the chance. The 11+ was a nonsense, it wasn't even designed to give the brightest kids the advantage of a grammar school education, it was designed to produce a limited number of youngsters to go onto grammar schools. And even then it relied upon one examination alone. I read about a test that took place amongst university students. The test comprised of two sets of papers of equal academic value but were written up in different ways. The results from the students who did best in the first paper were lower in the second paper. While those who did badly in the first paper had the best results in the second paper. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 31, 2024 17:27:46 GMT
We develop tech, other countries then make it. We invented the jet engine and did the groundwork for supersonic flight (Miles M.52) Labour cancelled the project and gave all the data to the Yanks. We invented the maglev train. Japan made it. We invented the tilting train. Italy made it. We invented fuel synthesis, the Canadians are making it. We lead the world in scientific developments but are self flagelating. It's time to stand tall, stand proud and make the tech we invent. Vinny These are areas in which we once LED the world These days.... I seriously doubt we lead the world in anything except left wing lawyers and letting people invade us.... It's time to change things. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 31, 2024 17:38:05 GMT
In addition to the 11+ there was also a 13+ and 15+ which provided a pathway for pupils who failed the 11+ to transfer to
a grammar school. The grammar school system represented one of the greatest ways in which social mobility was implemented in the post-war period, enabling working-class children to enter the university and higher education stream based purely on ability.
As far as apprenticeships are concerned, when considering them I tend to think of the engineering craft apprenticeships which were the means by which less-academically endowed youths could train for worthwhile and well-paying jobs in industry and also public bodies like the railways and the NCB. Also the armed forces as well.
What are called 'apprenticeships' today are a very pale imitation of such bygone opportunities which basically evaporated with de-industrialisation. A quick Google turns up apprenticeships for the likes of 16 year-old trainee hairdressers, nursery school practitioner, beauty therapist and travel agent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 31, 2024 17:45:39 GMT
Vinny: far from correcting my statement most of the organisations you list are subsidiaries of foreign companies, mostly EU-based, which have sales and service offices in the UK but no manufacturing. Or like DAF (and Vauxhall) produce products for the UK market and export little if anything of note. For example, what locomotives do Siemens manufacture in the UK? Don't you find it rather shocking that no shipyard in the UK has the capability to build Cunards latest Queen ships? They were all built in France or Italy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 31, 2024 21:13:45 GMT
In addition to the 11+ there was also a 13+ and 15+ which provided a pathway for pupils who failed the 11+ to transfer to a grammar school. The grammar school system represented one of the greatest ways in which social mobility was implemented in the post-war period, enabling working-class children to enter the university and higher education stream based purely on ability. Indeed - the 11+ system produced the greatest leap in social mobility that this country has ever seen. It produced a whole generation of politicians from Harold Wilson to John Major who came from humble backgrounds to the pinnacle of political life. It's ironic that it was the Labour Party who were instrumental in introducing this leap in social mobility and it was also the Labour Party who destroyed it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 31, 2024 21:43:35 GMT
In addition to the 11+ there was also a 13+ and 15+ which provided a pathway for pupils who failed the 11+ to transfer to a grammar school. The grammar school system represented one of the greatest ways in which social mobility was implemented in the post-war period, enabling working-class children to enter the university and higher education stream based purely on ability. As far as apprenticeships are concerned, when considering them I tend to think of the engineering craft apprenticeships which were the means by which less-academically endowed youths could train for worthwhile and well-paying jobs in industry and also public bodies like the railways and the NCB. Also the armed forces as well. What are called 'apprenticeships' today are a very pale imitation of such bygone opportunities which basically evaporated with de-industrialisation. A quick Google turns up apprenticeships for the likes of 16 year-old trainee hairdressers, nursery school practitioner, beauty therapist and travel agent. Grasping at straws in an attempt to make 11+ look good fails to acknowledge that many youngsters including late starters do have the opportunity to reach University thanks to the structured comprehensive approach to education. IMO the 11+ itself along with its addons, was a failure proved by the many who failed to respond to grammar school education. In other words it literally failed to do that which it was intended to do. That does not mean there were no successes via the grammar school system, grammar school education is very good. It just misses out on many intelligent individuals because of the limitations in its system of selection. I'm thinking of the mass destruction done to many of the lower skilled trades, plus the low numbers actually in higher skills and the apparent low quality of higher skilled apprenticeships compared to Germany. The point I make is that New Labour was addressing the the needs for increased high level apprenticeships. Apprenticeships at all levels should be encouraged, as is further education of any kind. Especially if the alternates available are the minimum wage or unemployment. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 31, 2024 21:47:44 GMT
In addition to the 11+ there was also a 13+ and 15+ which provided a pathway for pupils who failed the 11+ to transfer to a grammar school. The grammar school system represented one of the greatest ways in which social mobility was implemented in the post-war period, enabling working-class children to enter the university and higher education stream based purely on ability. Indeed - the 11+ system produced the greatest leap in social mobility that this country has ever seen. It produced a whole generation of politicians from Harold Wilson to John Major who came from humble backgrounds to the pinnacle of political life. It's ironic that it was the Labour Party who were instrumental in introducing this leap in social mobility and it was also the Labour Party who destroyed it. It was good for its time, but the education system needed to move on in order to encourage more people into higher education. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 31, 2024 22:02:04 GMT
It wasn't the 11+ that was the failure, it was the inability of the political class to properly implement the third leg of the educational system as provided for in the 1944 Education Act, that is the technical-vocational schools that were to be a further option to the secondary modern and grammar school streams.
As noted, it is exactly this tri-partitite system of secondary education which has served the German-speaking countries so well in the post-war period. But here too, at the pinnacle was a highly selective system - Gymnasien in Germany and grammar schools in the UK - which provided the entree into the university system for those who showed themselves capable of benefiting from it.
Germany (and much of the rest of continental Europe) still maintains such a tri-partite system. Realschule for the less academically endowed who are going to be taking up less-skilled occupations, the so-called Duales System for those who would benefit from apprenticeships in fields such as Mechatronics and the Gymnasien for the 15% or so who have the cognitive skills necessary for successful study in a selective higher education sector.
Labour wrecked Britain's opportunity to create a similarly sensible secondary education scheme with its ideological crusade for a US-style comprehensive system with its 'all shall have prizes' dogma. It's to the Tories shame that they've never had the courage to dismantle it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 31, 2024 22:03:08 GMT
In addition to the 11+ there was also a 13+ and 15+ which provided a pathway for pupils who failed the 11+ to transfer to a grammar school. The grammar school system represented one of the greatest ways in which social mobility was implemented in the post-war period, enabling working-class children to enter the university and higher education stream based purely on ability. As far as apprenticeships are concerned, when considering them I tend to think of the engineering craft apprenticeships which were the means by which less-academically endowed youths could train for worthwhile and well-paying jobs in industry and also public bodies like the railways and the NCB. Also the armed forces as well. What are called 'apprenticeships' today are a very pale imitation of such bygone opportunities which basically evaporated with de-industrialisation. A quick Google turns up apprenticeships for the likes of 16 year-old trainee hairdressers, nursery school practitioner, beauty therapist and travel agent. Grasping at straws in an attempt to make 11+ look good fails to acknowledge that many youngsters including late starters do have the opportunity to reach University thanks to the structured comprehensive approach to education. IMO the 11+ itself along with its addons, was a failure proved by the many who failed to respond to grammar school education. In other words it literally failed to do that which it was intended to do. That does not mean there were no successes via the grammar school system, grammar school education is very good. It just misses out on many intelligent individuals because of the limitations in its system of selection. I'm thinking of the mass destruction done to many of the lower skilled trades, plus the low numbers actually in higher skills and the apparent low quality of higher skilled apprenticeships compared to Germany. The point I make is that New Labour was addressing the the needs for increased high level apprenticeships. Apprenticeships at all levels should be encouraged, as is further education of any kind. Especially if the alternates available are the minimum wage or unemployment. The education system in the UK is a fucking joke...politicians...all politicans have readily allowed the catastrophic decline of education because children and teachers cannot cope with being educated to the same rigour as 40-50 years ago. People nowadays decry the remnants of the 11+ because they say a single exam at the age of 11 decides the fate of the child's life. What they fail to appreciate is that on national offer day, at the age of 11, the education system decides the fate of the child's life based upon the income group of the parents - upon the catchment areas in which parents live.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 31, 2024 22:18:40 GMT
In addition to the 11+ there was also a 13+ and 15+ which provided a pathway for pupils who failed the 11+ to transfer to a grammar school. The grammar school system represented one of the greatest ways in which social mobility was implemented in the post-war period, enabling working-class children to enter the university and higher education stream based purely on ability. As far as apprenticeships are concerned, when considering them I tend to think of the engineering craft apprenticeships which were the means by which less-academically endowed youths could train for worthwhile and well-paying jobs in industry and also public bodies like the railways and the NCB. Also the armed forces as well. What are called 'apprenticeships' today are a very pale imitation of such bygone opportunities which basically evaporated with de-industrialisation. A quick Google turns up apprenticeships for the likes of 16 year-old trainee hairdressers, nursery school practitioner, beauty therapist and travel agent. Yup^ |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 1, 2024 14:07:43 GMT
Grasping at straws in an attempt to make 11+ look good fails to acknowledge that many youngsters including late starters do have the opportunity to reach University thanks to the structured comprehensive approach to education. IMO the 11+ itself along with its addons, was a failure proved by the many who failed to respond to grammar school education. In other words it literally failed to do that which it was intended to do. That does not mean there were no successes via the grammar school system, grammar school education is very good. It just misses out on many intelligent individuals because of the limitations in its system of selection. I'm thinking of the mass destruction done to many of the lower skilled trades, plus the low numbers actually in higher skills and the apparent low quality of higher skilled apprenticeships compared to Germany. The point I make is that New Labour was addressing the the needs for increased high level apprenticeships. Apprenticeships at all levels should be encouraged, as is further education of any kind. Especially if the alternates available are the minimum wage or unemployment. The education system in the UK is a fucking joke...politicians...all politicans have readily allowed the catastrophic decline of education because children and teachers cannot cope with being educated to the same rigour as 40-50 years ago. People nowadays decry the remnants of the 11+ because they say a single exam at the age of 11 decides the fate of the child's life. What they fail to appreciate is that on national offer day, at the age of 11, the education system decides the fate of the child's life based upon the income group of the parents - upon the catchment areas in which parents live.
The 11+ system was so flawed there is nothing good to be said about it. Which is why it was replaced by a more comprehensive approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Apr 1, 2024 14:26:11 GMT
Did you take it yourself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 1, 2024 15:23:31 GMT
With the EEC imposed end of subsidies and EU anti state aid policies our industries declined.
The very organisation you love, damaged our industries.
|
|
