DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
Free schools (a sad and deliberately ambiguous term) will only exasperate the very problem I have just described, creating more strands of inequality (by my post, classes of 18.5). The agenda being one of political ideology and not one of education. Once again, choice for those that can afford it...why don't they open them in areas where they are needed. Surely anyone can smell this fish?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/goves-free-school-project-is-an-unguided-missile-says-report-7906925.html
And if 'free schools' offer mobility, why would someone in such a position write this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/free-schools-a-lousy-tory-sham-to-serve-the-ruthlessly-ambitious-middle-classes-7986152.html
Also, how is mobility facilitated by selection, by definition a process of bracketing? I know there is argument that grammar schools once produced more politicians etc. But I would suggest that it is merely the case that such positions are ones that are becoming 'affordable'. You only have to look at the backgrounds of our current front benchers...proving my point.
You only have a choice if you can afford it, much like going to university these days.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
DT - false ideas of 'equality' are the enemy of real equality. The only equality that really counts is equality of opportunity and you do not get that through uniform mediocrity and catering for the lowest common denominator.
Where would we be now if, in the interests equality, there were no special training facilities for the 'elite' Olympic athletes for instance? Are they not subject to selection by ability? of course they are and appropriate facilities are made available. (Thanks largely to John Major and lottery funding)
There is nothing wrong with looking at aptitude and making appropriate provision for that and this means selection, the academics go in one direction and others in another. What would be wrong though is to close down a particular route in case there are late developers who change direction.
A great deal of ill-informed criticism is directed to the old pre-comprehensive school selective system in which I was educated. This talks about pupils who did not pass the 11plus being 'dumped' into non-academic schools, discarded and labelled. That is nothing to do with reality but everything to do with the snobbery of a certain type of person who is obsessed with academic achievement over all else combined with political dogma.
I was in the first generation in Dover that did not have to sit the 11 plus and we had to pick a school (though there was 'guidance' for those without Grammar ability). Transfers to and from the Grammars were also quite common. No-one was labelled, discarded, dumped or whatever emotive words the anti-selection brigade want to use. A levels were available at the Sec Moderns as well as the Grammars and Uni entry was also available. None of that was new for the 'non 11 plus' generation, it was the same for those older than me who sat the 11 plus. In many ways I wished I had sat the exam just to prove I could pass.
It is this obsession with a particular brand of 'equality' that creates inequality and reduces social mobility.
I went to Astor Sec, left school at 15, never went to Uni, never sat CSE's, O levels or A levels. Have I 'suffered' as a result, do I feel in any way inferior to Uni graduates of my generation? - no, not at all. Social mobility a problem? No, not for me and it need not be a problem for anyone who is not taken in by the sob stories and excuses some make for their failure.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
There you go, your last paragraph proves that Mr Gove doesn't know what he is on about.
Tougher O- levels, grammar schools etc, are not required to succeed.
Education is so much more.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL DT.... True they are not required to succeed but I am sure that you are not recommending that everyone follows my path!!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
" false ideas of 'equality' are the enemy of real equality. The only equality that really counts is equality of opportunity and you do not get that through uniform mediocrity and catering for the lowest common denominator."
Does this mean, is it intended to mean, that we are approaching a scenario whereby true equality of opportunity is to be achieved?
In what way does pointing-up elite athletics help in achieving equality of opportunity? Who hears of those who come fourth, fifth, sixth etc.?
Is the huge amount of Lottery Funding money new money? Is this money not from the same pot that used to be used to help individuals and groups at a local level, help improve the quality of life and broaden the scope for the equality of opportunity for many 'ordinary' people?
Was it equality of opportunity that did not select the world's number one Taekwondo exponent in favour of a lesser exponent through some sponsorship bias and that insists that we applaud the Bronze when we could have gone for Gold?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Very odd post there Tom, not unusual.
Just to pick up on a couple of points though.... The lottery was originally conceived to fund good causes that includes sport and the arts so putting money to help sport is not taking it away from anyone. The benefits of such funding is now being felt. You seem to object to resources going towards elite sportsmen and women.
I speak as someone who has no real interest in sport and did not following the games very closely at all so I have no idea what on earth your reference to Taemkwondo is about and do not care. Your interpretation is not necessarily an accurate reflection. There is private sponsorship and lottery funding, two different streams that helped the successful athletes. Any sponsor will want to help the best and gain from the association.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
a bit more on this courtesy of the independent.
Students applying for university this year are likely to be more selective in their choice of studies, opting for degree courses which they consider to be "worth it" in terms of time and money investment, according to new research.
The findings, released the day before around 300,000 students receive their A-level results and the start of the University Clearing period, are expected to have a knock-on effect on the Clearing process and dropout rates.
"Questions of employability upon graduation are regarded as highly important", the study concluded. "It can be expected that prospective students will be more selective in their choice of studies, which might have a knock-on effect on the clearing process and dropout rates."
The study, performed by Oxford University, found that the increase of tuition fees to up to £9000 per year has increased concerns about debt among students, with many not expecting to be able to pay back the full amount of their debt at all.
However, the study also found that students are still likely to make their choice of degree subject based on interest rather than financial expectations.