Blair is famous for a few quotes specifically:
- Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime
- I do not want war. I do not believe anyone in this House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam’s active co-operation (link)
- Education, education, education
Okay, maybe not the second but I had to point out that he lied about Iraq too…
But on the last point Blair has failed catastrophically. Education was damaged by Thatcher when she listened to the selection-obsessed and started the dismantling of the Grammar school system. Blair, however, continued it and made official the government’s disapproval of selection.
Some people may be uncomfortable with it, but it is true that everyone has a different academic capability. Whether we like it or not, some people must work harder to achieve what others can achieve with no effort. And when a more intelligent person is taught at the same time as someone who needs more assistance, both suffer. The intelligent person gets bored with the repetition and, in taking that into account, the teacher does not repeat enough for those who need more help to learn. It is far better to teach in groups of similar ability.
In some schools in the 1950s children were taught in streamed groups. These groups were based on overall ability so if you excelled in creative subjects but had more difficulty in mathematics you were placed in lower groups for both. This is crazy but is sometimes used as a parallel for the problem with the Grammar and Comprehensive system.
If at the 11+ a child is capable of obtaining an A-Level in English but has no chance of obtaining an A-Level in a science, what part of the 11+ should account for that? Should the 11+ be based on intelligence, effort or ability in specific subjects? These are not easy questions and they’re not questions that will likely be answered by consensus.
Regardless of the method chosen, however, we can be sure that there is a satisfactory way of sorting those who will be better suited to vocational or physical employment from those who will likely make a career in academia or using qualifications obtained from academia. This is the idea of the Grammar/Comprehensive system.
If a child is bright they can be educated in a grammar school where they will receive education better suited to their abilities. These children will not be disruptive because they won’t be sitting in lessons bored of the pace. Much bullying is performed by intelligent children who are not being engaged.
If a child is not exceptionally bright they can be educated at a Comprehensive school. Socialists worry that those in Comprehensives have somehow been labelled second-class citizens. For some reason it is assumed that if a child is not academically exceptional they are of no use to society. This is patently not the case. Today’s post grammar school era actually places greater emphasis on academic education. The government proposes 50% targets for the university attendance. In fact today’s shortage of plumbers, builders, electricians and many other jobs can be attributed to the government’s relative lack of focus. If the government tells children and parents that a 50% target has been set, the remaining 50% considers themselves failures.
A Comprehensive school, then, provides an institution to educate late-bloomers (who can then be taught at the grammar school if applicable) and most importantly children who are not suitable for academic education. These children can be given appropriate and relevant training without being made to feel that they are less capable than their grammar school peers.
Selection is humane and I welcome any comments on this subject particularly.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by wonkotsane on November 20th, 2005 - 2:06 pm
Theres nothing wrong with selection as long as those who aren’t “selected” aren’t written off. This is just plastic socialists making a vague attempt at showing their credentials to members who are becoming disillusioned by their move to Conservatism.
#2 by Gav on November 20th, 2005 - 2:36 pm
Quite right Stuart.
#3 by leanne on November 20th, 2005 - 3:48 pm
I sometimes think capability has nothing to do with anything, maybe it is soley up to the methods used for teaching, concidering both Einstein and winston churchill both failed grammer school and look what they acheived. I dont know what it is really.
#4 by lascivious on November 20th, 2005 - 6:14 pm
I certainly benefited from a grammar education. I come from a “working class” background – my mother is a cleaner and my dad is a school caretaker. If I didn’t get into the grammar school, I would have gone to a bog-standard-comp and would probably still be living in my home town, in a crap dead-end job. Instead, I went to university, got three degrees and I am emigrating. The school I went to gave me aspirations beyond those of my parents. I am just glad my parents had the foresight to send me there.
I feel sorry for today’s “disadvantaged youth” as Bliar likes to put it. His government is only making it worse for them and everyone else.
#5 by Kevin on November 20th, 2005 - 11:22 pm
It makes sense to have people of similar abilities in the same classes, that way they will push each other on.
#6 by Allan Scullion on November 21st, 2005 - 10:22 am
Like I have said before, the socialist way leads to mediocrity for all.
#7 by j0nz on November 22nd, 2005 - 12:36 am
Grammar Schools are the only way for the less fortunate to get ahead in life. Education should be about meritocracy by and large.
If we dumd down, get rid of Grammar schools and replace with Apprehensives(!) then the only way to have a better education is through a fatter bank balance.
I went to Grammar school. Kept me away from all those Pikeys in Kent! I’m proud.
#8 by leanne on November 23rd, 2005 - 10:24 pm
(please disregaurd my comment – grammer school means something else to americans and i wasnt thinking.)
#9 by Gav on November 25th, 2005 - 8:24 am
Just out of interest, what does it mean in the US?
#10 by leanne on November 25th, 2005 - 1:58 pm
school for children ages 7-11, (elementry school.- then it goes to middle school- then high school. i dont know what we call what you are talking about – prep school maybe.
#11 by neil on November 25th, 2005 - 6:00 pm
Gav,
why shouldn’t streaming take place in comprehensive schools? I’ll admit to being the benefactor of a scholarship-funded education (which I hated because I was labelled as “the poor, but swotty kid”). My younger sister went to a comprehensive which streamed “1950′s style” (in the late 80s, early 90s), hence she was put into the highest stream for maths and somewhere middling for English, where she received the challenge/support required acording to her abilities. Also, there was (as children develop at different rates) a sort of league table system where children who were over or underperforming were promoted/demoted at the end of each year.
I must admit, I thought all comprehensive schools operated a streaming system, am I horribly ill-informed? I should probably also point out that the school my sister attended is always at or near the top of league tables of LEA performance and yes, is a former grammar.
I’m not sure that seperating children to different schools is necessarily the right thing to do, especiallly on a one-off, decide for ever test at the age of eleven, but the current comprehensive system might care to look at the idea of streaming if it’s not already used.
#12 by Gav on November 25th, 2005 - 11:23 pm
Neil, Streaming by subject is an excellent idea and is not done enough or to a high enough standard. Your sister’s experience highlights the benefits of concentrating on people’s relative abilities. In at least one school in the 1950s and 1960s streaming was done across the board regardless of the relative ability in any particular subject.
Unfortunately I do not believe Comprehensive streaming can be done sufficiently well to ensure that those who get bored with easy lessons and non-challenging curriculum are entertained sufficiently that they are not disruptive. And I certainly do not believe that a child who fails the 11+ should be considered a failure. Also, someone who excels in a comprehensive should be allowed to move to a Grammar school easily.
The whole ethos of a Grammar school is/was entirely different to that of a Comprehensive. The focus was on university which was an achievable goal for all the students in the school. In the current system schools have started focusing on university despite the fact that more than half are never going to be able to manage at that level. This mixing of abilities makes those that are not academic feel like failures. If they are separated in different schools I firmly expect this emphasis on the unrealistic to stop and students of Comprehensives to feel that they can contribute to society despite not having an (increasingly worthless) degree.
#13 by Nicky on November 26th, 2005 - 12:53 am
I think he failed pretty much on the first quote too….
#14 by Gav on November 26th, 2005 - 3:37 pm
Nicky, You’re right of course – crime has reduced but only while violent crime has increased… Policing should focus on genuine crime and stop its infatuation with the 3,000 deaths per year caused by cars – that’s really a small fraction of the population and cannot be reduced by squandering police resources. Those traffic police could be far better utilised walking the streets in crime-ridden areas or investigating crimes other than murder.
#15 by MarkE on December 1st, 2005 - 4:28 pm
My daughter went to the local state primary school, where she consistently came second in class to another girl. I was able to send her to a selective, fee paying school (thanks to a grammar school education myself), while the other girl’s parents couldn’t. My daughter is now studying for A levels, after excellent GCSE results. The other girl just left school at 16 after years of bullying as a “boff”.
One girl was betrayed by the state system, which would not allow her to be educated with her equals, and wouldn’t protect her from her peers. I am relieved I was able to protect my daughter, and furious to see a life thrown away.
#16 by Gav on December 1st, 2005 - 7:16 pm
Hi MarkE, Thanks for the comment. I’m glad your daughter is on the positive side of that story. Comprehensives have been failing our children and this isn’t a tragedy – it’s far worse than that – it’s a travesty.
#17 by Sheena on March 16th, 2006 - 1:05 pm
I tend to disagree with the idea of streaming. It places waaay too much pressure on kids to make it into that top group rather than end up with the “latebloomers”(nicely put by the way). It inevitably favours some groups by giving them more opportunities to learn. You see cases of it on tv all the time, like how bart simpson got placed in a lower stream class n asked ‘how r we supposed to catch up by going slower?’ – he was pretty cut up. What the world needs is a public education system which caters for all groups by going at a standard pace while offering support to kids who feel that they r either ahead or behind target, so that no one feels left out, everyone has the chance to learn the same things, and so that no one is in segrated classes with little chance of breaking into that higher class if theyr not already in it. (by the way, Im not worried bout my puncuation coz Im in a hurry, so dont judge me). You can’t say smart kids bully coz they’r bored, all kids bully coz of their own psychological issues that have pretty much nothin to do with curriculum, and these psychological issues need to b delt with separately.