Bolitics The New Condem Government

[chrisp65]

That actually isn't true though, I've seen enough past papers in Rebecca's 9 subjects from the last ten years to know that if anything, the exams have got harder in that period. This year however there were questions in some papers that weren't actually on the syllabus, some that were considered AS level - totally unannounced.

I have to re quote this in case it gets missed as a point. Before this became an issue in the press my nipper's teachers were complaining that in English and music the exam papers were ridiculously hard. beyond anything they'd seen before.

Certainly the music paper was a step change, questions I'd have previously been happy to have a go at, this year were almost mind bogglingly technical. Several questions were described as 'beyond A level'. So quite impressive on a GCSE paper.

Now I'm not saying Gove set the questions, but clearly 'they' set the mood music. It's just that reactionary exam boards over reached themselves in question setting and marking. Not for the first time.

[peterms]

Some people seem to think that if the number of passes increases every year, that demonstrates that exams are getting easier.

I think the prevalence of this belief shows that educational standards are slipping. But perhaps not in the way these people seem to think.

[Awol]

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools.

Currently the best Comprehensive schools are effectively selecting pupils on the basis of parental wealth. That is not driven by the teachers or the government, it is driven by parents desire to get the best for their kids. House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out. Are you seriously trying to deny that this is the case?

The attempts to create a homogeneous education system through legislation has been subverted by parents themselves and the result is that the current system passively discriminates on the basis of wealth instead of actively discriminating on the basis of ability. Which of those is fairer, Drat?

Having Grammar schools give everyone a chance regardless of background and therefore promotes social mobility by giving all the chance to achieve on merit.

[peterms]

House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out.

Some of these poorer people manage to get into these schools by virtue of living in social housing, in areas which are above their station in life.

Luckily, the Government has a plan to sell off this social housing to richer people, to restore the natural order and drive the oiks back to their reservations.

[snowychap]

Michael Young"]

I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair.

The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033.

Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating.

Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.

Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable.

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education.

A social revolution has been accomplished by harnessing schools and universities to the task of sieving people according to education's narrow band of values.

With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before.

The new class has the means at hand, and largely under its control, by which it reproduces itself.

The more controversial prediction and the warning followed from the historical analysis. I expected that the poor and the disadvantaged would be done down, and in fact they have been. If branded at school they are more vulnerable for later unemployment.

They can easily become demoralised by being looked down on so woundingly by people who have done well for themselves.

It is hard indeed in a society that makes so much of merit to be judged as having none. No underclass has ever been left as morally naked as that.

They have been deprived by educational selection of many of those who would have been their natural leaders, the able spokesmen and spokeswomen from the working class who continued to identify with the class from which they came.

Their leaders were a standing opposition to the rich and the powerful in the never-ending competition in parliament and industry between the haves and the have-nots.

With the coming of the meritocracy, the now leaderless masses were partially disfranchised; as time has gone by, more and more of them have been disengaged, and disaffected to the extent of not even bothering to vote. They no longer have their own people to represent them.

To make the point it is worth comparing the Attlee and Blair cabinets. The two most influential members of the 1945 cabinet were Ernest Bevin, acclaimed as foreign secretary, and Herbert Morrison, acclaimed as lord president of the council and deputy prime minister.

Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union.

Herbert Morrison was in many ways an even more significant figure, whose rise to prominence was not so much through the unions as through local government.

His first job was also as an errand boy and assistant in a grocer's shop, from which he moved on to be a junior shop assistant and an early switchboard operator. He later became so influential as leader of the London county council partly because of his previous success as minister of transport in the 1929 Labour government.

He triumphed in the way Livingstone and Kiley hope to do now, by bringing all London's fragmented tube service, buses and trams under one unified management and ownership in his London passenger transport board.

It made London's public transport the best in the world for another 30-40 years and the LPTB was also the model for all the nationalised industries after 1945.

Quite a few other members of the Attlee cabinet, like Bevan and Griffiths (miners both), had similar lowly origins and so were also a source of pride for many ordinary people who could identify with them.

It is a sharp contrast with the Blair cabinet, largely filled as it is with members of the meritocracy.

In the new social environment, the rich and the powerful have been doing mighty well for themselves. They have been freed from the old kinds of criticism from people who had to be listened to. This once helped keep them in check - it has been the opposite under the Blair government.

The business meritocracy is in vogue. If meritocrats believe, as more and more of them are encouraged to, that their advancement comes from their own merits, they can feel they deserve whatever they can get.

They can be insufferably smug, much more so than the people who knew they had achieved advancement not on their own merit but because they were, as somebody's son or daughter, the beneficiaries of nepotism. The newcomers can actually believe they have morality on their side.

So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.

Salaries and fees have shot up. Generous share option schemes have proliferated. Top bonuses and golden handshakes have multiplied.

As a result, general inequality has been becoming more grievous with every year that passes, and without a bleat from the leaders of the party who once spoke up so trenchantly and characteristically for greater equality.

Can anything be done about this more polarised meritocratic society? It would help if Mr Blair would drop the word from his public vocabulary, or at least admit to the downside. It would help still more if he and Mr Brown would mark their distance from the new meritocracy by increasing income taxes on the rich, and also by reviving more powerful local government as a way of involving local people and giving them a training for national politics.

There was also a prediction in the book that wholesale educational selection would be reintroduced, going further even than what we have already. My imaginary author, an ardent apostle of meritocracy, said shortly before the revolution, that "No longer is it so necessary to debase standards by attempting to extend a higher civilisation to the children of the lower classes".

At least the fullness of that can still be avoided. I hope.

[bickster]

Well thats the fault of league tables not comprehensive education.

[Eames]

The main problem with education is that teachers for the last 15 years or so have taught kids how to pass exams rather than the content of the subject.

exam technique is openly taught in schools with little regard for teaching kids the skills and knowledge to have a deep understanding of the subject.

you want a good school for your kids, look at the value added scores not the number of passes.

[peterms]

The main problem with education is that teachers for the last 15 years or so have taught kids how to pass exams rather than the content of the subject.

exam technique is openly taught in schools with little regard for teaching kids the skills and knowledge to have a deep understanding of the subject.

you want a good school for your kids, look at the value added scores not the number of passes.

Well thats the fault of league tables not comprehensive education.

[Awol]

House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out.

Some of these poorer people manage to get into these schools by virtue of living in social housing, in areas which are above their station in life.

Luckily, the Government has a plan to sell off this social housing to richer people, to restore the natural order and drive the oiks back to their reservations.

Sorry, are the words 'poor people' on a band terminology list??

Also league tables aren't really the problem either, the 'problem' (in so much as it is perceived as one) is parents wanting the best possible education for their kids and maybe not being happy with sending little Johnny to the local comp for lessons in rioting and STD's.

If they can't afford to go private then I'd suggest most parents generally want the best of whatever else is on offer. As Comprehensive schools don't actually select on the basis of ability a market is effectively introduced based on wealth - the housing/catchment issue.

I'm not arguing that all Comprehensive schools are bad but I was at Uni with enough people now teaching to know that many are shocking. Given the option to do something about it I wouldn't accept that fate for my kid.

[peterms]

Sorry, are the words 'poor people' on a band terminology list??

"Banned".

The decline in standards is truly shocking.

[chrisp65]

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools.

Currently the best Comprehensive schools are effectively selecting pupils on the basis of parental wealth. That is not driven by the teachers or the government, it is driven by parents desire to get the best for their kids. House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out. Are you seriously trying to deny that this is the case?

The attempts to create a homogeneous education system through legislation has been subverted by parents themselves and the result is that the current system passively discriminates on the basis of wealth instead of actively discriminating on the basis of ability. Which of those is fairer, Drat?

Having Grammar schools give everyone a chance regardless of background and therefore promotes social mobility by giving all the chance to achieve on merit.

really?

We can really make it fair and select on ability not wealth if we switch to Grammar not Comp?

Nobody ever spent money coaching their kids up to pass an exam? This would only be exaggerated if we switched to a system where exams at 11 dictated the rest of your life.

Let's please move on from the Grammar arguement. We're not getting imperial measurements back, we're not getting Ghana back and we know grammar was a failed system.

yes, people migrate towards the better schools. This isn't proof that comp doesn't work. It's proof that people that can find a fault in a system that favours some will try and stay on the side of the favoured.

[Awol]

Sorry, are the words 'poor people' on a band terminology list??

"Banned".

The decline in standards is truly shocking.

Told you, that's a Comprehensive school educashun in action.

[Awol]

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools.

Currently the best Comprehensive schools are effectively selecting pupils on the basis of parental wealth. That is not driven by the teachers or the government, it is driven by parents desire to get the best for their kids. House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out. Are you seriously trying to deny that this is the case?

The attempts to create a homogeneous education system through legislation has been subverted by parents themselves and the result is that the current system passively discriminates on the basis of wealth instead of actively discriminating on the basis of ability. Which of those is fairer, Drat?

Having Grammar schools give everyone a chance regardless of background and therefore promotes social mobility by giving all the chance to achieve on merit.

really?

We can really make it fair and select on ability not wealth if we switch to Grammar not Comp?

We can give bright but financially disadvantaged children a better chance in life that way, yes.

Nobody ever spent money coaching their kids up to pass an exam? This would only be exaggerated if we switched to a system where exams at 11 dictated the rest of your life.

See above and in a previous post I acknowledged your point about the 11+ and suggested children have a second shot a 13, i.e. before their options - if they still call it that.

Let's please move on from the Grammar arguement. We're not getting imperial measurements back, we're not getting Ghana back and we know grammar was a failed system.

No we won't get them back in England which is why I hope top save enough money in the next 10 years to send my nipper private. as for failed, why is the system still working fine in NI if it was such a failure?

yes, people migrate towards the better schools. This isn't proof that comp doesn't work. It's proof that people that can find a fault in a system that favours some will try and stay on the side of the favoured.

It is proof that children from disadvantaged financial domestic environments do not get a shot at a first class education. That's bad imo.

[Eames]

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools.

Currently the best Comprehensive schools are effectively selecting pupils on the basis of parental wealth. That is not driven by the teachers or the government, it is driven by parents desire to get the best for their kids. House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out. Are you seriously trying to deny that this is the case?

The attempts to create a homogeneous education system through legislation has been subverted by parents themselves and the result is that the current system passively discriminates on the basis of wealth instead of actively discriminating on the basis of ability. Which of those is fairer, Drat?

Having Grammar schools give everyone a chance regardless of background and therefore promotes social mobility by giving all the chance to achieve on merit.

Ex Grammar pupil and current local government education officer speaking here:

Grammar schools are brilliant and are the reason I am where I am today.

However, they are not inclusive, they in no way promote social mobility and they are generally populated by the middle classes who can afford additional tuition to make sure little Johnny gets in.

[Awol]

current local government education officer speaking here:

Totally impartial then I'm sure

[Eames]

current local government education officer speaking here:

Totally impartial then I'm sure

On this subject yes. Non political post, no involvement in policy or commissioning.

Grammar schools imo have their place and do a fantastic job but to say they promote social mobility is ridiculous. They haven't got a **** clue what to do with dyslexics, let alone poor people.

[peterms]

Grammar schools are brilliant and are the reason I am where I am today.

However, they are not inclusive, they in no way promote social mobility and they are generally populated by the middle classes who can afford additional tuition to make sure little Johnny gets in.

In fact they are by definition exclusive; they depend on excluding the larger number of people.

They promote social mobility for a small number of people who get into them and who couldn't get in to a similar school where access was only dependent on wealth. People seem to confuse that, with promoting social mobility across the board, which is a very, very different thing.

[Risso]

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools.

Currently the best Comprehensive schools are effectively selecting pupils on the basis of parental wealth. That is not driven by the teachers or the government, it is driven by parents desire to get the best for their kids. House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out. Are you seriously trying to deny that this is the case?

The attempts to create a homogeneous education system through legislation has been subverted by parents themselves and the result is that the current system passively discriminates on the basis of wealth instead of actively discriminating on the basis of ability. Which of those is fairer, Drat?

Having Grammar schools give everyone a chance regardless of background and therefore promotes social mobility by giving all the chance to achieve on merit.

Ex Grammar pupil and current local government education officer speaking here:

Grammar schools are brilliant and are the reason I am where I am today.

However, they are not inclusive, they in no way promote social mobility and they are generally populated by the middle classes who can afford additional tuition to make sure little Johnny gets in.

I went to a grammar school, and was the very definition of social mobility. We lived in a council house and my dad worked for British Rail. Lots of other kids I was at school with also came from distinctly non-middle class families as well. If you were bright enough, you got in, it really was as simple as that. I didn't know of anybody whose parents had paid anything extra to get them in, either. Load of twaddle.

[Risso]

How is it fair on the kids who took exams last year, or five or ten years ago if every single year, people taking exams are given better marks than them for the same standard work? If your CV goes straight in the bin for only having BBB at A Level, when you did just as well as somebody who did their exams five years later and got AAA for the same level of ability?

Surely you are contradicting yourself there. On one hand you say that older people had harder exams so would get lower marks and that youngsters have easier options to get higher marks. That being the case then you dismiss this when you do a compare on the two for a job application?

Your reply suggests that you got a CSE grade 4 in English. Care to try again?

[Eames]

The comprehensive system does not promote elitism at all, that is just a weak attempt to try and justify your desire for Grammar schools.

Currently the best Comprehensive schools are effectively selecting pupils on the basis of parental wealth. That is not driven by the teachers or the government, it is driven by parents desire to get the best for their kids. House prices rise around schools that are perceived to be good (with results easily measurable through league tables) and the the children from poorer families are priced out. Are you seriously trying to deny that this is the case?

The attempts to create a homogeneous education system through legislation has been subverted by parents themselves and the result is that the current system passively discriminates on the basis of wealth instead of actively discriminating on the basis of ability. Which of those is fairer, Drat?

Having Grammar schools give everyone a chance regardless of background and therefore promotes social mobility by giving all the chance to achieve on merit.

Ex Grammar pupil and current local government education officer speaking here:

Grammar schools are brilliant and are the reason I am where I am today.

However, they are not inclusive, they in no way promote social mobility and they are generally populated by the middle classes who can afford additional tuition to make sure little Johnny gets in.

I went to a grammar school, and was the very definition of social mobility. We lived in a council house and my dad worked for British Rail. Lots of other kids I was at school with also came from distinctly non-middle class families as well. If you were bright enough, you got in, it really was as simple as that. I didn't know of anybody whose parents had paid anything extra to get them in, either. Load of twaddle.

With respect Riss, how many years ago was that? I would even say that was true when I was a pupil c.12 years ago. Not so much now.