User talk:Evil Capitalist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comprehensive Schools
I appreciate the new articles - well done! However, you have largley ignored the differences betweenn the different parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland and Northern Ireland present two very different situations from that which you have presented. It is somewhat emotive for me, as I do get annoyed when people ignore the differences. I shall find a way of reformatting your ammendments to include the developments in the Home Nations of the UK. But I must again say - good effort - hopefully the whole mess of writing articles for Education in the UK can be sorted out soon! Davidkinnen 20:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comprehensive Schools
[edit] Comprehensive System
Whilst I appreciate - and welcome - the additional detail I am not happy about the tone and approach of recent edits. References in favour of comprehensive education have been removed and replaced with dubious party political references. For example you have deleted the reference to the fact (please note - fact) that Margaret Thatcher during her time as education secretary continued the policy of the previous Labour government on comprehensive schools. In fact most of the changeover from the tripartite system to the comprehensive system happened in the period 1968-75, mostly under a Conservative administration.
The material on the merits of the system is now biased because you have deleted the main arguments in favour which were:
Supporters of the comprehensive system argue that it is unacceptable on both moral and practical grounds to select children on the basis of their ability. They also argue that comprehensive schools in the UK have allowed millions of children to gain access to further and higher education, and that the previous selective system relegated children who failed the eleven plus examination to a second class and inferior education.
Additionally the current article makes a whole series of evidence free value judgements about comprehensive education – such as:
“There is a widespread perception, shared by many of the system's advocates, that the comprehensive system has not been the success hoped for.”
“Academic performance is usually well below selective schools. This is unsurprising, since selective schools will have a natural advantage over comprehensives. However, it can be argued that the difference cannot be explained by differences in students alone.”
Who argues this? Where is the evidence for this assertion?
“In spite of the intentions of a ‘grammar school education for all’, many comprehensive schools lack resources and good teachers.”
Whose intention was it to provide a 'grammar school for all'? What evidence exists that the lack of resources and teachers is worse in comprehensives schools? Supporters would argue that teaching in a grammar school is easier than teaching in a comprehensive and that grammar school teachers would not be able to cope in the comprehensive environment.
These are not isolated examples and I am considering a wholesale rewrite of both these pages. But I feel I ought to seek comment from the authors – a courtesy not extended to me as the original author – before I do so.
[edit] And another thing
Thanks for your reply. It's not often that I get patronised on that scale, but new experiences are always welcome. I've revised the two pages on the Comprehensive System and on Comprehensive Schools, and now that they are less wordy I'm inclined to agree with another contributor and think that they ought to be re-merged.
That aside - I had read your related contributions and they have the same strengths and weaknesses. The strengths come from the research; the weaknesses come from the overriding assumption that there is only one story to tell. You claim not to be biased, but the mistakes and omissions in your contributions tell a different story.
Let's look at your edit of the Tripartite System.
"fell into disfavour under the Labour government after 1965"
If you have done your reserach, which you obviously have, you will know that the system was unpopular long before 1965, and what made it so was the lottery of the leven plus, as you acknowledge in that entry.
The key omission in your intro is the concept of 'parity of esteem' which was central to the Butler proposals, but never a reality. You also fail to mention that the entire edifice was built on the idea that children could be legitamately divided into types - academic, practical, and so on. This arose out of the Cyril Burt research which you briefly mention on this page. Burt's research was at worst discredited and at best weakened by revelations that his data appeared to have been manipulated or even invented to produce the results he was looking for. You don't mention this either here on on the eleven plus page, yet I am sure that you are aware of the controversy. Why is that?
"while children at secondary moderns usually took the less demanding Certificate of School Education"
This is largely untrue. For most of their history secondary moderns offered no examinations at all. The CSE was not introduced until 1965 and the school leaving age was not raised to 16 until 1972, by which time most secondary moderns had ceased to exist. Children in the schools left at 15, with no qualifications. Many schools did offer the possibility of taking exams, and in some students could transfer to nearly grammar schools. But the numbers of students who took up these offers do not represent even a substantial minority. I think you know this, so why didn't you say it?
"It had been written by a Conservative, and had received the full backing of Prime Minister Winston Churchill."
Good grief. The act came out of the Beveridge report. Beveridge was not a Conservative. Butler, who drew up the actual legisaltion was. The act was implemeted and carried through by the post war Labour government, not by Churchill. Post war restrictions meant that few new schools were built, but local authorities did move to the new system wherever possible.
"growing dissatisfaction on the left"
Not just the left. Many middle class parents whose children failed the eleven plus were deeply dissatisfied with a system that offered little for their children. many others thought the stress and upset of the examination too much for young children.
"as it became apparent that Comprehensivistion (sic) meant levelling out standards"
Evidence?
"It is often noted that more grammar schools were shut under Margaret Thatcher than any other Education Secretary. This is true but misleading, since this was a local process, started under Labour and allowed to continue to avoid controversy."
How is this misleading? She could have halted the process, and did so several years later. She did not do so in 1970 because the eleven plus was a deeply unpopular exam. This runs through the entire debate on selection and grammar schools. Supporters, including those in the closet, welcome the high standards which are possible when resources are concentrated on a minority. But no-one wants to think about the kids who fail. Pious statements that more resources ought to have been made available are either naive or wilfully misleading.
So where does that lead us?
Your research is welcome, and if you can bring yourself to avoid constant political references you will be doing us all a great service, because these pages do need more detail. If, on the other hand, you continue to sprinkle your edits with propaganda, then I think you will find your contributions being challenged.
Best wishes,
Shropshire Lad 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello again,
Thanks for your reply. I see my style as assertive and pugnacious, but the reality is for others to judge.
Some points.
The choice agenda has certainly had a major effect, but the fact is that most parents still send their child to the local, neighbourhood school. This possibly represents an unsophisticated market, or even an indifference to the quality of education provided, but it is the case.
I accept your point about Holyhead, though I had been told at some point, I can't find the reference, that falling rolls after the war plus the dilapidated condition of one of the schools meant that Angelsey's councillors faced some ghard decisions anyway.
Dont agree about London. It wasn't the first, and some midlands local authorities had a much more gung ho approach to implementing the new system. I feel that Graham Savage's role is often overplayed, as players on the capital's stage often are. But my real objection is that London does not now and has never had a comprehensive system. Lots of 'comprehensive' schools, and some comprehensive local authorities, but whilst grammar school were allowed to survive in some London Boroughs (Barnet, Bromley, Enfield, Redbridge, Sutton) and on the London fringe (Kent, KIngston, Essex), the London area cannot be described as comprehensive. Thsi situation was made worse by the abiity of faith and foundation schools to cherry pick their intake without going through a formal selection process. This is a sensitive topic for the pro-comprehensive lobby because failures in London's schools are often attributed to the comprehensive approach. To gauge the success or otherwise of the comprehensive system you have to look at areas where the policy was fully implemented (Devon, Cheshire), or to towns served by a single large comprehensive school (Uttoxeter is a good example - look at the results for the Thomas Alleynes High School and tell me that Comprehensive Schools have 'lowered' standards).
It's on that last point where you argument really falls down. You say "By introducing children who had not been cherrypicked for their intelligence into the class, the exam results are bound to tail off."
1960s grammar schools failed between 5 and 20% of their intake. Despite choosing the most able students in their area (sic); the schools often saw significant numbers of their bottom streams leave with fewer than five O levels. I only have evidence for one school (and if you have more detailed stats that contradict this point I'd be interested to see them).
BCGS admitted three classes of 30 children in 1965. These kids had passed the 11+; they were at the top end of the ability range. Five years later just 75 of them gained more than five O level passes. In the same year just 45 sixth form students left that school with A level certificates and only 13 of them gained four passes. In modern terms these results are pathetic.
Extrapolated across the country, that would give a benchmark of around 10-15% of the age cohort gaining 5 or more O levels. Today the figure is around 60%. Even allowing for the fact that the current GCSE can't really be compared to the O level, this represents a huge increase in performance. Other evidence comes from the huge increase in numbers going on to higher education. Forget the degrees is golf course management and media studies, the fact is that a largely comprehensive system is delivering real opportunity to thousands of children who were denied that opportunity under the old system. Yes there are failing schools, and in the inner cities there are real problems. If I was a parent still living in central London I would face a real dilemma about where to send my children to school. But that doesn't make the system a failure.
Cheshire's schools saw 60% of their students gain 5 or more GCSE A-Cs last year (2004), with an average point score of 353.5. Kent, with a grammar school system, had figures of 55.8 and 350.8. Look at the Social Trends figures for both these counties; they are strikingly similar. Don't compare English schools with northern Ireland; compare them with other English Schools.
But for the real story look at individual schools. Thomas Telford in Shropshire has a comprehensive intake. It outperforms most of the grammar school sector at GCSE, with 100% pass rates. In Sandwell, a desperately disavantaged area of the west midlands; the Wood Green High School gets A-C figures of 65%, with an average points score of 399. The head tells me that virtually none of her students would have passed the old 11 plus.
I will tweak my entries to reflect some of the points you have raised, and i'm enjoying the discussion. But do find out more about comprehensive schools before you judge them. Have you ever been inside one?
Shropshire Lad 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
