In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:42:29 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:12:38 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
In that case I'd better mention that the public school/private school
overlap is quite large and the former is almost entirely a sub-set of
the latter. But I didn't think I'd need to spell it out.
You didn't. As I said, public schools are a relatively small subset of
the private sector.
Adding the equivalent for girls' schools - I think not. Do you have the
figures - and how are you defining 'Public School'?
A public school is an independent secondary school which is a charity (not
profit-making) and which belongs to one of the public school associations.
The 'independent' bit isn't (or at least hasn't always been) strictly
essential.
[Snip]
So none of them at secondary school were told they were just marking time
before going into the mill?
That's a very jaundiced view. All have become moderately to very successful
in their chosen careers. That is actually what ultimately matters
Were told by the headteacher - in a case I'm thinking about.
None of them notice the gross imbalance between funding for grammar and
secondary modern schools? You're not bothered that the 11-plus was sold as
a selective examination when all it did was cream off the number of places
available in far better provisioned grammar schools?
That's a loaded way to describe the situation, but I see nothing whatever
wrong in using a selective examination to select suitable education for
each child.
Neither do I. That's what was promised - but that was never the case.
If the implication of that is that one form of education is more expensive
to provide than another, then so be it.
One form was given the vast bulk of the money. In education you can always use
all the money you receive.
I don't see the need to keep attempting to equalise things all the way down
the track. This would be running the same argument that everybody should be
paid the same, and clearly that's just as much of a nonsense.
So it's OK to channel twice as much money to grammar schools 'because the kids
there matter more'?
I do think that perhaps the age of 11 may not have been suitable as the
exam age, but 12 as in other countries or 13 as here in the private sector.
The age was chosen because there was experimental evidence to show that it
worked - ie that children of 11 exhibited a fixed IQ that didn't change later
in life. The 'evidence' was the work of one man who falsified the evidence.
It doesn't worry you that girls had to obtain a higher score than boys in
order to 'pass' the 11-plus simply because there were more grammar school
places for boys?
That certainly does, but could have quite easily been corrected without
wrecking the system for every child.
It was implicit in the organsisation. If you happened to be in the wrong year
- either more kids that year - or a brighter set of kids - or pitted against a
group that was coached (for an exam that was 'designed' not to be susceptible
to coaching! !!) then you might 'fail' even though your score was identical to
someone who 'passed' in another year.
And 'failing' at 11 meant that your school had far inferior equipment, a
narrower curriculum, and you could be automatically rejected for better jobs
for life no matter how capable you might be or become.
You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?
Well... where I lived there certainly was.
Not on your description. How was the choice made between grammar schools and
technical grammar schools? In my experience there was no system at all.
--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing