Clive George wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a
non-selective
secondary school - does it?

Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, it does... but it doesn't do mixed ability
well. I have experience of that from the other end, since I deal with
its output...

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for
the majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially
still be dealing with?


Not sure whether you need to select into schools, rather than classes..
I got a scholarship to an extremely expensive private school, and the
ability to pay is no guarantee of academic excellence..one could
certainly see that..(the school was very happy to have half a dozen
places a year funded by the county council. Made their Oxbridge entrance
results look very good). Anyway yes,some kids did very well at maths,
some did very well on the sports fields, and some just got their OK-ish
results and went on to become (one presumes) normal sorts of people.

Provided the schools are not too BIG I think that a selective SCHOOL
isn't a huge advantage..the trouble is when teh 'technical'; schools
have huge workshops with exepensive machines and the academic schools
hace huge labs with expensive equipment, the temptation to bang them
together and make one super school is a bit too much for a
politician..saves money..but I don;t think it makes a better school.

My wifes sister has recently somehow scraped up enough miney to send the
eldest girl to a boarding school. To be honest, it will probably suit
HER better tan any other school..the younger daughter though is a
different animal..and will probably do well wherever she goes. Just
point her at a subject she is interested in and she soaks it up like a
sponge..

Its really tricky. Personally I don't think all schools can be all
things to all children..there is a definite case for allowing schools to
develop their own special areas of expertise and letting the parents
have the choice. Provided the schools will accept them..I can recall two
people in my year at my old school both of whom really shouldn't have
been in that school. One was a really nice boy who wasn't very bright,
but was a really decent sort of guy.,e struggled to justify the
incredible cost of the thing - his parents were not well to do at
all..they lived at a much lower standard of living to send him
there..and it really was a bit wasted. Us 'scholars' who go free
stationery and books used to 'lose' ours and give them to him, cos we
knew his folks were hard up. The poor lad was forever feeling guilty
about his lack of success, he wasn't artistic, he wasn't a sportsman and
he wasn't an academic either. the school was wasted on him and a budern
on him and his parents.

The other one was a glowering ill tempered spoilt Welshman with parents
just rolling in Jaguars. A complete *******, whose three main interests
were Rugby, at which he was passably good, if inclined to violence,
bullying other people, of whom I was briefly one, and train spotting. He
was seldom in class. His ambition was to work for British Rail. I
believe he achieved it and became a porter. For all his cash he would
have been far far better off at a technical secondary modern,where his
doubted affinity for large machinery would have allowed him to become
something rather better than a porter.


I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

YES! Ther was a time when academic success was the be all and end all of
a parents ambitions for their child..misguided at best..and dangerous at
worts.

Still today, we have this myth that everyone deserves or needs a
university education, which is total ********. It doesn't even guarantee
a decent job or salary anymore, and it costs bomb. All that has
happened is that rather good 'polytechnics' that used to each vocational
stuff and actually ensure a pretty decent salary and job, now teach
bull**** subjects, and turn out parroting grads who think they are as
good as anybody because they have memorised the course work and cheated
at the practical course work and actually failed the exams, but still
got a piece of paper..why, here is one in this very NG..;-)


The solution is not to simply give everyone a comfit in a caucus race so
they feel like they have won..its to select on ability and aptitude and
give them what they need, not what they (or their parents) think they want..

And I do not think it is possible for every educational establishment to
be optimal for all possible pupils, no. So in principle you have to
accept selective schools, as well as streamed classes..

Whether one should call them grammar schools or not, is a moot point though.

Certainly parents now seem to want schools that select on ethnicity and
religious backgrounds..

I think the whole thing is a hot potato of the highest order, and that
parents should be given the fees as vouchers, and allowed to negotiate
with private or partially funded schools that dictate their own
terms..and just maintain an inspectorate that guarantees a minimum
standard of the basics, and freedom from the grosser forms of religious,
ethnic, and class indoctrination.

In other words its bad enough with school masters and parents at war
over what's best, without the chattering classes and politicians getting
involved.

If people had the freedom to choose each other - school and pupil - then
no one could say they were 'forced' to go to this or that school..except
by their parents anwyay.






cheers,
clive